Re : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools

Hello Art and All,

Thanks for your email and thanks for all the good question it asks. So
it may be interesting to start a debate here on a public mailing-list
which may bring interesting material for W3C DIWG, which is working on
CC/PP.
As Art is mentionning, the current CC/PP spec
(http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/ is not integrating the new RDF
explicit datatyping (RDF DT) and we specifically added an appendix to
talk about it : http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/#Appendix_G

The major reason was that the proposed new RDF DT was not stable, and
still in Last Call when we were ready to move to PR. Moreover, the cc/pp
spec has been waiting too much time to go for PR to postpone it once
again.
I personnally do think that we have a gap today as mentionned by Art and
we will have to have a clear safe way to declare datatypes in cc/pp. It
would be quite a pity to have to define and use another way than the one
chosen by RDF core WG for that purpose. I think that's why UAProf 2.0
decided to adopt it.

However, another cc/pp expert group, JSR188 committee, expressed
concerns about RDF DT (read
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0293.htm
l ) as is today and seems quite against adding it to cc/pp. So as Art is
asking, it may be useful to understand the rationale of both groups so
that when W3C would decide to work on a revision of cc/pp to add this
missing piece, we may have advices about pro and cons.

Cheers
Stephane

--
Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34 
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		  
France
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-mobile-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Art.Barstow@nokia.com
> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 2:06 PM
> To: boyera@w3.org; kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com; www-mobile@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RE : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Stephane and All,
> 
> As you may know, UAProf 2.0 [1] is in OMA's Candidate stage 
> (similar to the W3C's Candidate Recommendation stage).  As 
> such, it would not surprise me if implementations were "under 
> way" and that folks may be somewhat reluctant to publicize 
> such implementations (especially regarding client-side support).
> 
> Implementers - we all know the RDF M&S [1] and 2000 RDF 
> Schema CR [2] have absolutely no in-band (normative) support 
> for datatyping.  This 
> limitation creates severe problems for RDF applications such 
> as CC/PP and 
> UAProf that need fine-grained datatyping to validate their 
> data. Any out-of-band solution to datatyping (e.g. embedding 
> datatyping information in a comment or putting datatyping 
> information in a separate 
> file) is a HACK!
> 
> But there is some good news here - the RDF Core WG has been 
> working for 
> almost threeeeee years on new specs and those specs contain 
> datatyping in 
> RDF [3].  Although the solution is not perfect for mobile 
> data environments I think it meets the I Can Live With It 
> Test - especially if the alternative is the type of hacks 
> listed above.  UAProf 2.0 adopts the new 
> datatyping in RDF solution.  We believe it is a major step 
> forward to use in-band (normative) mechanisms to facilitate 
> the automation of profile validation.
> 
> Would the "owners" of Sadic and DELI please indicate whether 
> or not they intend to support datatyping in RDF (and hence 
> UAProf 2.0)?  And 
> if they do not intend to support datatyping in RDF (i.e. 
> UAProf 2.0) why?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Art Barstow
> ---
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-rdf-schema-20000327/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#documents
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of ext boyera stephane
> > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 5:26 AM
> > To: Halonen Kimmo.K (NMP-MSW/Tampere); www-mobile@w3.org
> > Subject: RE : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hello Kimmo,
> > 
> > Your question is interesting, but unfortunately i do not have any 
> > answer, but just another question ! To the best of my knowledge, 
> > neither Sadic nor DELI are implementing UAProf 2.0. I've 
> neither any 
> > information about an existing implementation of a UAProf 2.0 aware 
> > processor. Are you aware of any real world device providing 
> a UAProf 
> > 2.0 profile ?
> > 
> > Stephane
> > 
> > --
> > Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
> > W3C				+33 (0) 4 92 38 78 34 
> > BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> > F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		  
> > France
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: www-mobile-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:www-mobile-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com
> > > Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 10:52 AM
> > > To: www-mobile@w3.org
> > > Subject: Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Dear All,
> > > 
> > > has anyone ever heard of any commercial products that could
> > > be used to validate UAProf 2.0 compliant profiles? The UAProf 
> > > 2.0 specification can be found behind the following link: 
> > > http://www.openmobilealliance.org/documents.ht> ml
> > > 
> > > I'm
> > > familiar with the publicly available tools like DELI 
> > > (delicon.sourceforge.net) and SADiC 
> > > (http://www.the-web-middle-earth.com/sadic/sadicOnlineValidato
> > r.html). My question is more related to commercial products 
> that could 
> > be used for this purpose.
> > 
> > All input is highly appreciated.
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> >  Kimmo Halonen        IOP Initiative Specialist             Nokia
> >  P.O. Box 1000 (Visiokatu 3)  |  mailto:kimmo.k.halonen@nokia.com   
> >  33101 Tampere, FINLAND       |  Tel: +358 (0)7180 77892
> > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 20 October 2003 09:31:10 UTC