W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-mobile@w3.org > June 2002

RE: Why RDF was a good choice

From: <luc.pezet@club-internet.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:06:58 +0200 (CEST)
To: www-mobile@w3.org
Message-Id: <mnet1.1023804418.7747.luc.pezet@club-internet.fr>

Hi all,
 
Mark said :

> So I think there is no getting away from the fact that
> i) we need to agree on vocabularies
> ii) once we've agreed on vocabuaries, we need to think very carefully before
> we change them because changing them creates problems and breaks things
> iii) we definitely should not change vocabularies just to add new
> attributes; we should create new vocabularies and use the new and old
> vocabularies concurrently
 
Who are "we" ?
Are content providers involved ?
 
This leads me to think there are two sides of the vocabulary debate : 
    Some want to describe everything...and more ;-)...
    
    and some just want to get a fixed part of it in order to adapt content.
 
 
It makes me feel like the Working Group has within a single point of view for the CC/PP (mainly chartered by manufacturers)...
 
"A CC/PP profile is a description of device capabilities and user preferences that can be used to guide the adaptation of content presented to that device." but are there some content providers in the CC/PP Working Group ?
 
 
To come back to the vocabulary, as soon as a basic vocabulary is provided (i.e. which can be used to adapt content), extensions won't affect the content providers, will they ?
 
 
This is a general feel I have and I hope someone could clarify my "misty mind" :-)
 
Luc.
Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 10:07:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 13:00:01 GMT