ACTION-14: reprise of definition of device description (was Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007)

Kevin I think that what you say is very close. 

>"A device description is a formal definition of the named attributes and
>their permissible values, which are descriptive of features that are
>relevant to the context of Mobile Web browsing via a device[link to DDWG
>definition of 'device']."

If we could do away with the word device then it would appear less circular (viz avoiding appearing to say that a device description is something that describes a device).

1. "A device description is a formal definition of named attributes and
their permissible values, where the attributes are relevant to providing a means through which humans can interact with the Web while mobile."

In general the DDWG wishes to provide a framework that accommodates a wider range of interpretation of Description (drop the Device bit), and Device, namely:

2. A description is a formal definition of named attributes and their permissible values in some prescribed context, where the attributes are relevant to the context.

3. A device is something that is useful for carrying out some prescribed set of activities in some prescribed circumstances.

4. A context is a formal definition of the activities and the circumstances in which they are to be carried out.

The output of the DDWG's activities MUST be useful for def 1 and SHOULD be useful when the words device and description and interpreted more broadly per def 2 and def 3. 


Jo

(and for trackbot's benefit this whole thread was a coda to ACTION-14)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group
> Sent: 29 March 2007 13:29
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> 
> 
>  Hi Jo,
> 
> Thanks for making me hungry - for some reason I've got an urge for sushi
> now...
> 
> >>So how about this:
> >>A device is something that is useful for carrying out some prescribed
> set of activities in some prescribed circumstances.
> >>A context is a formal definition of the activities and the circumstances
> in which they are to be carried out.
> >>A device description is a formal definition of named attributes and
> their permissible values in some prescribed context. The attributes chosen
> to form a device description are descriptive of features that are relevant
> to the context.
> >>The permissible values for an attribute may take the form of lists,
> ranges or other patterns.
> >>(1) For the DDWG a device is as defined in the DI Delivery Context [def]
> but with the restriction that it is normally used away from fixed
> locations and is manufactured specifically to be portable and usable while
> being moved [from the charter].
> 
> That seems fine, and I fully agree that there should be an abstract
> defintion that can be honed (apologies for pun!) for a particular context
> . I personally feel the instantiations of the abstract should be able to
> replace the mutable placeholder terms, rather than repeat the abstract and
> then expand. The wording I suggested has a problem by not being more
> explicit about the kind of mobile web context we are concerned with, maybe
> this is more suitable:
> 
> "A device description is a formal definition of the named attributes and
> their permissible values, which are descriptive of features that are
> relevant to the context of Mobile Web browsing via a device[link to DDWG
> definition of 'device']."
> 
> NB Maybe we need a DDWG glossary which realises the DI definitions, that
> way we can link to the DDWG definition of device (1) consistently.
> 
> Cheers
> Kevin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin Smith
> Technology Strategist
> Vodafone Research & Development
> Mobile: +44 (0)7990 798 916
> Text: +44 (0)7825 106 554
> Email: kevin.smith@vodafone.com
> 
> Vodafone Group Services Limited
> Registered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection,
> Newbury, Berkshire RG14 2FN
> Registered in England No 3802001/
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> Sent: 29 March 2007 12:07
> To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> 
> 
> Hi Kevin
> 
> Since the lid seems to have been taken off Pandora's box again, and at
> risk of a collective groan from the DDWG members who thought they had
> nailed it down, here are some further thoughts.
> 
> One of the things we have been trying to do is to work within the
> framework of the DI Glossary, because inventing our own slightly different
> glossary would not seem to be warranted or desirable. Another thing we
> have been trying to do is to make sure that the fruits of our labour are
> not limited to the context that the DI Glossary pre-supposes (i.e. there
> is a richer set of meanings of device description, which we'd like to be
> useful for, than would be presupposed by limiting ourselves to that
> context). Those factors, together with the nature of the discussion of the
> list led us - imo - to a somewhat backwards definition.
> 
> So much for history.
> 
> I agree that instantiation is a good route to understanding, however, I
> (like Rotan) can't wholly buy into your proposed wording because as I see
> it we place equal priority on our specific charter objectives, which
> relate both to Web browsing, as well as relating to being extensible to
> other activities.
> 
> I do agree with you (and with Rotan) that elaboration of the nature of the
> types of value is distracting in the place in which it currently occurs.
