RE: Device Description definition

Hi Morten,

We work in the abstract initially to ensure that we have a common understanding of the technology we are developing, and that it will meet the goals set out for us. We will naturally move to concrete issues when we have a firm base to work with. We are certainly intending to have a lot of "joined effort" with other groups in W3C and OMA and elsewhere.

As you have correctly noted, there are many potential sources of device information. Some is available in advance, some from indicated profiles, and some directly from the device during interaction. These are all being considered.

Perhaps to help you catch up you could revisit the results of our workshop [1] from last year. This should help put our deliberations in context.

---Rotan.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/workshop2006/report.html


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Morten Olsen
Sent: 01 March 2007 13:55
To: public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Device Description definition


I am trying to follow all this activity happening on the mailing list hoping to eventually catch up some day. So forgive me if jumping in inappropriately.

I'm working in a company with its own device profile repository and our own device detection system.

The profile repository generally holds abstract profiles or profiles for types of devices (e.g. Nokia XXXX revision XXX). 
The device detection system uses the repository, but also augments the profile it returns with information about the specific device accessing some service (e.g. extra features from installing some player on the device).

In some scenarios we use the abstract device profiles from the repository by necessity (e.g. if we need to prepare data for different devices in advance before the concrete devices actually access us). In other scenarios we use the concrete detected profiles to be able to tailor the experience best to the concrete device.

In UAprof there is, maybe not the exact same distinction, but it seems that vendors may provide their description for a type of device, and that network operators may intercept a concrete device and point to another description of the device. Furthermore there is some ways for a device to deliver some of the description itself directly without pointing to an external description document.

>From what I understand from the previous mails, DDWG focus on types of devices. Will DDWG focus purely on "types of devices" in isolation - not considering concrete devices? Or will there be some joined effort with other groups to ensure same format and appropriate overlaps of vocabularies?



Med venlig hilsen/Best regards
Morten Olsen

Direct          +45 3377 0118
Mobile        +45 5122 5049



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
Sent: 1. marts 2007 14:02
To: Jo Rabin; public-ddwg@w3.org
Subject: RE: Device Description definition


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 14:41:23 UTC