W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > October 2016

Re: *Possible* additional use cases

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2016 15:49:25 +0000
To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E521F21B-D5DF-4ECB-860B-9624400B1727@adobe.com>
I was trying, for the current document, to only have ones that worked for both.  Once we split the document into WP and PWP, then we can/should add cases that are specific…

Leoanrd

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Friday, October 14, 2016 at 10:42 AM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: RE: *Possible* additional use cases

Why do use cases have to apply to both the packaged and unpackaged states? If a publisher has a need to do X, even if that only applies to the packaged state, isn't that still a legitimate use case?

Maybe what you're saying is not that it isn't a legitimate use case, but that it is out of scope for (P)WP. Well, okay, but that means that we are knowingly disregarding something that publishers say they need.

Bill Kasdorf

VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage

p:

734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786

ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>


From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:19 PM
To: Garth Conboy; Ivan Herman
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: *Possible* additional use cases

#1 – we had one of these use cases and I removed it as it was very tied to the packaged approach.  Your version is better, but still needs a bit of wordsmithing before it could apply to both packaged and non-packaged.

#2 – Agreed with Garth.  It’s a very good idea, but very difficult to accomplish.  It also is only tied to the package world (and in fact is the crux of the security discussion problems).

#3 – We had some of these in the original set and I removed and/or rewrote them as Marcos, Mike and others made it clear that we should NOT be putting anything on User Agents, but instead should focus on the WP itself.   I’d like to keep to that.

#4 – That’s already in there in a few other use cases (certainly distribution but a couple other ones as well)


Leonard

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>>
Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:13 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: *Possible* additional use cases
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 2:13 PM

Hi Ivan,

Thanks.  Is you plan to discuss these on the mailing list or have them be topics for a future DPUB IG Call?

My first off the cuff reactions to each (from top to bottom, on a scale of one [don't include] to ten [certainly include]) would be:

#1 - 7 (assuming the PWP has been authored in such a manor to provide this data)
#2 - 2 (doesn't seem practical, given our online, offline, off-web use cases; though perhaps there is an authoring time solution)
#3 - 5 (perhaps noble)
#4 - 9 (forward compatibility with the existing EPUB ecosystem)

Best,
   Garth


On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 4:56 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
Dear all,

as we said on our last call, there may be some new use cases that popped up during the github discussions of the last month. I went through the open issues to see what were raised there. I haven't yet compare it to the latest version of the UCR to check whether these are really new requirements (at first glance they look like it) also because that document is still kind of a moving target. However, I did not want to unnecessarily pollute the github repo either; so I copy the 4 use cases I extracted in the mail below for first sanity check. I will put as explicit issues the ones that we agree upon as o.k. (any linguistic/grammatical changes are welcome); we can then take care of them when both Leonard and Heather declare victory in the big set of changes.

With that, here they are:

Req XXX: the user agent should be able to verify that the (P)WP has not been tampered with at delivery.

The author/publisher should be able to provide information (cryptographic hash, blockchain entry, etc.) usable by a user agent to check the content is genuine and has not been tampered with.

Use Case:

- LegalPublisher Ltd. regularly publishes the official legal texts and regulation as decided by the local government. Michael, who is a lawyer, has access to these documents via his law firm, and uses them for his cases; to do so, he must be 100% sure that the publication he accesses faithfully reproduces the latest governmental decisions.

(Related to, and mentioned in issue #110)


----

Req XXX: the user agent should be able to verify the exact origin of the publication.

The author/publisher should be able to provide information (signature, identifier, etc) that can be served, and checked, as a unique identifier of the origin.

Use Case:

- Michael, who is a lawyer, and uses the publications of LegalPublisher Ltd., must be 100% sure that the publication he uses for his case has indeed been published by LegalPublisher Ltd., and not by a possible third party.

(Related to, and mentioned in issue #110)

----

Req XXX: Any genuine user agent must be able to provide a usable view of a Web Publication albeit, possibly, without the full functionality that a WP provides

A full-blown, WP aware user agent may use a number of information incorporated, for example, in the manifest of a Web Publication (e.g., separate table of content control, visual representation of the publication's metadata information like ISBN-s or DOI-s, etc.). However, not all user agents are necessarily WP aware. Nevertheless, the structure of a Web Publication should provide a graceful degradation for these cases and not make the presentation of the publication impossible.

- Ossi has access to a technical Web Publication on the Web. However, he is working from behind a corporate firewall, which does not allow him to install the necessary browser extensions to manage all features of a Web Publication. Nevertheless, even without this extension, he is able to get to the essential information of the document which allows him to do his work.

(Related, albeit loosely, to issue #110)

----

Req XXX: there is need to send a Web Publication from A to B over different media, not only Web protocols.

Use Case:

- Dave is reading Moby Dick on his tablet (at home with network connectivity). He then jumps on a plane with his good friend Tzviya. After having finished reading the book, he wants to lend it to Tzviya, so that she can start reading on her own tablet. They are both offline, but can exchange data with SD cards or Bluetooth.

(Related, albeit loosely, to issue #113)

Comments, please…

Thanks

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153>
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Friday, 14 October 2016 15:49:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:44:46 UTC