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

RE: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties

From: Vidhya Gholkar <vidhya.gholkar@argogroup.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:05:56 +0100
Message-ID: <ABB39CCA97F2D840BB0FEDDEBD5A4D040A9E9BF0@mail-svr1.elstead-ad.elstead.argogroup.com>
To: "Butler, Mark" <Mark_Butler@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-mobile@w3.org>

>Then if people want to add new properties, they would have
>to use a new namespace and provide a schema there. I think it is much
>to leave existing properties in the existing namespace than copy them
>to a
>new namespace every time a new version of the vocabulary is created.
>just creates a backward compatibility problem.

I for one, fully agree with this. In fact this is at the heart of what I
said to the W3C DI group in connection with vocabulary work. This is
also the reason that I think that DI shouldn't spend much time on
vocabularies. But, that discussion is probably best continued within DI.

> So I have a question for people here: do people agree that UAProf has
>reached a point where it is finished or do they think it still needs
>work? If you do not want to make your opinion public, send it to me
>and I will tally the result to anonymise opinions?

With respect, what people say anonymously will have little bearing on
how a standards specification evolves. People are needed in WG's to
actively discuss and move the issues forward. When we closed the UAProf
DC that was not because we thought that UAProf had finished. It was
because we felt that it was inappropriate to continue evolving it
without significant implementation feedback. There were various ideas
about how to evolve UAProf but like in all standards groups we need
active people participating in the WG in order to proceed. Discussions
outside the WG don't take the spec forward unless they are distilled
into coherent thoughts and put to the WG. UAProf DC met the terms of its
charter and so there was no need to actively continue evolving the spec
unless WAP forum members (which includes every major operator, handset
manufacturer etc etc) want it to. It was felt that WAG should look after
maintain the document and also any bug fixes. Other WG's within the WAP
forum are using UAProf and are creating appropriate vocabularies that
rely on UAProf. So you can expect UAProf to further evolve, it's not

Whilst I was editor, I rarely received CR's. I actually ended up writing
CR's for others - By CR I mean a proper WAP forum document indicating
which sections of the document needed changing, why and with what. WAP
forum member companies have access to its process documents that
includes the CR document. If you didn't actually fill in one of these
then you didn't submit a CR. Big companies often have people who are
dedicated 'standards' people. For many of us its not our main job, even
though we spend a lot of time on standards activity a lot of us spend
most of our day on our day job. So we always welcome, input (and
especially 'working' i/p) on the spec.  I am still encouraging
participation, that's what drives the standard forward. This phenomenon
is not restricted to UAProf - all working groups experience it to some
degree and this is often the cause of slow standards evolution. 

Finally, note that there are I.P. reasons why many will find
inappropriate to discuss some of these issues on public lists like this.
Membership covenants ensure that working within the WAP forum allows
some protection to them for their ideas. These I.P. issues are also
relevant when it comes to different standards bodies working together -
sometimes they can't because of the different IPR policies.

Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 14:06:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:03 UTC