Re: New draft of mobileOK Scheme 2008-11-06

Yes, it is a bit problematic in my view.

a) POWDER is not yet dry and making a reference to a draft has caused us 
serious head aches in the past.

b) The license draft at present doesn't refer to a claim made in a 
machine readable way, so unless that changes I'm not sure what 
"standing" a machine readable claim has.

c) This current draft is at odds with the license in that the license 
also refers to using the string "mobileOK" to claim conformance. I'm not 
sure what this means and under my ACTION-869 have written to Rigo asking 
for clarification [off list per the resolution on forming a little "task 
force" with Dom and Rigo to sort this out].

There are a number of secondary issues, like I might want to decorate a 
link on a non-mobileOK page to highlight the fact that the link leads to 
a mobileOK rendering. I'm not sure that this constitutes a claim though.

All in all I find myself basically confused as to what the use cases are 
and what statements we might want to license people to say - and what 
usages of the logo and the word "mobileOK" do not require a license or 
at least don't require conformance to mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 [MOK] (sic).

Also see ACTION-762, ISSUE-250, ACTION-401 and ACTION-532.

I anticipate some proposed text from the Member from Suffolk addressing 
re-insertion of references to machine readable claims. Both you and he 
are welcome to join the little task force.

In this context I need to say that the organisation I represent has no 
plans to use the logo under license - so I think I have now reached the 
point where I need to understand
a) what the use cases are, as I mentioned above
b) that this is really going to get used in some way by content providers
c) that some search engine somewhere is planning to look for machine 
readable labels.

I suggest that if we are to continue this work then We really need to 
get to the bottom of this, with the idea that it all needs to be sorted 
out by Dec 1 which is the end of review for mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 
[MOK] (sic). Otherwise probably the simplest thing is to drop the idea 
of a license and the logo till we are clearer on it, and publish the 
scheme document just as a way of linking together Best Practices, 
mobileOK Basic Tests 1.0 and the Checker.

Sorry if I seem to be a bit fed up with this topic. But I am.

Jo

On 07/11/2008 09:31, Francois Daoust wrote:
> 
> I confess I'm a bit surprised to see that the section "Claiming mobileOK 
> Conformance using POWDER" was entirely removed.
> 
> My recollection of our discussion was that:
>  1. it is not mandatory to use a machine-readable claim to claim 
> conformance to mobileOK
>  2. people may still use the machine-readable claim, and that's 
> something we still want to promote as a good practice.
> 
> In short, I think the document should just provide several ways to claim 
> conformance to mobileOK:
>  - the logo
>  - POWDER
>  [ - and possibly RDFa although I'm not sure that's such a good idea 
> since there's no way to embed such a claim in a mobileOK representation, 
> leading to a pretty confusing message "Use RDFa to claim you're 
> mobileOK, but not in a mobileOK page. What ?!?". ]
> 
> Did I miss something?
> 
> Francois.
> 
> 
> Phil Archer wrote:
>>
>> Whilst I understand that this draft reflects the resolutions taken at 
>> TPAC, I would like to propose an addition to the document that at 
>> least points to the option to make the mobileOK claim machine-readable 
>> as follows.
>>
>> 2. Further Steps
>> As the previous section makes clear, the mobileOK trustmark is an icon 
>> that may be included on any Web page that conforms to mobileOK Basic 
>> Tests. However, it is possible to go further and make the claim 
>> machine-readable using any of a number of different methods, thus 
>> making mobileOK content more readily discoverable. The Protocol for 
>> Web Description Resources [@@POWDER] includes an example of how to do 
>> this in its documentation and alternatives include RDFa and 
>> microformats (@@ link to Jonathan’s work on this)
>>
>> Link to http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-dr/#evidence (this is due to be 
>> updated w/c 10 November, see it now at 
>> http://philarcher.org/powder/20081104.html#evidence
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Phil.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jo Rabin wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi folks, I have updated the Editor's draft of mobileOK scheme [1] in 
>>> line with the resolutions taken at the F2F. I did not put anything in 
>>> the document about sticking a date in the ALT test for the trustmark 
>>> as I don't recall that actually being a resolution. And anyway, I 
>>> don't understand what that is supposed to represent, how you'd encode 
>>> it and why it would be useful, what effect it would have on the 
>>> correct use of ALT and so on.
>>>
>>> I'd like to close out on this by the time mobileOK Basic Tests goes 
>>> to Rec (early Dec). A couple of  further things need sorting out on 
>>> this:
>>>
>>> a) ACTION-869 - Review the mobileOK license in more details and send 
>>> further questions to rigo [on Jo Rabin - due 2008-10-27]
>>>
>>> b) RESOLUTION: Dom, Jo and Rigo to form a subcommittee to come back 
>>> with a final proposal to the group within 4 weeks following on from 
>>> Rigo's current proposal.
>>>
>>> I'm attending to these now. Meanwhile would appreciate comments on 
>>> the latest draft.
>>>
>>> thanks
>>> Jo
>>>
>>> [1] 
>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081106
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Received on Friday, 7 November 2008 10:26:29 UTC