Feel free to discuss APML and the workgroup - also we'd like to know people you think should be invited in or invite yourself

I thought I would get the conversation going -

Hello to all 

My name is Stephen Kelly - I am in investor in Touchstone - and a long term user. I am constantly impressed with touchstone and it has now become a stndard part of my work tools for me and my staff.

Re: APML v0.5: Draft Specification v0.2 (example)

I think  there are a few things you could clean up in the example....

1. the example shows a home and work profile but both use the same hardware ID... and yet the Devices section indicates the type is different for each

• if the intent was just to show separate home and work profiles on the one work machine, well ok ... but then why not also show a profile for the home tablet?
• image deleted -- redone in next post (error in omnidrive publish routine)
• THe explicit sources for the home profile do not have any guid -- in the examples used should there not be a url for each?
• The explicit concept "cancer" is duplicated .... this should not be the case within one profile should it?
  
• image deleted -- redone in next post (error in omnidrive publish routine)

Hmmm.... seem to have run across a bug on omnidrive.... those are not my images in the post above.... I 've no idea where they come from. I copied the url to my clipboard in each case directly from the omnidrive publish function... it seems to have given me a url to somebody elses files! ... back shortly with corrections as required!

illustration 1 second try at publishing on omnidrive:

illustration 2 second try at publishing on omnidrive:

Some of these issues have been corrected in the 0.6 Draf spec at http://apml.pbwiki.com

devices have been removed all together in favour of using profiles for both personalities and devices. I.e. you might have PDA-Home and PC-Home or PDA-Work etc

The reason there were two profiles with the same deviceID was because both profiles were attached to the same device. This was the actual intent.

Source URLs being left out was an oversight of the example in the 0.5 spec doc - it has been corrected in 0.6

As I said I thought it might be the case that both profiles were attached to the same device... but that being the case, I think you should show a brief profile for the second device just to be sure the example is clear...  off to look at o.6

I agree - the 0.5 spec is not ideal. Let me know your thoughts on 0.6 - I think it is far more elegant

Printing it now... but works intrudes... I'll have a boo in the wee hours this morning and send you any notes then....

and more complex

yeah it is a little more complex - as i said - it's very hard to balance these things 

Managed to slip in a quick scan now ... I jumped too soon above...what I'd seen  was  what I would call 'policing action' rather than strict value-add, ie stuff within  the schema rather than the APML file itself. (email format for example).

Inside the APML file itself  -- it is indeed much more elegant.

balance of original posting deleted and moved to Source Rankings topic.....where it fbelongs as it followed on a conversation there!. <Bricoleur>