RE: new updated roadmap available

Yes Nicolas, that's right.

And also make recommendations on what works (or should work) where, and
(shortly) why.
i.e. relation between technologies and contexts.

Thanks for summarizing!
Cheers,
Raphaël


>>> "Chevrollier, N.G. (Nicolas)" <nicolas.chevrollier@tno.nl>
02/06/2009 16:49 >>>
Hi all,

Raphael, to make sure I understand. What you are proposing is:
- main challenges (as already in Stephan's proposal)
- technologies plus and minus (as already in Stephan's proposal)
- relation between challenges and technology  + on-going innovations
and R&D outlook

If so I like it very much as putting the technology before the
challenges might be a bit confusing (as the technology addresses already
these challenges).

Best,
Nicolas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-mw4d-request@w3.org [mailto:public-mw4d-request@w3.org]
On
> Behalf Of Raphaël Dard
> Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2009 4:22 PM
> To: Renjish Kumar; Stephane Boyera
> Cc: public-mw4d@w3.org 
> Subject: Re: new updated roadmap available
> 
> Hi Stephan, Renjish and all,
> 
> Your exchange suggests an important aspect. If the group is working
on
> "mobile web for development", I guess we also need to have a small
> section on:
> - General issues/challenges the mobile solutions can/should address
(in
> the development context),
> 
> then,
> - Specific advantages and challenges of each mobile technology (i.e.
> SMS vs GPRS, etc.)
> should indeed be closely linked with
> - Major challenges for developing and accessing mobile services.
> 
> Here we need to remember that we talk about a long list of countries
> and almost as many specific contexts (including within countries
> themselves, urban/rural, etc.). We may want to categorize contexts
in
> order to point to adapted/suitable solutions.
> 
> Finally, typing content into the road map will reveal to us what
> structure makes more sense. Maybe we could also make use of internal
> document links?
> 
> Steph, what process would you suggest, so that we make the best
> collaborative writing effort?
> I know that wikipedia (mediawiki) has a discussion page attached to
> each article and it seems to do wonders. Maybe you could create such
a
> page (roadmapv2-discussion), so we centralize all the discussion
points?
> Multiplying and dispersed emails seem less efficient.
> 
> Last point to share, I found that "subscribing" to
> http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2 is quite useful as I am
> told (by email) when changes have occurred in the page.
> 
> Cheers,
> Raphaël
> 
> 
> 
> >>> Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org> 02/06/2009 10:04 >>>
> Hi Renjish,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. my views:
> 
> > Shall we bring in the technology section before the challenges?
> >
> > By this, we can summarize the status quo on available
technologies,
> > tools etc... and then discuss the challenges (which includes the
> market
> > and technology challenges), most of which you have listed.
> 
> That sounds indeed reasonable. Let's hear what other people think.
> 
> > I presume that the conclusions section will discuss the potential
> > directions to be taken? Can we have this as a separate section
before
> 
> > conclusions and then keep conclusions as a more general and brief
> > summary of the key items in the document?
> 
> In my view, the direction to be taken would appear in both
technology
> and challenges section.
> Particularly, in the challenges section, for each identified item,
when
> 
> possible, we might be able to propose workaround that possible today
in
> 
> specific cases, and more long term R&D or standardization
activities.
> e.g. for illiteracy and content in local languages, possible options
> today is to either use trusted intermediaries (e.g. VPO) or to use
> non-textual channel such as voice. On more longer term, the
association
> 
> of menaingful icons with voice annotation is a potential direction
to
> follow. so that's why i propose that future directions to be
explored
> in
> each challenge. and also in each technology when appropriate. e.g.
in
> voice, availability of fully standard-compliant free and open source
> voice browser, or definition of usability guidelines are challenges
> tied
> to a specific technology and should appear in the releated section.
> 
> best
> Stephane
> > Regards
> > Renjish
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org 
> > <mailto:boyera@w3.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Dear All,
> >
> >     as promised, i worked a the new instance of the roadmap i
> presented
> >     during last call.
> >     I tried to integrate the resolution and discussions we had
last
> week.
> >     For those who were on the call during the may 18 call, please
let
> em
> >     know if i forgot some stuff.
> >
> >     The new version is at
> >     http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmapv2 
> >
> >     i prefered to create a plain new uri. i put a deprecated flag
on
> the
> >     previous one (http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/roadmap )
> >     and link the new one from the wiki MW4D home
> >     (http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/wiki/MW4D ) and the Mw4D home
> >     (ressource section) http://www.w3.org/2008/MW4D/ 
> >
> >     all comments are welcome, and we will continue discussion
during
> >     next call (June 8)
> >
> >     Cheers
> >     Stephane
> >     --
> >     Stephane Boyera         stephane@w3.org
<mailto:stephane@w3.org>
> >     W3C                             +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
> >     BP 93                           fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> >     F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> >     France
> >
> >
> 
> --
> Stephane Boyera  stephane@w3.org 
> W3C    +33 (0) 5 61 86 13 08
> BP 93    fax: +33 (0) 4 92 38 78 22
> F-06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
> France
> 

This e-mail and its contents are subject to the DISCLAIMER at
http://www.tno.nl/disclaimer/email.html

Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 15:21:24 UTC