Re: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties

Nick
The WAG UAProf version 20-Oct-2001defines the "SecuritySupport", in the RDF User Agent Profile Schema, as a literal bag. 
The current schema can be found in:
http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/documents/WAP-248-UAProf-20011020-a.pdf
with the namespace of: "http://www.wapforum.org/profiles/UAPROF/ccppschema-20010430#"

WAG UAProf version 30-May-2001 gives the User Agent Profile Schema with the same namespace(..430#).
This RDF schema can be found in:
http://www1.wapforum.org/tech/documents/WAP-248-UAProf-20010530-p.pdf (page 53)

In http://www.wapforum.org/profiles/UAPROF/ we find only the following RDF schemas:
ccppschema-20000405 and ccppschema-20010330 which doesn't reflect (and can make some confusions)
the current used schema.   

I have proposed recently to make current schemas (with correct namespaces) in the same location. 
According to an answer that I have received, "It appears that they simply need to update the appropriate version
of the ccppschema and perhaps update the document to reflect the web publishing of the ccppschema".
I hope that this will be done soon to avoid confusions.

Regards

Tayeb* 

----------
Tayeb Lemlouma
http://www.inrialpes.fr/opera/people/Tayeb.Lemlouma/index.html
Opera project
National Research Institute in Computer Science and Control (INRIA Rhône-Alpes, France )
Office B213, phone (+33) 04 76 61 52 81, Fax (+33) 04 76 61 52 07.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <nick.denny@mci.co.uk>
To: <www-mobile@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 3:09 PM
Subject: RE: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties



Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: koch@pixelpark.com [mailto:koch@pixelpark.com]
> Sent: 29 May 2002 12:36
> To: www-mobile@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties

[snip]

> > > SecuritySupport:
> > > * WTLS-1
> > > * WTLS-2
> > > * WTLS-3
> > > * signText
> > > * PPTP
> > > * SSL-1
> > > * SSL-2
> > > * SSL-3
> > 
> > The UAProf Schemas don't define SecuritySupport as a bag - it is a
> > single Property.
> 
> No, in UAProf 20011020-a it is a bag.

Where is that specified? This is an excerpt from the actual schema
(http://www.wapforum.org/profiles/UAPROF/ccppschema-20010330):

<rdf:Description ID="SecuritySupport">
<rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema#Property" /> 
<rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#NetworkCharacteristics" /> 
<rdfs:comment>Description: Type of security or encryption mechanism
supported. Type: Literal Resolution: Locked Example:
"PPTP"</rdfs:comment> 
</rdf:Description>
 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > > WapVersion:
> > > * 1.1
> > > * 1.2
> > > * 1.2.1
> > > * 2.0
> > 
> > "1.2" will never be used. At least one current profile uses 
> > "1.2.1/June 2000".

> Yes, but why adding 'June 2000'?

This is a good point - I was just pointing out what current UA Profiles
use.

> > > WtaiLibraries:
> > > * WTAPublic
> > > * WTAVoiceCall
> > > * WTANetText
> > > * WTAPhoneBook
> > > * WTACallLog
> > > * WTAMisc
> > > * WTAGSM
> > > * WTAANSI136
> > > * WTAPDC
> > > * WTAIS95
> > 
> > As WTAI is not compulsory, there aren't many (if any) that 
> support WTAI
> > fully
> 
> That's why you can specify the supported libraries.

Yes, but this means you are forced to say "WTAPublic" when you may only
support "makeCall", for example.

>  - I suggest that the most important things to include would be the
> > ability to make Calls, Send DTMF tones and Add entries to the Phone
> > book. I therefore suggest a format such as:
> > 
> > WTA.Public.makeCall
> > WTA.Public.sendDTMF
> > WTA.Public.addPhonebook
> 
> Adding the functions might be ok. But why 'WTA.Public' instead of
> 'WTAPublic' as it's called in the WTAI spec?

This is also just what Ericsson has decided to use in their T68 profile:

<prf:WtaiLibraries>
<rdf:Bag>
  <rdf:li>WTA.Public.makeCall</rdf:li> 
  <rdf:li>WTA.Public.sendDTMF</rdf:li> 
  <rdf:li>WTA.Public.addPBEntry</rdf:li> 
</rdf:Bag>
</prf:WtaiLibraries>

> > > Unfortunately, the more recent WMLScript and WTA specs don't have
> > > version numbers. So it's not clear what e.g.
> > > <prf:WmlScriptVersion>1.2</prf:WmlScriptVersion>
> > > stands for.
> > 
> > There is a mention in the WAP 1.2.1 WmlScript Spec that the 
> version is
> > 1.1 - it hasn't changed since WAP 1.1.
> 
> In WAP 1.1 WMLScript spec is '04 Nov 1999', in WAP 1.2.1 it is '25 Oct
> 2000'.
> Do you mean:
> 9.3 Bytecode Header
> VersionNumber
> ...
> The current version is 1.1.
> ?

Yes - that's the only mention of a WMLScript version I could find in the
Spec.

Best Regards,

Nick Denny