RE: Re : Commercial UAProf 2.0 validation tools

Stephane raises some good questions/issues:

1. When does the W3C expect the new RDF specs to be promoted to 
Recommendation?  The RDF Core WG's home page [1] (rev 1.191, last 
updated 2003-10-14) says July 2003 but that doesn't seem possible :-).

2. Does the W3C consider datatyping in RDF - as defined in the
latest published specs - "stable"?  If no, what part(s) is not
considered stable (e.g. still a WIP)?

Regards,

Art Barstow
---

[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/#L473


> -----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 9:25 AM
> To: Barstow Art (NMP-MSW/Boston); Halonen Kimmo.K (NMP-MSW/Tampere);
> www-mobile@w3.org
> Subject: 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/2003JanMa
> r/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 10:19:05 UTC