RE: [VOC] CoreVocabularySubmissions on the Wiki updated

+1 to NEVER encoding sets of values in strings in the Vocabulary. 

Actually, I also strongly object to doing it, even in the API.

We criticised UAProf for doing this. We must not perpetrate the same
mistake.

Best wishes
Rhys 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> Sent: 02 October 2007 03:34
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Cc: public-ddr-vocab@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [VOC] CoreVocabularySubmissions on the Wiki updated
> 
> 
> 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 08:50:42 UTC