- From: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:00:10 +0000
- To: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- CC: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Another day another version. Hi Phil I took your amendments and spread them around the docuument a bit. Hope it suits your points in 1. Ref 2. I think we probably don't want people referring to the W3C copy of the PNG, at least that's what we say in the previous section ref visual indication. http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081111 Jo On 11/11/2008 11:02, Phil Archer wrote: > Jo, taking your comments on board... > > I've uploaded an edited version of the doc to [1] - obviously > temporarily. In it I have: > > 1. Amended section 2.2.1 on RDF to firstly correct the triple (we'd > missed off the 'Conformant' bit at the end) secondly, to add a line that > links that section to the following one on POWDER. > > Why include the RDF bit at all? > > - because it's good practice to create a human readable document that > defines what terms in a vocabulary mean > - because the mobileOK vocabulary states that it is defined in this > document > - because triple stores (RDF data sets) can describe anything, whether > there is a link to that data or not, just as I can comment on, say, > Barrack Obama, even though we've not met. > - because the POWDER method described uses the vocabulary to make the > claim. > > 2. Amended the POWDER example to give the correct URI of the logo. > > 3. Amended the text talking about HTML link to a) update the rel type > (we're going to use describedby, not powder) and note that not all > versions of HTML support the profile attribute (HTML5 is bent on killing > it off). > > 4. Added a single line about HTTP link with an example and a link to the > current Internet Draft. > > [1] http://philarcher.org/mobileOK/20081111.html > > > Jo Rabin wrote: >> >> Thanks Phil >> >> > 1. No, there's no linkage to the RDF - the example triple is just a >> > triple that could occur in any RDF data set. It would be unlikely to >> > exist on its own and you wouldn't link to it as such. >> >> OK so I am unclear why we are telling people this information in this >> document? Seems to be "If you want to make an abstract statement >> unconnected to your actual content not accessible by any means >> described in this document _and_ you want to use RDF, this is how you >> might do it?" Sorry if this seems flippant, but seems to be probably >> something that confuses rather than helps your average "Joe". Perhaps >> we should remove it. >> >> > 2. Do you really want to omit mention of HTTP Link here? >> > http://philarcher.org/powder/20081110.html#httplink. We plan to >> leave it >> > in the document even if we end up having to flag it as informative. >> >> No, I guess we ought to say something, but what? >> >> Jo >> >> On 10/11/2008 20:40, Phil Archer wrote: >>> >>> >>> Jo Rabin wrote: >>>> OK folks, here is another shot at it. Machine readable claims back in. >>>> Still needs to be aligned with the license. Some bits missing still >>>> too. >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2005/MWI/BPWG/Group/Drafts/mobileOK-Trustmark/20081110 >>>> >>>> >>>> I think Phil wanted to have some aspects of the POWDER stuff >>>> changed, but regret that I can't find his email on the subject, >>>> despite frantic Google Desktop searching. >>> >>> Jo, let me put you out of your misery: >>> >>> The example in the version you've posted was written pre-TPAC. Now >>> that we have the URI of the logo, and now that I've put the relevant >>> POWDER doc through the spill chucker, the example at: >>> >>> http://philarcher.org/powder/20081110.html#eg5-3 >>> >>> is correct (this version of the doc has now been handed over to our >>> team contact (Matt) for publication so this is very much a temporary >>> URI and SHOULD NOT normally be referenced!). >>> >>> Two more things: >>> >>> 1. No, there's no linkage to the RDF - the example triple is just a >>> triple that could occur in any RDF data set. It would be unlikely to >>> exist on its own and you wouldn't link to it as such. >>> >>> 2. Do you really want to omit mention of HTTP Link here? >>> http://philarcher.org/powder/20081110.html#httplink. We plan to leave >>> it in the document even if we end up having to flag it as informative. >>> >>> Apart from that, I'm happy. >>> >>> HTH >>> >>> Phil. >>> >>>> >>>> Ref Francois's comments: >>>> >>>> 1. OK >>>> >>>> 2. That's not clear to me from reading the license. >>>> >>>> 3. Think we need to in view of section 2. reading "Claiming mobileOK >>>> ..." >>>> >>>> 4. I still don't understand why a machine testable claim needs to be >>>> included to reveal a machine testable condition. Further, ref CT, >>>> the claim says that a mobileOK representation is available at the >>>> URI, not that this representation is mobileOK. So I am not clear >>>> that this is very useful in that context either. >>>> >>>> 5. No that wasn't what I meant really. More that I think that the >>>> world could possibly be a better place if we had a way of sites >>>> expressing their site map and including where various sorts of >>>> mobile content are to be found. The point being that mobileOK >>>> content is just one sort of mobile friendly content, and you might >>>> be looking for a more advanced experience. Per discussion on CT list >>>> we need to develop a vocab to do that. Telling folks to put a >>>> machine readable mobileOK claim on and then later telling them to do >>>> it in a different way, possibly not that helpful. >>>> >>>> Jo >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/11/2008 17:46, Francois Daoust wrote: >>>>> A couple of "IMO" thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> 1. mobileOK Scheme is to be published as a Working Group Note, so >>>>> for once I would not worry too much about making a reference to a >>>>> not fully existing POWDER spec. