W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-mobile@w3.org > October 2003

Re: Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:39:41 -0400
To: Art.Barstow@nokia.com
Cc: boyera@w3.org, em@w3.org, kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com, www-mobile@w3.org, brian_mcbride@hp.com
Message-ID: <20031020143941.GM11815@w3.org>

Hi there

The RDF Core WG recently posted a round of (2nd) Last Call documents,
http://www.w3.org/News/2003#item164  with LC ending Nov 7th. No CR is
planned, so we may reach PR by the end of the year, depending of course
on the response received to these documents. Last call indicates,
roughly, that "we think we're done". This includes datatyping. The
aspect of datatyping which has received most discussion lately is our
treatment of XML Literals, which we manage as 'just another datatype'.
This approach has raised concerns from the I18N group, see 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-rdf-mt-20031010/#change for some details on
the design tradeoffs we have been navigating. 

Hope this helps,

Dan

* Art.Barstow@nokia.com <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> [2003-10-20 10:17-0400]
> Stephane raises some good questions/issues:
> 
> 1. When does the W3C expect the new RDF specs to be promoted to 
> Recommendation?  The RDF Core WG's home page [1] (rev 1.191, last 
> updated 2003-10-14) says July 2003 but that doesn't seem possible :-).
> 
> 2. Does the W3C consider datatyping in RDF - as defined in the
> latest published specs - "stable"?  If no, what part(s) is not
> considered stable (e.g. still a WIP)?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Art Barstow
> ---
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#L473
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of ext boyera stephane
> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 9:25 AM
> > To: Barstow Art (NMP-MSW/Boston); Halonen Kimmo.K (NMP-MSW/Tampere);
> > www-mobile@w3.org
> > Subject: Re : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Art and All,
> > 
> > Thanks for your email and thanks for all the good question it asks. So
> > it may be interesting to start a debate here on a public mailing-list
> > which may bring interesting material for W3C DIWG, which is working on
> > CC/PP.
> > As Art is mentionning, the current CC/PP spec
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ is not integrating 
> > the new RDF
> > explicit datatyping (RDF DT) and we specifically added an appendix to
> > talk about it : http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Appendix_G
> > 
> > The major reason was that the proposed new RDF DT was not stable, and
> > still in Last Call when we were ready to move to PR. 
> > Moreover, the cc/pp
> > spec has been waiting too much time to go for PR to postpone it once
> > again.
> > I personnally do think that we have a gap today as mentionned 
> > by Art and
> > we will have to have a clear safe way to declare datatypes in 
> > cc/pp. It
> > would be quite a pity to have to define and use another way 
> > than the one
> > chosen by RDF core WG for that purpose. I think that's why UAProf 2.0
> > decided to adopt it.
> > 
> > However, another cc/pp expert group, JSR188 committee, expressed
> > concerns about RDF DT (read
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> > r/0293.htm
> > l ) as is today and seems quite against adding it to cc/pp. 
> > So as Art is
> > asking, it may be useful to understand the rationale of both groups so
> > that when W3C would decide to work on a revision of cc/pp to add this
> > missing piece, we may have advices about pro and cons.
> > 
> > Cheers
> > Stephane
> > 
> > --
> > Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
> > W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34 
> > BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> > F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		  
> > France
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > Art.Barstow@nokia.com
> > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:06 PM
> > > To: boyera@w3.org; kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com; www-mobile@w3.org
> > > Subject: RE: RE : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi Stephane and All,
> > > 
> > > As you may know, UAProf 2.0 [1] is in OMA's Candidate stage 
> > > (similar to the W3C's Candidate Recommendation stage).  As 
> > > such, it would not surprise me if implementations were "under 
> > > way" and that folks may be somewhat reluctant to publicize 
> > > such implementations (especially regarding client-side support).
> > > 
> > > Implementers - we all know the RDF M&S [1] and 2000 RDF 
> > > Schema CR [2] have absolutely no in-band (normative) support 
> > > for datatyping.  This 
> > > limitation creates severe problems for RDF applications such 
> > > as CC/PP and 
> > > UAProf that need fine-grained datatyping to validate their 
> > > data. Any out-of-band solution to datatyping (e.g. embedding 
> > > datatyping information in a comment or putting datatyping 
> > > information in a separate 
> > > file) is a HACK!
> > > 
> > > But there is some good news here - the RDF Core WG has been 
> > > working for 
> > > almost threeeeee years on new specs and those specs contain 
> > > datatyping in 
> > > RDF [3].  Although the solution is not perfect for mobile 
> > > data environments I think it meets the I Can Live With It 
> > > Test - especially if the alternative is the type of hacks 
> > > listed above.  UAProf 2.0 adopts the new 
> > > datatyping in RDF solution.  We believe it is a major step 
> > > forward to use in-band (normative) mechanisms to facilitate 
> > > the automation of profile validation.
> > > 
> > > Would the "owners" of Sadic and DELI please indicate whether 
> > > or not they intend to support datatyping in RDF (and hence 
> > > UAProf 2.0)?  And 
> > > if they do not intend to support datatyping in RDF (i.e. 
> > > UAProf 2.0) why?
> > > 
> > > Regards,
> > > 
> > > Art Barstow
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/
> > > [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On
> > > > Behalf Of ext boyera stephane
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 5:26 AM
> > > > To: Halonen Kimmo.K (NMP-MSW/Tampere); www-mobile@w3.org
> > > > Subject: RE : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hello Kimmo,
> > > > 
> > > > Your question is interesting, but unfortunately i do not have any 
> > > > answer, but just another question ! To the best of my knowledge, 
> > > > neither Sadic nor DELI are implementing UAProf 2.0. I've 
> > > neither any 
> > > > information about an existing implementation of a UAProf 
> > 2.0 aware 
> > > > processor. Are you aware of any real world device providing 
> > > a UAProf 
> > > > 2.0 profile ?
> > > > 
> > > > Stephane
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
> > > > W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34 
> > > > BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> > > > F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		  
> > > > France
> > > >  
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org
> > > > > [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > > > kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com
> > > > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:52 AM
> > > > > To: www-mobile@w3.org
> > > > > Subject: Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Dear All,
> > > > > 
> > > > > has anyone ever heard of any commercial products that could
> > > > > be used to validate UAProf 2.0 compliant profiles? The UAProf 
> > > > > 2.0 specification can be found behind the following link: 
> > > > > http://www.openmobilealliance.org/documents.ht> ml
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm
> > > > > familiar with the publicly available tools like DELI 
> > > > > (delicon.sourceforge.net) and SADiC 
> > > > > (http://www.the-web-middle-earth.com/sadic/sadicOnlineValidato
> > > > r.html). My question is more related to commercial products 
> > > that could 
> > > > be used for this purpose.
> > > > 
> > > > All input is highly appreciated.
> > > > 
> > > > Best Regards,
> > > > 
> > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> > > >  Kimmo Halonen        IOP Initiative Specialist             Nokia
> > > >  P.O. Box 1000 (Visiokatu 3)  |  
> > mailto:kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com   
> > > >  33101 Tampere, FINLAND       |  Tel: +358 (0)7180 77892
> > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 10:40:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:16:04 UTC