RE: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary

What could be represented in the DD vocabulary and stored in the DDR is the default usable screen width, a value you would use when you have no means to calculate the actual usable screen width.

Any properties that are purely calculated, such as the actual usable screen width/height, should not be in a vocabulary of fixed properties, and they are not appropriate for a repository of fixed properties such as the DDR. However, I would expect the data types (between fixed and calculated) to be compatible, which is something that can be achieved through a common ontology.

One could also provide a convenience function in an adaptation technology that first tries to obtain the actual value, and resorts to the default if necessary. But we're not specifying an API for access to general contextual information (which would include all sources, including for example the OMA DPE information). We're only working on an API to the DDR, which is a subset of what an adaptation solution would generally require, though perhaps the most significant/useful part.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin
Sent: 02 October 2007 10:34
To: Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca;; DDR Vocabulary
Subject: RE: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-ddr-vocab-
>] On Behalf Of Josť Manuel Cantera Fonseca
> Sent: 01 October 2007 15:38
> To:; DDR Vocabulary
> Subject: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary
> Dear all,
> As a result of the analysis made on [1] here are the comments (coming
> from me on behalf of the MyMobileWeb project) on the vocabulary (some of
> them already known by Andrea, as I was chatting with him on the MSN :) ):
> + Usable Screen Width / Height. If I read the description, this is
> something that will depend on the whole DC and it will be likely not
> suitable for storing in a DDR. The value of this property will be
> calculated and not stored

That doesn't stop it being part of the core vocabulary, surely?


Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2007 12:31:45 UTC