- From: Phil Archer <phil@philarcher.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 09:30:52 +0000
- 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) Phil. 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