Subject: Framework for capabilities and user preferences

From: "Johan Hjelm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 09:09:05 +0000

Dear All,
please find enclosed a paper we have produced in the mobile access interest group of the 
W3C. It is a general framework for expressing user agent preferences in RDF. We look forward 
to your views and input.

Johan
--
ERICSSONW3CW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSS
ONW3C

 mailto:[email-masked] - http://www.w3.org/People/W3Cpeople.html#Hjelm

W3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSSONW3CERICSS
ONW3C

---

From: [email-masked] (Ted Hardie)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 12:44:41 -0700 (PDT)

Johan,
	Thanks for bringing this work to the attention of the group.
Looking through it, I see a number of places where our work and yours
complement each other; I also see a few places where we may want to
work out methods to improve interoperability.
	If I understand your framework, we could provide an interface
for exchange of registered features in your system by providing a URI
to the registry and keeping an XML-based description of the registry's
content there.  We could also write up a short document indicating
that that adding a u. to the URI used as the xmlns:PRF URI would
create a compliant token for our framework and easy method of moving
references between the two systems.
	Other aspects of the sytem are not quite so easy to map.  CC/PP
uses a "table of tables" to describe capabilities, where conneg is
currently using a predicate-based system; it certainly should be
possible to map between the two, but some discussion on the best
ways of doing so would be useful.  I would also like us to discuss
preferences in detail, as I believe that expression of rank like
q-values is an area in which conneg could use more input.  This may
also complicate how to express the cross-walk between data models.
	Thanks again for bringing this work to our attention, and
I look forward to discussing it further.
		best regards,
			Ted Hardie
			Chair, conneg

---

From: Al Gilman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 15:13:54 -0400 (EDT)

Now I can't find it to quote.

I have a memory of Ted saying "we explicitly ruled out using
q-factors in weighted-factors combining rules."

Did this happen?

If that it true, it got by me.  I thought that cardinal
q-factors were available as an extension possibility, i.e that

1) q-factors should be weakly monotone ordinals, i.e. any
preference factor used in an utterance conforming to the standard
defining the registry should either go from 0=bad to 1=good with
greater never being worse, or vice versa.

2) cardinal interpretations of subtypes of this type could be
defined by negotiation protocols and registrations.  By cardinal
interpretations, I mean that a feature could be defined to have
known semantics for differences of q-factors or their ratios.

Al