Difference between revisions of "Discussion on Profile Structure Point35"
Gzimmermann (talk | contribs) |
m (category added) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
*[[Discussion on Profile Structure]] | *[[Discussion on Profile Structure]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | [[Category:Revision of ISO 24751]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:27, 27 June 2013
Contents
A property-value pair may have a priority attached?
Status: Open
Discussion
In case of a conflict, the property-value pair with the higher priority wins. If there are multiple values with the same priority, they apply jointly (the meaning of joint application is dependent on the property name).
The range of priorities should be 1 to 100 with 100 being the default.
Example
| Preference-Key | Preference-Value | Preference-Condition | Preference-Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| http://gpii.org/ns/up/fontsize | extra-large | value("http://gpii.org/ns/location") == "home" | 100 |
| http://gpii.org/ns/up/fontsize | large | value("http://gpii.org/ns/time/local-time") >= 17:00 | 60 |
| http://gpii.org/ns/up/fontsize | normal | (true) | 10 |
2012-05-29 HDM
We propose to not have a priority field since it does not prevent conflicts (if the priority values are equal). Rather we should make the order of preferences significant within a profile, with the first preference value winning over all conflicting preference values that follow.
But it could be useful to store the history of changes for each property in a user profile. A matchmaker may weigh the most recent modifications higher than old values.
