1 / 10

CC/PP and UAProf: Issues, improvements and future directions

CC/PP and UAProf: Issues, improvements and future directions. Mark H. Butler, PhD mark-h_butler@hp.com HP Labs Bristol. DELI: Delivery Context Library. Content. Content specialisation e.g. transformation alternate selection transcoding (Apache Cocoon). Profile Resolution (DELI). HTTP

khuong
Download Presentation

CC/PP and UAProf: Issues, improvements and future directions

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. CC/PP and UAProf: Issues, improvements and future directions Mark H. Butler, PhD mark-h_butler@hp.com HP Labs Bristol

  2. DELI: Delivery Context Library Content Content specialisation e.g. transformation alternate selection transcoding (Apache Cocoon) Profile Resolution (DELI) HTTP Request Resolved Profile Specialised content

  3. Profile resolution in CC/PP and UAProf Profile Repository HTTP Request CC/PP information Reference Profile SoundCapable: Yes Language: En Profile Reference Profile Diff SoundCapable: No Profile Resolution Profile Diff Language: Fr Vocabulary Definition SoundCapable Type: Boolean Resolution: Override ....

  4. #HardwarePlatform No prf:SoundCapable prf:Component rdf:type prf: HardwarePlatform #MyProfile Use of RDF in CC/PP and UAProf <?xml version="1.0"?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:prf="http://www. mydevice.com/vocab/version#"> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="MyDeviceProfile"> <prf:component> <rdf:Description rdf:ID="HardwarePlatform"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.mydevice.com/vocab/version#HardwarePlatform"/> <prf:SoundCapable>No</prf:SoundCapable> </rdf:Description> </prf:component> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>

  5. Problems with resolution rules based on order prf:SoundCapable #HardwarePlatform Yes No prf:SoundCapable prf:Component rdf:type #MyProfile prf: HardwarePlatform prf:Component • UAProf resolution rules are based on order • Statements in RDF models are unordered • This is in contrast to XML where there is document order for elements #SoftwarePlatform prf:Language Fr prf:Language En rdf:type prf: SoftwarePlatform

  6. The XML serialisation of RDF specifies the same model in many different ways <prf:component>   <rdf:Description rdf:ID="HardwarePlatform">     <rdf:type rdf:resource = "http://www.wapforum.org/profiles/UAPROF/ccppschema20010430#HardwarePlatform"/>     <prf:BitsPerPixel>2</prf:BitsPerPixel>    </rdf:Description> </prf:component> <prf:component> <prf:HardwarePlatform rdf:about=“#HardwarePlatform” prf:BitsPerPixel=“2”/> </prf:component> <prf:component>   <prf:HardwarePlatform rdf:ID="HardwarePlatform">      <prf:BitsPerPixel>2</prf:BitsPerPixel>   </prf:HardwarePlatform> </prf:component> • We cannot use existing XML tools with CC/PP • We need RDF rather than XML parsers • We cannot query profiles using XSLT

  7. RDF and RDF schema is not always used correctly <?xml version="1.0" ?> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns##" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/1999/PR-rdf-schema-19990303#" xmlns:prf="http://www.wapforum.org/UAPROF/ccppschema-20010330#"> <rdf:Description ID="Component"> <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema#Class" /> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-rdf-schema-19990303#Resource" /> <rdfs:label>Component</rdfs:label> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description ID="WmlScriptVersion"> <rdf:type rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema#Property"/> <rdf:type rdf:resource=" http://www.w3.org/TR/PR-rdf-schema#Bag"/> <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#WapCharacteristics"/> <rdfs:comment> Description: List of WMLScript versions supported by the device. Property value is a list of version numbers, where each item in the list is a version string conforming to Version. List items are separated by white space. Type: Literal Resolution: Append Examples: "1.1", "1.0" </rdfs:comment> </rdf:Description>

  8. Profile Structure • The mapping of profile attributes on to constraints is implicit • Simple attributes and complex attributes are joined by ANDs whereas the values in complex attributes are joined by ORs e.g. Only return resources that are written in French and that do not require sound and that have MIME type image/jpeg or text/html • Ideally we should be able to use ORs of ANDs e.g. Only return resources that have MIME type text/html or image/jpeg where resolution is below 320x240 • This should be theoretically possible but processors make assumptions about the structure of the profile

  9. Vocabularies • RDF has not yet proposed ways of dealing with multiple vocabularies • How do we deal with different versions of the same vocabulary? • UAProf has two versions of the same vocabulary that contain identical and slightly different variants • How do we deal with different vocabularies which describe similar aspects of devices?

  10. Summary • CC/PP, UAProf and RDF • UAProf profile resolution is awkward for an RDF model • The XML serialisation of RDF is over-complicated • RDF and RDF schema is not always used correctly • Theoretical Issues • We need a more flexible approach to profile structure • We need to be able to deal with different vocabularies • Check out my website • http://www-uk.hpl.hp.com/people/marbut

More Related