Re: Charter Review

Rob, 

Thanks! Some comments/questions below...

On Mar 26, 2013, at 24:12 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> This may sound like "me too",

"Me too" is good:-) 

Seriously, we are pleased to get encouragements on what we plan to do...

> but I will try to provide some
> additional discussion especially regarding the scope issue.
> 
> * I welcome the creation of such an interest group, and I think that
> this is a very appropriate time for it.
> I think that the W3C is very well placed and motivated to ensure the
> success of the group, and has engagement from at least the majority of
> the players that are essential for that success.
> 
> * I share the concerns about scoping, even with the Digital Publishing
> version rather than the eBooks version of the charter.
> In particular:
> 
> 1. That the scope covers only Born Digital and not Digitized Physical
> or Born Digital Facsimile should be clarified, assuming that is the
> intent.
> To describe the distinction I see between these:
> 
> Born Digital:  "EBooks" that, while they might be also published in
> print, there is at least one electronic version generated directly
> from the source and it is treated as at least equivalent or equal
> expressions of the work.
> Digitized Physical: "EBooks" that are generated by digitizing a
> physical object and converting the images (and maybe text) into an
> electronic format.
> Born Digital Facsimile:  "EBooks" that are generated in an electronic
> environment, but are intended to be an access copy to a primary
> physical entity.  For example, one might make a fully digital
> facsimile of a particular copy of a physical book without digitizing
> it directly.

Great distinctions. But, though the "born digital" is the primary focus here, I am not sure we should completely preclude, say, an HTML transcription of a digitized image. 

I think the best approach is look at the "Out of Scope" section. Based on some other discussions on the charter, we already planned to add:

"This Interest Group is not chartered to work on issues and use cases that are only relevant to non-W3C Standards and Specifications (e.g., Unicode), although the evolution of those Specifications should be followed as they may influence the deliverables of the Group."

I wonder whether this would not be enough. For example, although PNG is actually a W3C standard but is not worked on, and JPG isn't, this means that issues around, say, facsimile formats and methods would pretty much be out of scope. As I said, however, if transcriptions of such digitized books do create problems (and there is enough interest and user cases for those, I might add) then the IG may very well choose to add use cases on that, too.

What do you think?

> 
> 2. Even the expanded "digital publishing" is still quite weak in terms
> of its definition.  Some genres that are unclear as to whether they
> are in or out of scope:
> - Comics, and especially Manga with its layout issues
> - Brochures or Pamphlets (at which point it's very close to just a web page)
> - How much text is required, if any? It would seem none, but then a
> photo album is in scope?
> - Is the assumption only 2 dimensional? For example electronic popup
> books with 3d pages? Or objects where consuming the work requires
> manipulation in a 3d space: the digital equivalent of a stone tablet
> or vase that carries text.
> - Is the assumption linear reading? For example pick-a-path type books
> where the reader decides on choices how to resolve the story
> - Is the assumption that there are pages? A digital scroll would be
> out of scope, but otherwise a poster might end up in scope.

Note that the 3D example is ruled out by the previous 'out of scope' entry because W3C, at the moment, does not work on 3D issues... For all the others I do not see why they would be ruled out on a charter level.

The borderline between a web page and a digital publication is indeed blurred. And I actually do not think this is a problem for an IG that does not develop specifications per se, but rather has, as a primary task, to collect use cases, requirements, etc. What the areas of those requirements will be should be defined, at the end of the day, by those who join that group. 

Do you think it is worth to add more of those examples in the charter? (Eg, in the intro section?)

> 
> 3. I assume that creation and authorship is out of scope, but should
> it be clearly stated so?  

You mean authorship in the sense of authoring tools? I am not sure it should be out of scope; working on authoring tool may very well reveal new issues (see Daniel's presentation in New York).

> Equally, the packaging side seems to be left
> out of the scope, but that would mean that distributed maintenance of
> the resources that make up the ebook is in scope?
> 

If packaging is an active work item at W3C, then packaging is very much in scope in my view. There is a discussion whether EPUB should be seen as a standard web site packaging format...

> 
> * It would be good to include NISO in the other interested
> organizations, assuming that Todd Carpenter agrees.
> 

Absolutely, thanks for that.

> 
> * My final concern is the ability to gain traction in other WGs.  As
> the IG would not develop specifications, it relies on the existing WGs
> to take the IG seriously and make whatever allowances are needed.
> This seems like it may require direct W3C intervention to clarify the
> status of the IG as something to be engaged with and taken seriously,
> otherwise I could see (as a very hypothetical example) the HTML5 work
> simply ignoring any requirements the IG proposes.
> 

Yes. That will, at this moment, require the intervention of the W3C team, members, WG chairs, etc. For new charters, an explicit liaison to this new IG should also be added. Note that one of the success criteria in the charter is that members institutions of the IG should also join the relevant Working Groups; they can also influence, as member organizations, other Working Groups through AC votes, for example. The key here is to make the publishing industry more active at W3C which is, after all, the ultimate goal of this IG.

I am not sure, however, what of this should be reflected in the charter, if anything. What do you think?

Thanks again Rob

Ivan

> 
> Hope that helps, and apologies for the lateness of the review.
> 
> Rob Sanderson
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2013 08:53:44 UTC