Re: [VOC] CoreVocabularySubmissions on the Wiki updated

+1 to do not encoding values in strings (neither Voc nor API)

Regards


Raf.Casero

-------- Mensaje Original --------
> +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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>
>