W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-bpwg@w3.org > November 2008

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

From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:30:52 +0000
Message-ID: <491AA24C.9070900@philarcher.org>
To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
CC: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>, MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>

Jo, everyone,

I'm happy with this new draft - it includes what it needs to without, I 
hope, stepping into territory some would rather it didn't.

On the issue of the logo URI: we could simply change line 15 of the 
example to:

<displayicon src="http://www.example.com/images/mobileOK.png" />

OK (in a mobile sense of course)


Jo Rabin wrote:
> 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 


Please note my new e-mail address. My ICRA/FOSI e-mail addresses will 
not function after the end of November.

Phil Archer
w. http://philarcher.org/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2008 09:38:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:52 UTC