Re: draft agenda, DPUB IG concall 20140609 15UTC

Hi,
> > The "E" in STEM
> I always thought the E was Engineering, not Education. Another ambiguity:
>  the S sometimes means "Science" and sometimes means "Scholarly".
> (I think it means "Science", which is why I often say "Scholarly and
> STM" or "Scholarly and STEM.")

I like referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STEM_fields.

> [3] Proposed renaming of the task forces to better align them with desired
> goals and outcomes (background and discussion on call):

I added a few use cases to the STEM section recently (chemistry, diagrams,
graphing). I'm trying to come up with something along the lines of Madi's
excellent report on metadata that I could take to the MathJax sponsors
(mostly scientific publishers). However, I found it hard to identify the
scope of the DPIG here (progressive enhancements? new standards? UA
suggestions?). I hope today's discussion will get us started towards a
clearer position by collecting potential options.

Peter.




On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
wrote:

> Re:
> >"Document UX" might be the Web version of this?
> -- I like this, although like all the proposed changes, it requires
> explanation (though not as much as "Aesthetics and Ergonomy") that what it
> is proposed to replace does not. And one thing I have always pointed out:
> the whole point of styling and layout is "Document UX." That's typography.
> Always has been, always will be. The reason things are styled the way they
> are, and arranged the way they are, is fundamentally to communicate
> distinctions between things (this thing is not the same as that thing),
> relationships between things (this thing is part of that thing, that thing
> includes this thing), relative importance (the big bold subhead is more
> important than the small italic subhead), etc. That's exactly the point of
> typography and layout. God didn't say big bold things are more important
> than small italic things, or that a big number at the top of a new page is
> a chapter number. It is a whole set of "understood" conventions (within a
> culture), and for western print typography it has evolved for over 500
> years, and drawing on an even older manuscript culture. It is not primarily
> decorative, its purpose is "Document UX". So frankly I still vote for
> "Styling and Layout". Speaking as a typographer.
>
> Re:
> > I really don't like the term Semantics if content markup is not included.
> As I mentioned on an earlier call, one reason the term "semantics" has
> gotten muddled is that it is used for both "structural refinement" (about
> the document) and "semantic enhancement" (about the content). I think most
> people reflexively think the latter when they hear the term "semantics" and
> that's why they get confused by the term "structural semantics". Liam is
> right, it's both, but for clarity I prefer to refer to "structural
> refinement" instead of "structural semantics", and leave "semantics" to
> being about the content, not about the document.
>
> Re:
> > The "E" in STEM
> I always thought the E was Engineering, not Education. Another ambiguity:
> the S sometimes means "Science" and sometimes means "Scholarly". (I think
> it means "Science", which is why I often say "Scholarly and STM" or
> "Scholarly and STEM.")
>
> --Bill Kasdorf
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liam R E Quin [mailto:liam@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 3:28 PM
> To: Markus Gylling
> Cc: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft agenda, DPUB IG concall 20140609 15UTC
>
> On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 21:15 +0200, Markus Gylling wrote:
>
> I'm sorry I can't make the call this week (dental appointment; Mondays
> happen to have had conflicts for a while).
>
> Some notes on renaming in the hope that it's of use:
>
> > Layout and Styling -> Aesthetics/Ergonomy: Layout and styling has the
> > goal of improving the aesthetics of the visual presentation of the
> > material. But in addition, much of what publishers consider as
> > aesthetics (like widow
> > control) is rooted in ergonomic issues, ie, to make the reading
> > experience as easy as possible.
> "Document UX" might be the Web version of this? I was really pleased to
> see the level of attention the document got at the recent CSS F2F, and part
> of that is because of the prominence of "Layout and Styling", so overall
> I'l be happy to keep the current name.
>
>
> > Metadata -> Discovery: Encouraging more professionally-published
> > content (starting with books) to be on the open web, even at the
> > metadata level, is an important hedge against a monoculture, and a
> > critical way for publishers to stay relevant.
> >
> > Content & Markup -> Semantics: This is a loaded term; alternatives
> > would be welcome.
> I really don't like the term Semantics if content markup is not included,
> because that carries semantics too, and a big problem in book publishing
> (as I see it) today is the "closed book" model.
>
> Of course, Cataloguing would sound like we're competing with OCLC, BL, LoC
> etc., which isn't really the case (there's some overlap with the beyond
> FRBR work at LoC though).
>
> Maybe "Description Formats" if we don't like Metadata?
>
> > Annotation -> No change
> >
> > Accessibility -> No change
> >
> > STEM -> Discussion welcome as this was re-started recently.
>
> The "E" in STEM seems to be present or not present depending on who you
> ask; I suspect this is because journals and documents targeted at educators
> are often handled by a different division in large publishers, and the ST
> and M already include A for Academic.
>
> --
> Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
> Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
> Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org freenode/#xml
>
>
>
>