RE: Contacts API

Hi. Eduardo and Suresh.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA [mailto:efc@tid.es]
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 6:50 PM
> To: Suresh Chitturi; Wonsuk Lee
> Cc: wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; Adam Barth; public-sysapps@w3.org;
> Christophe Dumez - SISA (ch.dumez@sisa.samsung.com)
> Subject: RE: Contacts API
> 
> Hi Suresh, Wonsuk, et al.
> 
> On 28 feb 2013 at 06:52:21, Suresh Chitturi wrote:
> > Hi Wonsuk,
> >
> > .....
> > ....
> >
> > From: Wonsuk Lee [mailto:wonsuk73@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February
> > 27, 2013 11:25 PM To: Suresh Chitturi Cc: EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA;
> > wonsuk11.lee@samsung.com; Adam Barth; public-sysapps@w3.org Subject: Re:
> > Contacts API
> >
> > Hi. Suresh and all.
> > Concerning to co-ordination issues on overlap areas btw DAP and
> > SysApps WG, I sent a feedback to DAP WG like [1]. So far I didn't get
> > any comment, so I would like to bring Contacts API spec to FPWD.
> > But before that, I would like to get feedback for below comments in
> > [1] from the groups (esp. editors of this spec). What do you think?
> >
> > Suresh>> Not being a member of Sys Apps group, I would let the editors
> > comment first, but generally there is a strong interest/support on the
> > DAP side for harmonization of the contact formats and semantics. The
> > current contact format in DAP (independent of intents or non-intents
> > approach) is the outcome of many prior discussions and viewed to be
> > the best way forward without creating a dependency on a specific
> > underlying formats but instead taking a "minimum subset' approach that
> > can be implemented on top of underlying implementations (of course with
> an extensible mechanism).
> > Contact formats in general is a moving target and therefore basing the
> > APIs on a single format might be risky path!
> >
> 
> I agree we should aim at aligning the contact's data model between DAP and
> SysApps specs. Actually the differences are not that big, so it should not
> be a problem. I propose the editors collaborate to reach this alignment.
> In any case the changes are mainly about naming or grouping of attributes,
> so IMO nothing so meaningful that should prevent the SysApps Contacts API
> draft to go to FPWD.

I agreed with this. Based on the consensus for aligning the contact's data model between DAP and SysApps specs, I would like to bring current proposal to CfC in the group.

Best regards,
Wonsuk.
 
> 
> > <comments>
> >
> > In particular, regarding Contacts, we may want to (a) make sure that
> > the data formats and meaning are consistent (fo interoperability) (b)
> > ask whether similar APIs across two groups should share a common API
> > style and practices [2] and maybe even details apart from optional
> > parameters or intentionally be different (whether it is better to
> > enable commonality or make clear distinctions) </comments>
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0067.h
> > tml [2] API checklist, http://www.w3.org/2009/dap/wiki/ApiCheckList
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Wonsuk
> >
> > 2013/2/9 Suresh Chitturi <schitturi@rim.com> Hi Eduardo, all,
> >
> > Just wanted to point your attention to a parallel discussion [1] on
> > Contacts API in DAP WG, with a bigger matter being the co-ordination
> > between the DAP and SysApps on overlapping areas.
> > Might make sense to wait just a little bit before proceeding to FPWD,
> > given the impact this can have on the same.
> >
> > [1]
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-device-apis/2013Feb/0051.ht
> > ml
> >
> > Regards,
> > Suresh
> >
> > EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote on January 31, 2013 3:13 AM:
> >> Hi Wonsuk, Adam,
> >>
> >> I didn't receive any feedback on this topic. Could we propose the
> >> Contacts API draft as FPWD?
> >>
> >> Thanks and regards,
> >> Eduardo.
> >>
> >> EDUARDO FULLEA CARRERA wrote on e enero de 2013 17:38:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> The authors of the two different Contacts API proposals agreed to
> >>> take [1] as baseline, and issued a pull request to place the other
> >>> proposal in a subfolder (/Contacts / input_docs) for future reference.
> >>>
> >>> Taken that into account I propose we publish current draft as FPWD.
> >>> Adam, Wonsuk, what do you think?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Eduardo.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> http://sysapps.github.com/sysapps/proposals/Contacts/Contacts.html
> >>>
> >>> ________________________________
> >>>
> >>> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
> >>> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo
> >>> electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
> >>> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
> >>> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> >>> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> >>
> >> ________________________________
> >>
> >> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede
> >> consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico
> >> en el enlace situado más abajo.
> >> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send
> >> and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> >> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> > information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> > solicitor- client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-
> public information.
> > Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> > recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in
> > error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this
> > information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
> > reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
> authorized and may be unlawful.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar
> nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace
> situado más abajo.
> This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and
> receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
> http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx

Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 12:56:36 UTC