- From: Stephane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 17:26:46 +0200
- To: Renjish Kumar <renjish.kumar@gmail.com>
- CC: public-mw4d@w3.org
Dear Renjish, thanks a lot for the comments. some answer below > a. abstracts shouldn't include section numbers. right, i removed them in the last draft > b. exec summary should always be placed before the > introduction because the section literally means for the execs or those > who require a snapshot of the essence of the document without sifting > through the individual chapters..... discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft > c. Scope of the document should be placed before the "challenges" > section since the scope draws the boundaries for the audience before we > get to the subject matter. Correspondingly, some of the scope related > comments written in various sections (mostly as NB) should be > incorporated in to the scope section. discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft > d. I had indicated the creation of a separate section for definitions > and also the candidates for this section > (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mw4d/2009Sep/0009.html ) discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft > e. There should be a consistency in the usage of the term > representing "mobile for social development" across the document... > somewhere we have used mobile for ICT development, somewhere MW4D, and > so on... may be we can decide on a single term that represents this for > the sake of consistency... good point. i'm adding that as part of the proof reading exercice. > f. For both the tables in exec summary, care should be taken that the > colours chosen are reader-friendly when print out is taken in black and > white... that's a good point too, i will add a printing css to remove colors, and make clear statement in the wordings > g. Considering that the document will be read by many as printed > copies, I think we should place the reference links explicitly in the > reference section as opposed to being embedded as is the case now..... good point too. i will work on that. > h. In the Audience section, I felt that Donor's role is similar to > that of R&D Organizations/Foundations etc...hence added Donors to that > role... also reordered the existing audience list to start with the > practitioners/developers and then to those who use these applications.... discussed today and agreed. to appear in the next draft > Comments on the content of the text: > > In Table 1 (Exec summary section): > > Regarding the column discussing the cost of service...... > > "Value" is a loaded term which means the value perceived or received by > the end-user for a service... and this is different from the "cost" > which the price of the service.... End-users may find some services of > higher value than the cost or vice versa... In short, cost and value do > not mean the same and what we are probably trying to say here is about > the cost and not value... so we should replace cost with Tariff (in the > first row) and then replace value with cost (in the second row)... so > that we mean Tariff predictability and Tariff cost. i see what you mean. I agere that value is not well used here. I'm not fond of tariff. will try to come with something. > In section 6.1.3: > > Regarding the statement on lesser-known languages...... > > I think we need to be explicit on what we mean by lesser-known > languages... Perhaps explictly mention that these are languages > lesser-known (though may not be less spoken) to the majority of the > developer communities active on the ICT domain. good point. Will mention that as a note in this paragraphe > In section 6.1.4: > > Regarding Portals vs. Mobile widgets.... > > I am unsure as to whether we can suggest Portals as always closed and > mobile widgets as always open.... Is it unrealistic to consider portals > with mobile widgets? This is perhaps related to the whole debate/hype of > app stores but I see it more as a business model shift.... At the end of > the day are app stores also not some kind of portals? > i completely agree with that. i do think that app or widget stores are indeed portals. they are also a business model. so will try to reflect that in the wording > In section 6.1.5: > > Regarding statement on billing support for USSD ..... > > USSD enabled services can be charged though USSD per se cannot ..... ok > In section 6.2.4: > > Regarding costs for service providers..... > > Why is there no cost of delivery for data services as suggested in the > document? well, there are today tons of free hosts where you can put your web site for free. so the service provider in such cases don't pay for the delivery. > Regarding voice and SMS, it's not always based on who initiates the > call. Reverse billing is also possible in the cases where the service > provider incurs all the cost....Correspondingly in "service delivery > model" section, the statement suggesting SMS services cannot be offered > free unless through broadcast should be changed. sure. i thought i mentionned that, but i will revisit this piece. > Finally, in section 9: > > I think the issue of developing standard interfaces for integrating SMS > & Voice to Web will be critical (as more and more information is updated > and added to the web) and therefore needs to be highlighted (perhaps in > the R&D actions) voice is integrated to the web already with voiceXML. do you see anything else needed ? integrating SMS to the web, i'm not sure what you mean ? for instance lots of SMS hub are able to query a service on the web and send back the result to an SMS. SMS is jsut a communication mechanism more that a real technology for services right ? or am i missing something ? Thanks a lot again for all these very good comments Best Stephane -- 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
Received on Monday, 28 September 2009 15:26:46 UTC