W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > September 2009

Re: Final comments on the roadmap document

From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:26:46 +0200
Message-ID: <4AC0D5B6.3030008@w3.org>
To: Renjish Kumar <renjish.kumar@gmail.com>
CC: public-mw4d@w3.org
Dear Renjish,

thanks a lot for the comments.
some answer below

>     a. abstracts shouldn't include section numbers.  

right, i removed them in the last draft

>     b.   exec summary should always be placed before the 
> introduction because the section  literally means for the execs or those 
> who require a snapshot of the essence of the document without sifting 
> through the individual chapters.....

discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft

>     c. Scope of the document should be placed before the "challenges" 
> section since the scope draws the boundaries for the audience before we 
> get to the subject matter. Correspondingly, some of the scope related 
> comments written in various sections (mostly as NB) should be 
> incorporated in to the scope section.
discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft

>    d. I had indicated the creation of a separate section for definitions 
> and also the candidates for this section 
> (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mw4d/2009Sep/0009.html )  

discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft

>    e. There should be a consistency in the usage of the term 
> representing "mobile for social development" across the document... 
> somewhere we have used mobile for ICT development, somewhere MW4D, and 
> so on... may be we can decide on a single term that represents this for 
> the sake of consistency...

good point. i'm adding that as part of the proof reading exercice.

>    f. For both the tables in exec summary, care should be taken that the 
> colours chosen are reader-friendly when print out is taken in black and 
> white...

that's a good point too, i will add a printing css to remove colors, and 
make clear statement in the wordings

>   g. Considering that the document will be read by many as printed 
> copies, I think we should place the reference links explicitly in the 
> reference section as opposed to being embedded as is the case now.....

good point too. i will work on that.

>   h. In the Audience section, I felt that Donor's role is similar to 
> that of R&D Organizations/Foundations etc...hence added Donors to that 
> role... also reordered the existing audience list to start with the 
> practitioners/developers and then to those who use these applications....
discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft

> Comments on the content of the text:
> In Table 1 (Exec summary section):
> Regarding the column discussing the cost of service......
> "Value" is a loaded term which means the value perceived or received by 
> the end-user for a service... and this is different from the "cost" 
> which the price of the service.... End-users may find some services of 
> higher value than the cost or vice versa... In short, cost and value do 
> not mean the same and what we are probably trying to say here is about 
> the cost and not value... so we should replace cost with Tariff (in the 
> first row) and then replace value with cost (in the second row)... so 
> that we mean Tariff predictability and Tariff cost.

i see what you mean. I agere that value is not well used here. I'm not 
fond of tariff. will try to come with something.

> In section  6.1.3:
> Regarding the statement on lesser-known languages......
> I think we need to be explicit on what we mean by lesser-known 
> languages... Perhaps explictly mention that these are languages 
> lesser-known (though may not be less spoken) to the majority of the 
> developer communities active on the ICT domain.

good point. Will mention that as a note in this paragraphe

> In section 6.1.4:
> Regarding Portals vs. Mobile widgets....
> I am unsure as to whether we can suggest Portals as always closed and 
> mobile widgets as always open.... Is it unrealistic to consider portals 
> with mobile widgets? This is perhaps related to the whole debate/hype of 
> app stores but I see it more as a business model shift.... At the end of 
> the day are app stores also not some kind of portals?  
i completely agree with that. i do think that app or widget stores are 
indeed portals. they are also a business model. so will try to reflect 
that in the wording

> In section 6.1.5:
> Regarding statement on billing support for USSD .....
> USSD enabled services can be charged though USSD per se cannot .....


> In section 6.2.4:
> Regarding costs for service providers.....
> Why is there no cost of delivery for data services as suggested in the 
> document?

well, there are today tons of free hosts where you can put your web site 
for free. so the service provider in such cases don't pay for the delivery.

> Regarding voice and SMS, it's not always based on who initiates the 
> call. Reverse billing is also possible in the cases where the service 
> provider incurs all the cost....Correspondingly in "service delivery 
> model" section, the statement suggesting SMS services cannot be offered 
> free unless through broadcast should be changed.

sure. i thought i mentionned that, but i will revisit this piece.

> Finally, in section 9:
> I think the issue of developing standard interfaces for integrating SMS 
> & Voice to Web will be critical (as more and more information is updated 
> and added to the web) and therefore needs to be highlighted (perhaps in 
> the R&D actions)

voice is integrated to the web already with voiceXML. do you see 
anything else needed ?
integrating SMS to the web, i'm not sure what you mean ?
for instance lots of SMS hub are able to query a service on the web and 
send back the result to an SMS. SMS is jsut a communication mechanism 
more that a real technology for services right ? or am i missing something ?

Thanks a lot again for all these very good comments

Stephane Boyera		stephane@w3.org
W3C				+33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
BP 93				fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,		
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 15:26:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:07:10 UTC