> Though there were reasons for including this, which we need not revisit.
> 
> So how about this:
> 
> A device is something that is useful for carrying out some prescribed set
> of activities in some prescribed circumstances.
> 
> A context is a formal definition of the activities and the circumstances
> in which they are to be carried out.
> 
> A device description is a formal definition of named attributes and their
> permissible values in some prescribed context. The attributes chosen to
> form a device description are descriptive of features that are relevant to
> the context.
> 
> The permissible values for an attribute may take the form of lists, ranges
> or other patterns.
> 
> For the DDWG a device is as defined in the DI Delivery Context [def] but
> with the restriction that it is normally used away from fixed locations
> and is manufactured specifically to be portable and usable while being
> moved [from the charter].
> 
> Analogy:
> 
> A knife is a device that is useful for cutting. [DI definition of device]
> 
> A cooking knife is a device that is useful for cutting in the course of
> preparing food. [DDWG definition of device]
> 
> A table knife is a device that is useful for cutting prepared food in the
> course of eating it. [Someone else's definition of knife]
> 
> The device description for a cooking knife would include attributes
> describing, among other things, whether it is serrated or not, its length,
> whether the blade has a return from the handle making it suitable for
> chopping, the material from which the blade is composed, the material from
> which the handle is composed, the means of attachment of the blade to the
> handle, whether it is sharp ...
> 
> The device description for a table knife shares many of the properties of
> a cooking knife (because, after all, they are both knives). It's unlikely
> to contain attributes describing whether it's useful for chopping or not.
> The description of the serrations is likely to be different too, since
> table knives with serrations are usually used for cutting meat (steak
> knives) whereas cooking knives with large coarse serrations are used for
> cutting bread whereas those with small fine serrations are meant for
> cutting tomatoes.
> 
> Time for lunch.
> Jo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Smith, Kevin, VF-Group
> > Sent: 29 March 2007 11:12
> > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> >
> >
> >
> > Whilst I think Jo's abstract definition is fine, there should be an
> > 'instance' definition for each particular context to make it clearer for
> > users of DDWG and other contexts.
> >
> > If we replace the placeholders in the abstract definition with the
> > explanatory text for DDWG, rather than supplementing the abstract
> > definiton, we get something like:
> >
> > "A device description is a formal definition, within the delivery
> > context[1], of the named attributes and their permissible values which
> are
> > applicable to devices[2]."
> >
> > ...where [1] and [2] link to the DI Glossary. Granted, 'delivery
> context'
> > may be too broad, but you see what I mean.
> >
> > NB having read it a few times I think "[which may take the form of
> lists,
> > ranges, or other patterns]" makes for disjointed reading and is too much
> > detail, 'permissible' implies a formal constraint and should suffice.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org] On
> > Behalf Of Jo Rabin
> > Sent: 29 March 2007 10:49
> > To: Christian Timmerer (ITEC); public-ddwg@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> >
> >
> > Hi Christian
> >
> > I completely agree that explanatory notes would be helpful, and I will
> aim
> > to add some to the Wiki Definition [1].
> >
> > You ask if the term "some context" was used deliberately and the answer
> is
> > "yes". As Rotan points out, he included only part of the definition in
> his
> > summary. The full definition, which as I say is at [1], actually says:
> >
> > "A device description is a formal definition within some context of the
> > named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the form
> of
> > lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities of
> > interest in that context."
> >
> > "In general that entity is a device in the context of interest."
> >
> > "In the DDWG that entity is something that can fulfil the role of device
> > as defined in the DI Delivery Context."
> >
> > The reason for putting it this way is that the meaning of "device" can
> be
> > different according to the context you wish to discuss. As far as the
> DDWG
> > is concerned the context (and hence the properties of interest) is
> > delivering the Web to mobiles. So a device is something that is capable
> of
> > accessing the Web, from our perspective.
> >
> > However, we don't want to exclude the use of the same framework in
> > different contexts. For example, you might want to describe the
> properties
> > of mobile RRS Readers. We'd like you to use the same device description
> > framework to do that, albeit that your meaning of device and the
> > properties that are of interest are not exactly the same as our meaning
> of
> > device and the properties that are of interest to us.
> >
> > I agree that explanation is needed and as I say will add some text at
> [1]
> > to elaborate. If you have a suggestion as to how the definition itself
> > could be made clearer I'm sure the group would like to hear it.
> >
> > Thanks for your comments.
