devicemap-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Reza Naghibi <>
Subject Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
Date Tue, 06 Jan 2015 15:41:06 GMT
Just so I can better understand this, you do not accept this W3C compliant solution of the
Java API [0]? Thats completely ok, I just want to make sure I understand your sentiment in
the context of this thread. 


      From: Werner Keil <>
 Sent: Tuesday, January 6, 2015 10:31 AM
 Subject: Re: Should we implement the W3C DDR standard or not?
Without looking into JIRA and noticing some "Problem fixed" tickets none of
us would have noticed (nor voted on;-|) a test balloon towards a possible
wrapper around classifier.
It could be a future direction to merge both and offer people a migration
path from a W3C DDR compliant solution (either OpenDDR, DeviceAtlas, etc.)
but in its current form it looks like a hasty shot without consulting
anybody in the team (once again)

Only if you dropped those into a demo WAR (or standalone app) similar to
those under examples perfectly working for the current W3C DDR
implementation and it produced the same results it could pass as
replacement or compatible migration path. The few classes I spotted
contained at most 3-5 (minimal) properties in a hard-coded array, not the
full extent of the current vocabulary we support and maintain in
device-data. That's not a complete implementation, hence I don't see it
could replace a 1.x release of the DDR client, but with some work by
several of us we could get it to become a migration path in the future.

The current SimpleDDR module represents a joint effort by dozens of people
since late 2011 or in some cases earlier. I contributed it to Apache but I
wasn't the only one working on it;-)


On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:52 PM, Werner Keil <> wrote:

> So do I.
> You understand it, but just for some others, think of it as options to
> access a CMS system via
>    - JCR
>    - WebDAV
>    - Some proprietary vendor-specific protocol
> While DeviceMap is Open Source, the "Classifier" still doesn't define more
> than a proprietary protocol/API as opposed to the one W3C specified.
> Werner
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:35 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz <
>> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Werner Keil <>
>> wrote:
>> > ...None, that's why a new W3C version could read a changed structure
>> just
>> > like file parsers do....
>> Ok cool, so if your W3C client is independent from the format of the
>> device data I don't see a problem with it living in parallel with
>> other clients.
>> -Bertrand

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message