W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-device-apis@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [SysInfo] Wiki Page and a proposal for the API structure

From: Robin Berjon <robin@robineko.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:58:56 +0100
Cc: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>, "public-device-apis@w3.org" <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Message-Id: <3D87B666-CB62-4C39-B96D-DB369887A32E@robineko.com>
To: Max Froumentin <maxfro@opera.com>
On Nov 30, 2009, at 14:19 , Max Froumentin wrote:
>> 2) I'm not sure that the sysinfo API is only concerned with hardware components but also with any other kind of component installed or related to the device which can be in an specific state. For example, is a network a hardware element? I don't think so.
> No, of course. I used hardware for lack of a better term, but I'm well aware that some properties have nothing to do with hardware. I'll try to get the terminology right, at least in the draft.

I think you can go with just "component". Whether it's done in hardware is an implementation detail. For instance your device might not have a thermometer, but it might have a service that connects to a data source that can select nearby thermometers, or guess the ambient temperature by running the CPU full speed and measuring the time until it overheats. I can't remember the name but the device I have in mind was that camera that didn't have any camera but just took your location and orientation to grab the picture you want to take from Flickr.

> Coming up with a final list is a lot of work, and to be honest I hope you, of all participants, will be able to help.

I think that what would be useful would be to scope what that list would contain so that we only define what needs defining. If you have suggestions on how to do that they're welcome. At the very least I think that we should have feature-parity with Flash.

>> In any case such DAP Core Vocabulary should have well-defined mappings with the DCO.
> Indeed, and ideally with Bondi's too.

I'd rather avoid defining the mapping twice, because if we define the A2B mapping and the A2C mapping, and then a B2C mapping gets defined that has some differences we're essentially making ontology soup. I'm guessing everyone should map to DCO.

Robin Berjon
  robineko  hired gun, higher standards
Received on Monday, 30 November 2009 16:59:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:14 UTC