- From: Breitschwerdt, Christian, VF-Group <christian.breitschwerdt@vodafone.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 12:04:34 +0200
- To: "Robin Berjon" <robin@robineko.com>, "JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA" <jmcf@tid.es>
- Cc: "Tran, Dzung D" <dzung.d.tran@intel.com>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
Hi Robin, I think Jose's requirement was alluding to the separation of API to access system information on one side from the actual ontology (as in http://www.w3.org/TR/dcontology/) on the other side. By example of the BONDI APIs for DeviceSatus http://bondi.omtp.org/1.01/apis/devicestatus.html the API definition itself does not say what system information it allows access to - this is all handled by the BONDI name-spaced vocabulary. IMO the requirement is quite sensible but it bags the question how to define baselines of vocabularies to be supported. Regards, Christian > -----Original Message----- > From: public-device-apis-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-device-apis-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Robin Berjon > Sent: Montag, 5. Oktober 2009 11:20 > To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA > Cc: Tran, Dzung D; public-device-apis@w3.org > Subject: Re: ISSUE-14: Gathering requirements [System Info & Events] > > On Oct 5, 2009, at 09:50 , JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA wrote: > > here goes a very important non-functional requirement: > > > > The System Info and Events API should be extensible and not > > constrained to the properties the DAP group defines but any > property > > that now or in the future might appear. > > That one is fairly simple to address, in Javascript all > interfaces are extensible, whatever we do doesn't jail us the > way Java interfaces did. > > -- > Robin Berjon > robineko - setting new standards > http://robineko.com/ > > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 October 2009 10:05:11 UTC