Re: [VOC] CoreVocabularySubmissions on the Wiki updated

Thank you for posting the right link to the meeting summary, Rotan. :)

I agree with all you said about comma spaced and array. I tried to  
keep it simple, but probably a comma spaced list is TOO simple. My  
only concern is that normally a structure like an array also assumes  
an order, while we would not have any specific order for mark-up's,  
for example. Should we refer to the RDF terminology of "Bag" and  
"Seq"? That way we could use Bag for the list of mark-ups and the Seq  
in case there's a preference.

I'd prefer to keep property names simple and descriptive.

- Andrea


Il giorno 02/ott/07, alle ore 04:33, Rotan Hanrahan ha scritto:

>
> As there have been substantive contributions to the vocabulary  
> recently,
> I think it appropriate that we discuss this week and formulate an
> opinion by next week's call.
>
> I noted the change made regarding the representation of supported  
> image
> formats. The proposal is a comma-separated list of predefined  
> names. As
> an API return result, this might be acceptable. As a vocabulary  
> value, I
> have strong doubts. A list that has to be further parsed is ill- 
> advised.
> I recall the problem with UAProf and the need to parse the screen-size
> string. In the vocabulary, a list should be a real list, a set  
> should be
> a set. These are "first class" data types. In other words, don't think
> of it as a String, but as a String[] or SetOfString.
>
> It may be acceptable for the API to return the value as a
> comma-separated list, if that's what developers demand. However, what
> would developers likely do with this comma separated string? I can  
> think
> of two likely things:
>
> 1. They would parse the string, using the commas as delimiters, in  
> order
> to match the device's supported formats against the image resources
> available to the server (or those it is capable of generating).
>
> 2. They would do a quick pattern match of the string to see if their
> resource format is included therein.
>
> In both cases, giving the developer an array or set directly would be
> preferable, as it means the developer doesn't have to write the  
> parsing
> code. (I.e., one more mistake the developer won't be tempted to make.)
>
> Consequently, my opinion is that the comma-separated list is
> inappropriate for the vocabulary, and probably not as useful in the  
> API
> as a real array or set would be.
>
> The values mentioned in the summary on the wiki look fine. As these  
> will
> all belong to values defined by the vocabulary, I'm assuming they will
> all belong to the same "namespace". The proper identifier for each of
> these values is a URI, in the vocabulary. Nevertheless, it makes sense
> for the API to return these to the developer as simple strings, like
> "png". In other words, the API can hide the vocabulary's complexity
> involving unique namespaces and URIs.
>
> We haven't figured out the vocabulary's URI mechanism yet, but the
> discussion we had on last week's joint call has helped us move  
> forward a
> little [1].
>
> ---Rotan
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ddwg/2007Oct/0007.html
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddr-vocab-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ddr-vocab-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrea Trasatti
> Sent: 01 October 2007 15:51
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: public-ddr-vocab@w3.org
> Subject: [VOC] CoreVocabularySubmissions on the Wiki updated
>
>
> I have updated the page [1] on the Wiki with the submissions received
> so far for the Core Vocabulary.
> In the last group call [2] was agreed to move from single properties
> to sets of values. The updated page reflects this idea. I know the
> layout is fat from perfect, this is due limitation in the Wiki
> engine. Anyone who knows MoinMoin and wants to suggest a better
> layout is welcome.
>
> We are looking for comments in the very short term to get to approval
> soon.
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/CoreVocabularySubmissions
> [2] http://www.w3.org/blog/DDWG/2007/09/20/ 
> meeting_summary_17_sept_2007
>
> Andrea Trasatti
> Director of Device Intiatives mTLD
>
> mTLD Top Level Domain Limited is a private limited company
> incorporated and registered in the Republic of Ireland with
> registered number 398040 and registered office at Arthur Cox
> Building, Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin 2.
>
> The information contained in this message may be privileged and
> confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this
> message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient,
> you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
> received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 07:55:17 UTC