From W3C:
Participants in the International Workshop on the Implementation of a Device Description Repository have published their report.
... the workshop participants debated the expected nature of the Device Description Repository (DDR). All agreed it should be simple. The API and a vocabulary of essential properties are high priorities. The DDR should not merely gather data from other sources, but be a bridge to those sources. Avoid replicating past efforts. Instead, build on them. Re-use where possible. While the architecture of the DDR framework is important, the participants felt that the emphasis should be on the API, creating an initial vocabulary, supporting extensibility and demonstrating the utility of the solution. The DDWG should concentrate on how the data is moved around (e.g. queries, updates etc.) and not on how the data is stored. The general feeling that the DDR framework will be distributed in nature will need more careful examination, possibly outside W3C, but not necessarily in the second charter.
From my perspective: fix device repositories… How? Choose a format (UAProf vs. CC/PP). Choose a header (Profile vs. x-wap-profile header). And fix the vocabulary – the contents of the device descriptors are not consistent. Do we need an API? I am happy right now with a complete, well defined device profile – but I'll take the API as well, if simple, useful and well defined. Keep the DDR distributed – keep pushing the description to the manufacturers, but let's enforce the existence of device descriptions (headers and profiles), and make them complete and consistent. Keep it simple but effective!
Both Luca Passani and Andrea Trasatti, of the WURFL project, were part of the W3C DDR workshop, so that is good – they should bring some balance and reality check to DDR.
ceo