ACTION-541: MobileOK Scheme Document - Feedback on Kai's original ACTION-532

Hi

As mentioned in my earlier post on this ACTION I am worried that we are
building something too complex for anyone to be bothered with - may be
time for a grass roots review.
 
Comments in line.

Jo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-bpwg-request@w3.org [mailto:member-bpwg-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Scheppe, Kai-Dietrich
> Sent: 02 August 2007 10:01
> To: Mobile Web Best Practices Working Group WG
> Subject: ACTION-532: to draft mobileOK usage rules and come back to
the
> group
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I have taken on the above action to outline the usage rules for
> mobileOK.
> It turns out that usage hinges upon all sorts of things I have tried
to
> bring together here.
> 
> I would appreciate some detailed feedback.
> 
> -- Kai
> 
> 
> I am introducing a new concept of shared labels.
> With the increasing popularity of social networks it seems likely to
me
> that such labels could be shared within a community, meaning
information
> about them passed along.  Such a label would have an incredibly high
> level of trust.
> The concept is not essential to the mobileOK usage and can be excised
> anytime, if it is not deemed realistic or important.
> I just added it because it occurred to me.

I'm not clear of the meaning of this, is it basically a third party
claim? Also how would it work with the current definition of POWDER?


> 
> 
> I have made the following assumptions:
> -------------------------------------
> - the visual part will be a logo

I think my point would be that the logo doesn't constitute a claim, it
is a representation that a claim is present. Like in a set of search
results a logo may indicate that the content provider made a claim, or
might indicate that the search engine makes a claim on the content's
behalf.

> - the maschine-readable part will be a POWDER description resource
> - both will be provided by the W3C in a template like form
> - content author and content provider are most likely different people
> or even institutions.  Here I will speak of the content author, for
> simplicities sake.

I'm not sure I follow that reasoning. Or what the definitions are.
Surely it can only be the content provider that makes a claim as it is
them that is responsible for the format in which the content is
ultimately served?

> - a content author will go from self-labeling through certified
labeling
> to shared labeling
> 
As above

> 
> 
> 
> Concepts of labeling:
> ---------------------
> - The primary means of labeling is self-labeling.
>   This means the content author makes the claim that his content will
> conform to the best practices guidelines.

I think it's the CP who is responsible.

> - The secondary means of labeling is third party labeling.
>   This could be by some other person or institution, without any
further
> wish to do anything else.

I am a bit confused as to how you'd know about a third party claim, as
that claim would not necessarily be indicated by retrieving the
resource.

>   This could also be a certification authority which provides such a
> label as part of its service.  If this label is held by the CA itself
or
> provided to the author will be dealt with later in the document.
> 
> Concepts of trust:
> ------------------
> - Trust is a personal issue
>   A user will have to decide if trust is given to a content author.
>   A user will have to decide which certification authority trust is
> given to, because some tests are highly subjective.
> - Self-labeling has a variable, but low level of trust.
>   A self-label is nothing more than a claim.
>   A large content provider may enjoy a higher level of implicit trust
> than a private person.
> - Certified labels have a much higher level of trust, as an
independent
> party has examined and verified the claims made by the content author.

I'm hoping that this is all part of POWDER - certified DRs that is.

> - Shared labels, across social networks, have the highest level of
> trust, as a much larger group of users has vested interest in those
> labels and increases their value by providing trust across a network.

Again I am unsure what this means and whether such usage is accommodated
by POWDER.

> 
> 
> Types of labels and trustmarks:
> -------------------------------
> There are two levels of mobileOK
>   - mobileOK Basic
>   - mobileOK Pro
> 
> For each level there two varieties of label
>   - a visual label, called a logo hereafter
>   - a machine-readable label, called a description resource hereafter
> 
As above, I don't think the logo is a claim, per se.

> Therefore there are 4 labels
> 
> Each of these labels may carry a certification with it or not.
> By adding certification we add trust, thereby creating a trustmark.
> 
> Therefore there are additional 4 trustmarks.

Think we need to be clear what we mean by a trustmark. Does this mean a
certified label?

> 
> 
> Origin and modification:
> ------------------------
> Labels and Trustmarks are provided by the W3C according the
> Recommendations produced by the Mobile Web Initiative Best Practices
> Working Group (MWI BPWG) and POWDER working group.  They can be
> downloaded at [insert appropriate URI here]
> Only those labels and trustmark may be used.
> The values, for example links and references, may be modified to
provide
> the information necessary.
> The data structure of a description resource, may be extended, as in
> adding a validuntil date, but must not be reduced.
> The W3C is not a certification authority.
> There are companies who provide these services and may utilize the W3C
> labels and trustmarks.

