1 / 8

Martin Jones Volantis Systems martin.jones@volantis

Exploring the need for a standard core vocabulary to address evolving delivery context requirements, the challenges with existing vocabularies, suggested properties of a standard vocabulary, and the areas it should cover to ensure interoperability and effective context-aware presentation optimization.

edanforth
Download Presentation

Martin Jones Volantis Systems martin.jones@volantis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Standard Vocabulary for Delivery Context Martin Jones Volantis Systems martin.jones@volantis.com

  2. A Standard Core Vocabulary: Why do we need one? What characteristics should it have? What should it cover? What does this mean for the DIWG?

  3. Observed Issues • Evolving DI requirements are not being properly met by existing device identification techniques • Disappointingly low usage of new delivery context mechanisms • Chicken & egg scenario vis-à-vis user agents and origin servers • Potential for interoperability issues between implementations, resulting from vocabulary mismatch

  4. The Missing Link? Capabilities & Preferences CC/PP Exch. RDF/XML HTTP CC/PP Example Client (User Agent) Origin Server Standard Vocabulary

  5. Existing Vocabularies: • Are domain-specific e.g. WAP UAProf • Are not broad enough in scope to facilitate true context-aware presentation • Provide inconsistent levels of detail • Often weakly specified (too many MAYs) • Are in danger of proliferating

  6. Suggested properties of a standard vocabulary • Comprehensive – enough to cover the majority of needs • Modular – to allow irrelevant parts to be omitted safely from implementations • Detailed – at multiple levels to allow for simple or complex interpretations • Extensible – to allow for additions • Balanced – to provide good coverage in all relevant areas

  7. Which areas should a standard vocabulary cover? • User Agent capabilities • Markup elements, CSS elements, content formats (more than just MIME content types), plug-ins supported/installed, size limits, security • Device capabilities • Input, output, identification, security, physical, ergonomic, add-on modules • Network capabilities • Bandwidth, latency, QoS, security, caching, adaptation • User preferences • Language, modality, accessibility, taste, speed/richness • User environment • Place, position, privacy, mood

  8. What does this means for the work of the DIWG? • Give as much focus to specifying a standard DC vocabulary as to the underlying exchange and negotiation mechanisms • Try to reconcile and build on existing vocabularies but don’t be constrained by them

More Related