Subject: RE: [Simple] Updated RPID

From: "Dag Ekengren" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 10:32:27 +0200

I think the relationship between the latest RPID document and the presence
data model document is a little unclear.

In RPID, it says that the "<activities> element describes what the
presentity is currently doing, expressed as an enumeration of <activity>
elements". I think this clearly belongs to the <person> element in the
presence data model. In the examples in the RPID draft, the activities
element is applied to service tuples. Maybe it should be mentioned that
these should be used on the <person> element?

Wouldn't it be a good idea to include the definitions of <person> and
<device> in the RPID draft?

/Dag

-----Original Message-----
From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: den 9 oktober 2004 22:04
To: Simple WG
Subject: [Simple] Updated RPID

I will shortly submit

http://www.cs.columbia.edu/sip/draft/rpid/draft-ietf-simple-rpid-04.html

Please let me know if I failed to incorporate conclusions of the recent 
discussion. The major changes are the removal of tuple-type element, the 
re-naming and more precise syntax of the <idle> element (now, 
<user-input>) and the addition of a <timezone> element. The data model 
draft is cited.

Henning

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple
_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 04:47:37 -0400

Dag Ekengren wrote:

=
> data model document is a little unclear.

Yes. Keep in mind that -04 was not yet submitted. Henning and I have yet 
to completely align on how it reconclides with the data model. I am 
working on getting input to him to make sure it completely lines up. The 
issue you are raising below is correct, and will be cleaned up.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                600 Lanidex Plaza
Chief Technology Officer                    Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
dynamicsoft
[email-masked]                     FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                      PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.dynamicsoft.com

---

From: Henning Schulzrinne <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:17:04 -0400

As Jonathan noted, alignment efforts are under way. However, the issue 
you raise is somewhat more general, namely distinguishing between the 
source of information (which element derived this information) and the 
scope (all the elements that are affected by it). This becomes relevant 
if different devices may arrive at conflicting information. For example, 
my cell phone service may know that I'm driving (since it can detect 
movement based on my cell coordinates), while my PDA might consult its 
calendar and determine that I'm in a meeting (which I'm actually late 
for...).

We agreed, I believe, that in many cases, only the watcher can be 
sufficiently intelligent to deal with conflicting information and thus, 
there need to be facilities for each element to report such information, 
so that the watcher can determine whom to believe or just be confused. 
In some cases, a composer can merge the data and remove contradictions, 
but since the RPID format is also used for publishing, we need to be 
able to carry this information in the element that it belongs to.

Thus, activities can be reported by a (service) tuple, a person or a 
device, depending on the particular circumstances.

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 11:54:20 -0400

I have a question about how the data model xml type extensions for 
<person> and <device> interact with the status and characteristic types 
defined in various places.

(This may just be a matter of my ignorance of XML details.)

The data model defines a number of abstract types. I infer that the only 
elements that are permitted as capabilities or status of person or 
device must have themselves been declared as extensions to the 
corresponding abstract type.

If that is true, then it would seem to rule out the same type being used 
in more than one of <tuple>, <person>, or <device>. This would minimally 
mean that every type defined in RPID will need to be revised to specify 
which container it is intended for.

This also means that we can't have types that are intended to be useful 
in more than one of these. (E.g. idle.)

	Paul

Jonathan Rosenberg wrote:
>> From: Henning Schulzrinne [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: den 9 
>> oktober 2004 22:04
>> To: Simple WG
>> Please let me know if I failed to incorporate conclusions of the 
>> recent discussion. The major changes are the removal of tuple-type 
>> element, the re-naming and more precise syntax of the <idle> element 
>> (now, <user-input>) and the addition of a <timezone> element. The data 
>> model draft is cited.
>>
>> Henning
>>