Surely the DR can't be one-size-fits-all as it makes reference to the
content the claim is in respect of, when the claim is made, by whom,
etc.?

> 
> 
> Conformance:
> ------------
> mobileOK Basic is achieved if a given web page has passed all tests of
> the W3C based mobileOK checker, found at
http://validator.w3.org/mobile/
> mobileOK Pro is achieved if a given web page has passed all tests
> defined in the mobileOK Pro Tests document, found at
>
http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Pro-1.0-Tests/2007
> 0716

This is an important point. Content is mobileOK if it passes the tests
defined in the mobile Basic Tests document.

Running your content through the checker is a good way of verifying that
it does so pass the tests. The checker is only a reference checker and
any other checker which implements the tests is just as good. Right?
However, who checks the checkers? What does being a conforming checker
mean? And when we alter the checker test suite because we find there is
a bug, what does that say about checkers that don't pass the latest
suite or indeed any verification that was carried out using the earlier
imperfect version of the checker?

> 
> Warnings are informative only and do not influence passing or failing
of
> tests.
> 
> There is no partial conformance.
> A content author may inform the public which subset of the Best
> Practices are adhered to, but this may not be done in conjunction with
> usage of a label or trustmark.
> 
> 
> 
> Verification of conformance:
> ----------------------------
> Without certification conformance is no more than a claim and claims
can
> be made falsely.
> With certification trust is added to the claim and we speak of a
> trustmark.
> A label shared on a social network, while imbued with trust through
the
> network, looses this trust outside of the network.  As such, even
within
> a network, certified labels would be strongest in trust.
> Certification must be done by an independent third party, that is
> recognized as a certification authority.
> 
> False claims and non-conformance:
> ---------------------------------
> Deliberate false claims undermine the trust that is placed in a label
or
> trustmark.
> As such

"we'll nuke them" as Matt Womer is fond of saying?

Ref the following, I'd need to review where POWDER has got to ...

> 
> Structure of label and trustmark:
> ---------------------------------
> Visual labels:
> - a logo is a graphical representation that will possess a link to the
> W3C mobileOK checker
> - a trustmark will be the same graphical representation, with a
> distinguishing difference, that links to the certificate issued and
thus
> also and indirectly to certification authority.
> 
> Machine-readable labels:
> - a description resource must contain the following information:
> 	* which resources or group thereof does this DR refer to
> 	* who is the author of the resources
> 	* from when is this DR valid
> 	* until when is this DR valid
> 	* what is the certification authority
> 	* where is the certificate
> 	* from when is the certificate valid
> 	* until when is the certificate valid
> 	* where are one or more black-lists of false mobileOK claims
> 	* which level of mobileOK is being claimed
> 	* which mobileOK checkers, in addition to the W3C checker, have
> been used
> 
> 
> Logos:
> ------
> Logos are graphical icons similar to those used for content that is
> valid according to a given DTD.
> A content author may use such a label, for each level, if he claims
> conformance.
> 
> Description Resources:
> ----------------------
> DRs are separate RDF documents stemming originally from the POWDER
> working group.  Please refer to the appropriate documents of the
POWDER
> working group (http://www.w3.org/2007/powder/) to learn about
structure
> and usage of the DR.
> A content author may use such a DR, for each level, if he claims
> conformance.
> 
> Usage of labels and trustmarks:
> -------------------------------
> - Logos and DRs should be used in pairs, but may be used singly.
> - a logo or its trustmark must refer only to the delivery context of
one
> URI, meaning the content that is ultimately displayed on the
requesting
> device's screen.
> - a DR or its trustmark may refer to a grouping of resources, which
must
> be defined in the scope of the description resource.
> - logos may be placed anywhere on a webpage, but it is recommended to
> follow established practices and place the label in the bottom of a
web
> page.
> - a DR would be identified by a <link> element which is found in the
> header of the document in question
> 
> 
> Hierarchy of labels and trustmarks:
> -----------------------------------
> A trustmark may replace the label.
> Should trust be lost, through expiration or some other means, then the
> content author must replace the trustmark with a label.
> Should trust be regained then the label may be replaced by the
> trustmark.

Received on Friday, 15 February 2008 16:40:06 UTC