- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 18:02:40 +0200
- To: Jo Rabin <jo@linguafranca.org>
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
That's good to see the mobileOK Scheme document moving forward! Below are a couple of rough comments. I apologize if that looks more like mumbling than truly motivated comments... Jo Rabin wrote: [...] > > So what we have here is what must be regarded as a first draft, with an > outline of what might be in the ultimate document. What's needed is > comments as to the completeness of its structure, whether it should have > the appendices it has and also comments about any errors. > > In particular, some content can usefully be lifted from the lengthy > introduction to mobileOK Basic and woven into the fabric of this document. On the structure of the page: I think the content is there. But the structure still needs to be improved, IMO. I agree that the Introduction is too long and actually contains quite a bit of essential stuff that is not further defined in the doc (or at least not clearly), e.g: "The claim may be made by the content publisher themselves or any third party." "A claim of mobileOK may only be made of a URI that when dereferenced in the manner described in [mobileOK] yields content that passes all the mobileOK Basic Tests." I would indeed move most of the material of the introduction to real parts of the document, yielding to a structure like (I am not suggesting any title here, merely the structure!): Introduction a small intro, typically the first few paragraphs of the current one mobileOK - What is it? - applies to a URI that when dereferenced [blah blah] - relationship with mobileOK Basic Tests - relationship between mobileOK Basic Tests and MWBP mobileOK - Who is this for? current section looks good mobileOK - claiming conformance - How? current section 2 redesigned a little bit - who can claim conformance? (self claim, or third party certification) - mobileOK namespace and vocabulary (current section 2.1, but I find the mention of "RDF" obscure in the section title) - Claiming mobileOK Conformance using POWDER - Claiming mobileOK Conformance using RDFa mobileOK - checking conformance - How? mobileOK - License By the way, shouldn't it be: <u> rdf:type < http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#Conformant> instead of: <u> rdf:type < http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#> ? If that's implied, well, that should be explained! HTH, Francois.
Received on Friday, 22 August 2008 16:01:24 UTC