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. The license draft specifies the conditions that must be met to >>>>> be allowed to use the trademarked "mobileOK®" string and the >>>>> trademarked mobileOK logo to claim conformance to mobileOK. The >>>>> claim could be made on paper, on a bus, on some other page, >>>>> whatever. There may be other claims that don't make use of this >>>>> trademarked material. >>>>> >>>>> In particular, there is no trademark on the machine-readable claim, >>>>> I don't think there can be one, and I don't think that's necessary >>>>> to be able to go after someone mis-using the >>>>> "http://www.w3.org/2008/06/mobileOK#conformant" URI. But a legal >>>>> view on that could be helpful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. About using the "mobileOK®" string, I don't think it is required >>>>> that we define it in the mobileOK Scheme document, but equally >>>>> agree that it looks odd that all possibilities mentioned in the >>>>> license do not show up in the mobileOK Scheme doc. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 4. About telling whether this will be used by anyone, I agree with >>>>> Phil. There were some use cases listed in previous drafts. Whether >>>>> any of them will actually be put into practice is difficult to say. >>>>> It could be useful, which is what I think is important. I'd say we >>>>> should stay silent on this and focus on defining ways to claim >>>>> mobileOK conformance. It could have a direct use in the Content >>>>> Transformation Guidelines. Plus people tend to enjoy saying they >>>>> conform to this and that, so we'd better specify means to make this >>>>> possible. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 5. about wrapping the mobileOK claim into something of more general >>>>> utility, I understand it as referring to the "aspirational" level >>>>> we've been talking about. I don't remember: did we ever resolve to >>>>> drop it? I think it's, in any case, something that is distinct from >>>>> the "real" mobileOK claim, and that it would need a different logo, >>>>> string, and/or machine-readable assertion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In short, I second Phil's proposal: i.e. the same document as the >>>>> latest one completed with the previous sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 for >>>>> the RDF vocabulary class and POWDER reference. >>>>> >>>>> Francois. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jo Rabin wrote: >>>>>> On 07/11/2008 10:59, Phil Archer wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jo Rabin wrote: >>>>>>> [..] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I anticipate some proposed text from the Member from Suffolk >>>>>>>> addressing re-insertion of references to machine readable claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See e-mail sent late last night: >>>>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-bpwg/2008Nov/0010.html >>>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks! (Makes mental note to read last night's email before >>>>>> sending out today's email) >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here's what one rather large search engine told me on a recent >>>>>>> visit to Silicon Valley: You create the data, make sure it's not >>>>>>> full of spam, and we'll use it. But don't expect us to make a >>>>>>> public statement on the issue to help you on your way. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, if you want a search engine or two to make a >>>>>>> statement about the usefulness of mobileOK, or any other >>>>>>> machine-readable label, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think there is a difference between mobileOK and general machine >>>>>> readable labels. Today (and remember that things have moved on >>>>>> since we started discussing this three and a half years ago) >>>>>> mobileOK contains only machine testable aspects. So a search >>>>>> engine that is truly interested in whether a site is mobile >>>>>> friendly is likely to test it. Ours (find.mobi) does at least. >>>>>> >>>>>> To my mind this is rather different from using labels to express >>>>>> judgements that cannot be determined by a machine other than by >>>>>> reading the label. To me this is what labels are useful for and >>>>>> naturally I comment your and POWDER's work in this very important >>>>>> area. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we still had a non machine testable aspect to mobileOK then I >>>>>> think the labelling stuff would be very useful. As things stand >>>>>> today I think labelling is at best moot in respect of mobileOK. >>>>>> >>>>>> So far as it being used by browsers, well, from a mobile browser's >>>>>> perspective finding a label on content it has already retrieved is >>>>>> really all too late, isn't it? >>>>>> >>>>>> However, on this theme, I also think that labels are going to be >>>>>> very useful indeed for labelling sites for the discovery of mobile >>>>>> friendly content - of various kinds, where mobileOK is just one >>>>>> very basic type of mobile friendly content. To my mind this is one >>>>>> of the major unresolved issues to come out of the CT work, to >>>>>> which it is also relevant. So perhaps it would be sensible to wrap >>>>>> the mobileOK claim into something of more general utility? >>>>>> >>>>>> Jo >>>>>> >>>>>>> before you decide to use it, you'll never decide to use it. If, >>>>>>> however, you really want search engines to have an easy way to >>>>>>> identify mobile-friendly content, and if you want to encourage >>>>>>> content providers along a route that ends up with more mobile >>>>>>> friendly content that they can advertise as such, then you need >>>>>>> to create the best platform possible for that to happen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems to me that, given the feelings expressed around this >>>>>>> issue and the fact that, for all our best efforts, POWDER is >>>>>>> going to be at PR, not Rec, next month, that including some >>>>>>> examples of what you MAY do to make mOK machine-readable in this >>>>>>> doc is a pretty basic step that we can take without upsetting the >>>>>>> apple cart too much or creating dependencies we could do without. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 Tuesday, 11 November 2008 18:01:41 UTC