W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2016

a bit more on the digital publishing use case doc (was Re: Verifiable Claims Telecon Minutes for 2016-11-29)

From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 07:16:58 -0800
To: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>, public-credentials@w3.org
Message-ID: <6291b929-e2ee-adf1-2158-4f76e0a6207e@rfc-editor.org>
Hi Tim,

Comments in-line...

On 11/29/16 3:10 PM, Timothy Holborn wrote:
> Hi Heather, > > Is this a "hypermedia package" concept?
Hmmm, not entirely sure what you mean by that. If you're talking about
packages that somehow take advantage of the semantic web, then yes,
that's likely where we are headed. Discussions are still very, very
active in the DPUB group, so if you have any specific concerns or ideas,
I know that input would be appreciated. Github issues FTW!

> > The first consideration was whether i could identify a clear >
distinction from EPUB3 related works...
EPUB3 was definitely in our minds when we crafted the use cases, but
then, so was HTML5, PDF, and the various gaps people felt existed in all
of the above.

> > Thereafter; > > My thoughts were that an array of considerations have
been made in > past about the means in which to support preservation, so
that, in > future, someone might be able to review old work even though
the > platform technologies have since developed. > > I've recently
considered the needs of archivists (ie: archive.org >
<http://archive.org> ) for content that includes RDF. It seems >
reasonable to assume that the ontology data should be included for >
preservation purposes.
An Archival Task Force was formed to try and capture these types of use
cases as well. Where possible, we made that part of the overall
document--something that wasn't a separate thing, but part of the
fundamental nature of the web publication. Some things were very
specific, however, to the needs of the archival community, and those
were put in section 3.3. If you think something is missing, the group
would really appreciate a github issue pointing out what we've missed.
The more minds we can get on this, the fewer gaps the final document
will have!

> > Other considerations in review included the scope of 'what is a >
digital publication' as that term could be used for anything from a >
Augmented Reality App, through to a HbbTV Package (a really, big >
use-case), a CMS (of sorts, or application that web-application such >
as are being developed within solid[1]) which in-turn may relate well >
to your 'going off line' requirements (as it may be that SoLiD > related
work may provide a lifecycle solution that could support > long-term
independent processing of compiled 'HyperMedia' packages.) > - perhaps
also an update to the current elearning package format?
Indeed. The scope could be taken that broadly, though I personally (not
speaking for DPUB) think that going as far as augmented reality, etc, is
a bit more than one group can tackle. We're focusing on things that are
more like traditional paginated publications combined with the myriad
enhancements one can do to a page on the web.

> > We have some very old books in our libraries and whilst not all >
cultures used books, the misunderstandings made where that was the >
case usually didn't help those who didn't have a long-term >
preservation format for their societies body of knowledge.   I was >
recently challenged with the idea of why an indigenous cultural >
computer game environment should be installed in the library not >
easily considering the merit of the concept where such indigenous >
people communicated their heritage via ceremony (rather than books); >
however even when i recognized the error in my ways, it's still >
difficult to get even the cost of the institutions electricity bills >
put towards this type of addition to the library, and therein a >
hopefully helpful set of anecdotes about the importance of your field >
of works more broadly. > > I also note; that schemaorg currently lacks
ontology for genres, > which of course covers an array of publication
formats (text, video, > audio, etc.) and whilst more sophisticated than
simply declaring > works to be 'fake' (as they may not fit into a schema
with lesser > ontological support for context) the need to ensure we're
not forging > modern methods for 'book burning' may also well relate to
both the > opportunities in how credentials works may take your
use-cases into > it's requirements (which may also fit into the
education area quite > well, auto-generation of bibliographies / >
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/2009/Clipboard/ styled functionality has > been
on the wish-list for an array of use-cases (including heritage) > for
quite sometime ). > > I guess, overall, > > Is the intention of the
definition for a web-publication support the > concepts outlined;
https://www.w3.org/2007/09/map/main.jpg ???
I've never seen that image before. I'm not really a visual learner -
give me words any day! - so I'm not sure how to interpret that 'map' to
answer your question.

> > I envisage the use of ontologies in a decentralised (ie: not within a
> social-network silo) approach may offer means to improve preservation
> methodologies.  I also wonder what the implication is for other >
technology opportunities that are not so 'preservation friendly'. > >
Who thinks about how to review a block-chain in 100 years time as a >
historian? will it even be possible?  I know of applications built > for
computers only 15 years old that don't work anymore.  I have a > feeling
mobile applications have an even shorter timespan? > > Hope something
herein helps. > > re: CREDENTIALS - A Digital Preservation Credential
UseCase is > seemingly important.  Ie: the ability to issue access to
something > for the purpose of keeping it for historical purposes,
indeed > privately (inc 'until death' styled use-case), publicly,
specified > use, etc.
Definitely file that as an issue, and perhaps talk to the group chairs
to join a call so we can discuss further!


> > Tim.H. > > [1] https://github.com/solid/solid-apps > > On Wed., 30
Nov. 2016, 7:31 am Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor), >
<rse@rfc-editor.org <mailto:rse@rfc-editor.org>> wrote: > > On 11/29/16
12:18 PM, Steven Rowat wrote: >> On 11/29/16 9:32 AM,
msporny@digitalbazaar.com >> <mailto:msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks to Manu Sporny for scribing this week! The minutes for >>>
this week's Verifiable Claims telecon are now available: >>> >> ... >>>
Shane McCarron: Here are some dpub use cases: >>>
http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/index.html >> >> I'd like to note that
after scanning through the above link to >> "Web Publications..." that
even though there are, it's true, many >> rich use-cases, the large
majority of the effort in the document is >> for the benefit of large
publishing entities. Perhaps that's not >> surprising, since an Adobe
employee is one of the Editors. >> >> For example, the first set of
usage cases given in section 2.1.1, >> concern only three: •" A large,
multidisciplinary, Web-based >> journal... • " Educational
publications... • " BigBoxCo, a large >> technology company with
extensive “in-house” documentation... " >> >> This quote from section
3.2 is representative: >> >> "Req. 19: The distribution of Packaged Web
Publications should >> respect the existing processes and expectations
of professional >> publishing channels as well as ad-hoc methods of
distribution (eg. >> email). " >> >> There is little mention of Authors,
and no mention of needing to >> trust them. >> >> In terms of Verifiable
Claims, they give only a single use case >> under "3.5.2
Authenticity—Origin of a Publication", for a Lawyer >> needing to trust
"LegalPublisher Ltd." >> >> I think that's because their focus,
appropriately enough since >> it's titled "Web Publications Use Cases
and Requirements", is on >> Publishers. And in the corporate silo
publishers' model, you trust >> the silo (whether it is Fox News or
Penguin Books or the >> Guardian). >> >> But if Authors can be Verified
and distributed individually >> through the Internet, and paid for their
work, to what extent will >> traditional, as the above document puts it,
"existing processes >> and expectations of professional publishing
channels" be >> necessary? Nobody knows.  :-) > > De-lurking for a
moment... > > If you'd be willing to note something to this effect in
the issues > list, I know we'd really appreciate the feedback! > >
https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues > > -Heather Flanagan (one of
the editors) >
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 15:18:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:32 UTC