> > Jo
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/DDWG/wiki/DeviceDescriptionDefinition
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Christian Timmerer (ITEC)
> > > Sent: 29 March 2007 09:39
> > > To: 'Luca Passani'; public-ddwg@w3.org
> > > Cc: christian.timmerer@itec.uni-klu.ac.at
> > > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Luca, all,
> > >   as someone who's not "deep inside esoteric W3C lingo" I cannot make
> > this
> > > observation that the definition means nothing.
> > >
> > > My two cents are as follows:
> > >  - However, the definition could be extended by notes/examples that
> > helps
> > > the reader to better understand the definition.
> > >  - The wording "some context" in first part of the definition causes
> > some
> > > confusion to me because to me it means that this context needs to be
> > > defined
> > > by those who are adopting this definition. I'm wondering whether this
> > > interpretation is correct/intentional.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > > Best regards,
> > >  -Christian
> > >
> > > :--
> > > :- Dipl.-Ing. Dr. Christian Timmerer
> > > :- Department of Information Technology (ITEC)
> > > :- Klagenfurt University, Austria
> > > :- http://research.timmerer.com
> > > :----------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > >> Visit the IT Campus Carinthia
> > > >> http://www.it-campus.at
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of Luca Passani
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 8:52 AM
> > > > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > > > Subject: RE: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "A device description is a formal definition within some context of
> > the
> > > > named attributes and their permissible values [which may take the
> form
> > > > of
> > > > lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities
> of
> > > > interest in that context,"
> > > >
> > > > this is not english. It means nothing. It may mean something to
> those
> > > > deep
> > > > inside esoteric W3C lingo. Certainly not suitable for a blog as it
> is
> > > > unless
> > > > you want people to laugh at DD's work.
> > > >
> > > > Luca
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: public-ddwg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ddwg-request@w3.org]
> > On
> > > > Behalf Of Rotan Hanrahan
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 1:25 AM
> > > > To: public-ddwg@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Meeting Summary - 26 March 2007
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Weekly conference call, 26 Mar 2007.] "Device Description"
> described!
> > > > Initial ontology almost ready for publication. Reviewing OMA
> > documents.
> > > > Need
> > > > public input to vocabulary. Details follow:
> > > >
> > > > [DD Defined] A text to describe what is meant by "Device
> Description"
> > > > has
> > > > been formally agreed by the group and will become part of the DD
> group
> > > > terminology. The definition will require an update to the DI
> Glossary.
> > > > The
> > > > key part of the definition is this: "A device description is a
> formal
> > > > definition within some context of the named attributes and their
> > > > permissible
> > > > values [which may take the form of
> > > > lists, ranges, or other patterns] which are applicable to entities
> of
> > > > interest in that context," and goes on to mention the role of
> 'device'
> > > > and
> > > > the scope of the DDWG with respect to this definition. The full text
> > > > will be
> > > > made public on the wiki.
> > > >
> > > > [Ontology Documents] A set of Protégé files capturing an initial
> > > > ontology
> > > > have been created by Rhys, together with a sample XHTML document to
> > > > summarise the information in a human-readable form. Rotan will be
> > > > looking
> > > > into providing an automated visual representation, and the set of
> > > > documents
> > > > are expected to be made public soon. This is not the Vocabulary, but
> a
> > > > framework in which the DDR Vocabulary can be defined.
> > > >
> > > > [OMA Liaison] In response to the recent OMA liaison, a formal
> > > > acknowledgement will be posted on the public mailing list.
> > Furthermore,
> > > > two
> > > > members of the group (Jo and Andrea) will be reviewing the OMA
> > > > documents as
> > > > requested in the liaison statement.
> > > >
> > > > [Vocabulary] It was noted during the meeting that the group could
> use
> > > > some
> > > > more public input, so expect members to mention the DDWG process in
> > > > blogs
> > > > and other public channels over the coming weeks.
> > > >
> > > > [New Actions] (ACTION-21) Rotan to Liaise with DI and successors ref
> > > > this
> > > > definition (of DD). (ACTION-22) Rotan to "Dot-ify" section 3 from
> the
> > > > ontology document to make graphical version. (ACTION-23) Jo to work
> > > > with
> > > > Andrea to prepare a draft response to OMA Liaison - and review
> > > > architecture
> > > > document.
> > > >
> > > > [Attendees]
> > > > Rodrigo Garcia Acevedo (CTIC)
> > > > Pontus Carlsson (Drutt)
> > > > Rotan Hanrahan (MobileAware)
> > > > Martin Jones (Volantis)
> > > > Cedric Kiss (W3C)
> > > > Rhys Lewis (Volantis)
> > > > Jo Rabin (dotMobi)
> > > > Kevin Smith (Vodafone)
> > > > Mike Smith (W3C)
> > > > Andrea Trasatti (M:Metrics/WURFL)
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>

Received on Friday, 30 March 2007 16:40:28 UTC