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

As the group has already taken a formal resolution to publish the document based on the Editor's draft at the time of the resolution, these and any subsequent comments regarding the document will be directed towards the subsequent publication. Given that there are several outstanding issues to consider (e.g. the definitions of aspects, some additional properties etc.), the subsequent publication will involve substantive updates.

 

I urge the document editors to take on board any comments that have appeared since the publication resolution and to reflect these in the ongoing "editor's draft".

 

We will be seeking further comments (from the public) when the current draft is published, hopefully in the next few days.

 

---Rotan.

 

From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of José Manuel Cantera Fonseca
Sent: 12 December 2007 14:21
To: Jo Rabin
Cc: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: [VOC] Comments on the current version of the vocabulary

 

Commenting [1]

Editorial Comments:

Abstract
---------
+ This document describes the Device Description Repository Core Vocabulary for Content Adaptation in the Mobile Web, described in the charter of the Device Descriptions Working Group, as well as the process by which the vocabulary was defined

Introduction
-------------

+ The vocabulary makes reference to the ontology for the Web Delivery Context which is being developed by the UWA [reference to the UWA -WG] Working Group. [UWA-Ontology] <http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/071204.html#UWA-Ontology> .

+ I would suggest to drop the sentence "Where necessary, the ontology can be extended." or to rephrase it to make it more clear the intended meaning

3 Properties
-------------

+ Reading the document is not clear to me what is the actual property identifier. I know that it is supposed to be the name in the section title such as "3.1 vendor" but I think it will be better to make explicit the  actual property identifier. Suggested:

3.1 'vendor' property

3.1.1 Description

bla,bla

3.1.2 Property Identifier
vendor

3.1.3 type
bla, bla

+ 3.5.6 Identified as an important property by the DDWG in its Top N finding. [Put a reference to the document] Present in UAProf [Put a reference to UAProf] 

B Acknowledgements

A small change, 

+ José Manuel Cantera Fonseca, Telefónica Investigación y Desarrollo

--- Additional Comments --- 

+ The document does not talk about namespaces and property namespacing, I think it is important to indicate that the Core Vocabulary Properties are within a namespace identified by a URI to be defined
+ Enumerations. I think we need an XMLSchema definition of the enumerations described for certain properties in the vocabulary, such as inputDevices. Also, the same comment as in the property id applies here. We need to make explicit that the values put in the table under the value column are the actual values that the enumeration can contain i.e. those strings. I think this can be  made explicit by means of the XMLSchema enumeration definition. 
Last but not least, I'm a bit worried about the 'other' value you mention in the draft.
I think we need to drop it from the value column and say that specific implementations can provide more values to this enumeration. 

Nothing more so far

Best Regards

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/drafts/corevocabulary/071204.html