Re: Charter Review

On Mar 26, 2013, at 16:54 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2013, at 24:12 , Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> * I share the concerns about scoping, even with the Digital Publishing
>>> version rather than the eBooks version of the charter.
>>> 1. That the scope covers only Born Digital and not Digitized Physical
>>> or Born Digital Facsimile should be clarified, assuming that is the
>>> intent.
> 
>> 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.
> 
> In another Open Annotation based project we've done a lot of work in
> this area over the past 3 years, and there are significant issues that
> require a very different approach to the simple text-over-image
> intuition.  For example, please consider the first 15 or so slides of
> issues in this presentation from late last year:
> 
> http://www.slideshare.net/azaroth42/transcending-silos-shared-canvas-data-model-for-digital-facsimiles
> 
> Which isn't to say that it should be out of scope, and we'd love to
> contribute to such an effort, but it would expand the statement of
> work into new areas.
> 

Well, if the majority of the IG decides to take that on, I do not see a problem. I think, at this point, it is o.k. to leave this open.

> 
>> 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."
> 
> That looks like a good addition to me regardless of the resolution on
> the facsimile issue.
> 

Thanks!

> 
>> 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?
> 
> Rather than trying to say what is out of scope, it might be simpler to
> say what is definitely in scope and then allow for some creep during
> the course of the IG?  Or would that not be possible with the charter
> rules?
> 

The problem I see is that if we begin to list things 'in', how do we draw the boundaries at this point? Will we be sure that we did the right selection? Again, I think that leaving it open and then let the IG decide on whether they want to take up a particular topics. It would then really depend on the the people on the IG, their interest and expertise.

> 
>>> 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.
> 
> True, good point!
> 
>> 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?)
> 
> It might even be worth adding a new section to describe the list of
> initial use cases?
> 

Do we know them? I am not sure we can list them...

> 
>>> 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).
> 
> Authoring tools, but also the issues of multiple authorship of the
> content.  For example, if there are multiple institutions contributing
> and maintaining different aspects of the publication (Archive provides
> images, University provides transcribed text, Company provides UI and
> social aspects), the difference with the web in general is decreased
> and the scope of discussions could be much broader.
> 

Hm. I do believe authoring tools (eg, EPUB Editors and the issues with them) should be in scope.

But, I must admit, although I understand that multiple authorship would complicate the picture, I am not sure how that would affect or not affect the charter and the scope. Could you elaborate a bit more?


> 
>>> 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...
> 
> Yes...
> 
> 
>>> * 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.
> 
> 
> My concern was the second part -- that adding one more member to an
> already large WG won't have much of a voice, and if the requirements
> that they bring are seen as not relevant, then the IG would end up
> doing a lot of work with no real result.
> 
> Would it be worth enumerating and contacting the chairs of the likely
> affected WGs before hand as a sanity check on the extent to which the
> IG would need to be engaged?  Maybe it's not necessary.
> 

Let me be very formal. Although this is an IG, where these requirements are always weaker, the liaison dependency list in 3.1 is an obligation of this IG that they will have to seek advice, contact, feedback, whatever is appropriate, from the groups listed there. On the other hand, if a WG is contacted by another group, they have an obligation to react to a comment.

That is the legal aspect, so to say. But yes, an early contact is probably a good idea to ensure things are smooth. I have therefore added the following sentence to the 'Communication' section:

[[[
The role of dependencies and liaisons with various external groups is fundamental to the success of this Interest Group; the group will therefore set up active liaisons early in the process to ensure that the use cases and requirements are provided to other groups in a timely manner.
]]]


> 
>> I am not sure, however, what of this should be reflected in the charter, if anything. What do you think?
> 
> I don't think it needs to be reflected in the charter, it's more of a
> process concern than a charter issue.  And it may not be a problem at
> all.
> 
> 
>> Thanks again Rob
> 
> No problem, thanks for the invitation to be involved at this early stage!

Thanks again for your comments!

Ivan

> 
> Rob
> 


----
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 Wednesday, 27 March 2013 16:22:45 UTC