- From: Andreas Schade <san@zurich.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:47:18 +0200
- To: www-mobile@w3.org
Hi,, It's a pity that UAProf seems to have lost its importance within the WAP Forum. In Dec. 2001 it was decided to put UAProf in dormant mode which meant then that no UAProf DC meetings would be held anymore. The reason was that UAProf was considered final w.r.t the WAP 2.0 specification. Questions, comments etc, were to be directed to WAG (the umbrella group) which had to decide how to act upon requests coming in via the UAProf mailing list. People were fine with this decision but I think the general expectation was that UAProf would just hibernate and could be revived if necessary. Unfortunately, today nobody seems to feel responsible for UAProf anymore which leaves the impression that UAProf issues are ignored. To answer your question: No I don't think that UAProf is finished. It needs further work. This was also acknowledged in Dec. 2001 but the general feeling was that the remaining issues (property type system, permitted property values, profile syntax) were CC/PP issues and thus should be addressed by the CC/PP WG in W3C. Indeed I tried to bring the issue of merging profiles instances of different schemata to general attention and sent a proposal how to solve this to the UAProf mailing list shortly after the Dec. 2001 WAP Forum. Mark Buttler and I had a short discussion but nobody else got involved and no conclusion was reached ( I still have the corresponding CR sitting on my system :-). Regards, Andreas Schade IBM Research Lab |---------+-----------------------------> | | "Butler, Mark" | | | <Mark_Butler@hplb.| | | hpl.hp.com> | | | Sent by: | | | www-mobile-request| | | @w3.org | | | | | | | | | 29.05.2002 19:08 | | | Please respond to | | | "Butler, Mark" | | | | |---------+-----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: www-mobile@w3.org | | cc: | | Subject: RE: Proposal: Values for UAProf properties | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Hi Johannes, Vidhya, Nick and Tayeb A couple of points: > If you want to make a proposal for updating the UAProf > specification and > you are a member of the WAP forum, I strongly recommend that > you make a > Change Recommendation to the WAP forum's uaprof list > 'wap-uaprof@mail.wapforum.org', attend a Wireless Application Group > meeting and get it pushed through. Unfortunately the wap-uaprof email list no longer exists. I've queried this with the WAP Forum and comments on UAProf are now supposed to got to WAP-WAG, although I know Nick has posted questions to this list (about the confusion between namespace URIs and schema URLs) but has not received a reply. Your suggestion about going to a meeting is undoubtedly a good one though - I may need to do this at some point just to talk about CC/PP and JSR 188. Also I have tried to submit change recommendations to the WAP Forum and they have never acknowledged them so I guess they have been ignored. As for the discussion about what the schema indicates, there are clearly differences between the schemas retrievable at the URLs and the schemas in the WAP documentation. Another problem is the proliferation of schemas: every UAProf phone I come across seems to use a different namespace, which is leading to a configuration nightmare. As IBM have noted this will also lead to problems when you try to merge requests that used to different versions of the uaprof vocabulary. What can we do to avoid this? Well one idea I've had would be to create a schema that merges the existing UAProf schemas. Where properties have changed component, resolution rule or data type between versions these would either be marked as i) undefined or ii) all of the above. This schema would then be frozen. Then if people want to add new properties, they would have to use a new namespace and provide a schema there. I think it is much better to leave existing properties in the existing namespace than copy them to a new namespace every time a new version of the vocabulary is created. This just creates a backward compatibility problem. So I have a question for people here: do people agree that UAProf has reached a point where it is finished or do they think it still needs further work? If you do not want to make your opinion public, send it to me directly and I will tally the result to anonymise opinions? thanks, best regards Mark H. Butler, PhD W3C CC/PP WG Chair Research Scientist HP Labs Bristol mark-h_butler@hp.com Internet: http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut/
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 03:48:31 UTC