- From: Rotan Hanrahan <rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 13:01:44 -0000
- To: "Jo Rabin" <jrabin@mtld.mobi>, <public-ddwg@w3.org>
The DI glossary describes a device as an "apparatus". The dictionary would seem to allow both physical and non-physical examples. Therefore I think Jo is correct that the mention of "hardware and software" is redundant. But this might just be an example of "DI Lore and Wisdom", and perhaps to the casual reader this subtlety may go unobserved. In which case, there is an argument for revising the DI definition of Device to add such a clarification. Not all of the properties of a specific device are the territory of some other group. A specific device may belong to a class of device (a set of devices) defined according to having the same value for some immutable property. Those immutable properties are clearly the kind of data of interest to this group. Properties that may vary, on the other hand, are the territory of other groups. A device may have the ability to display in two orientations: landscape and portrait. This ability is an immutable property of the device. At a particular point in time, a specific device may be rendering in one of the two orientations. The orientation in use may vary over time. This property is not something that can be managed by a repository. In the example, we are dealing with two related properties: Permitted Orientations And Current Orientation If you indicate a set of immutable properties, and values for those properties, then you can define a set of devices as all those devices that have those particular values. This was the "set" concept I had in mind in the definitions I have suggested recently. To answer another of your questions: I think it is the attributes and their range of values that characterise a device. In this, I also would permit the value "Not Applicable" (distinct from "Not Known", which is another issue entirely). I'm a bit worried about the use of the word "type". I'll have to think more about it. ---Rotan. -----Original Message----- From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jo Rabin Sent: 01 March 2007 12:35 To: public-ddwg@w3.org Subject: RE: Device Description definition I am running along behind on this ... trying to keep up, forgive me: Commenting on: "Device Description - A set of attributes which characterizes that part of the delivery context directly related to the hardware and software of a device. These attributes adhere to the Delivery Context Ontology." I thought a device, as defined by DI, is hardware and software? Specifically it includes the user agent. So what point are we making by saying 'related to the hardware and software of a device' that is different to saying 'relating to a device'? A further confusion, on my part, is that when we say 'a device' we don't mean 'a specific device', because as discussed (accidentally on the other list, I think) the exact values for the properties of a specific device at a point in time is the territory of some other group. So do we in fact mean 'devices' or better still 'classes of devices' or perhaps better even than that 'type of device'? My next confusion is - is it the attributes that characterise the type of device, or is it the attributes and their possible values that characterise the type of device? And as a possibly rather pedantic kicker, when we say 'set', do we mean that the same set is chosen for all device classes or do we mean, more loosely, that it is a collection of attributes - some of which may be present for some descriptions but not others? So if I am heading down a track that is comprehensible to anybody, do we mean: Device Description - a collection of attributes chosen from the Delivery Context ontology, together with the values for those attributes that characterise a type of device. Thanks Jo > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Rhys Lewis > Sent: 01 March 2007 12:08 > To: Rotan Hanrahan; Smith, Kevin, VF-Group; public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Device Description definition > > > Hello everyone, > > I think we are making progress! > > One comment is that 'they' are not attribute/value pairs. T think we > should simply refer to 'them' as attributes, which is the term from the > delivery context definition. > > Also, I think we should use the term ontology rather than vocabulary. We > probably should also define a term like Delivery Context Ontology (I'll > volunteer to suggest a definition) and then refer to that from the > definition for device description. > > That would lead to something like: > > Device Description - A set of attributes which characterizes that part of > the delivery context directly related to the hardware and software of a > device. These attributes adhere to the Delivery Context Ontology. > > I tweaked the wording to match that from the delivery context definition. > > > Best wishes > Rhys > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan > Sent: 01 March 2007 11:19 > To: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group; public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Device Description definition > > > I like this definition. Good body, delicate nose, hint of oak... > > We should view this proposal in the context of the DI Glossary [1]. The > important terms there are Device and Delivery Context. It seems to me that > the "mash-up" fits well with these existing definitions. > > ---Rotan. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/di-gloss/ > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group > Sent: 01 March 2007 11:14 > To: public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Device Description definition > > > How about a mash-up? Definition 2.0, as it were: > > Device description - a collection of attribute-value pairs, adhering to a > known vocabulary, that apply to each member of a set of devices and > describe the specific part of the delivery context directly related to the > hardware and software of the device. > > Kevin > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rotan Hanrahan [mailto:rotan.hanrahan@mobileaware.com] > Sent: 01 March 2007 11:09 > To: Smith, Kevin, VF-Group; public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Device Description definition > > The most recent one that I posted to the public list was actually: > > Device description - a collection of attribute-value pairs, adhering to a > known vocabulary, that apply to each member of a set of devices. > > This incorporates the point made my Rhys regarding ontology (vocabulary) > though does not specifically mention Delivery Context, which I think might > be a good idea. Suggestions anyone? > > ---Rotan. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On > Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group > Sent: 01 March 2007 11:05 > To: public-ddwg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Device Description definition > > > Hi everyone, > > So (I think) the latest proposal for the definition was from Rhys, > namely: > > Device description: describing that specific part of the delivery context > directly related to the hardware and software of the device. > > ...where delivery context is defined as "A set of attributes that > characterizes the capabilities of the access mechanism, the preferences of > the user and other aspects of the context into which a web page is to be > delivered." This (to me) covers Jo's point about current and possible > values. > > Alternatively we have Rotan's defintion: > > Device description - a collection of attribute-value pairs that apply to > each member of a set of devices. > > Are there any further comments on either? I personally think both are > correct, but that it makes sense to associate the definition with the > delivery context as per Rhys' wording. > > Cheers, > Kevin > > > > >
Received on Thursday, 1 March 2007 13:01:50 UTC