W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2009

Re: PDF's usefulness to the semantic web

From: Dave McAllister <dmcallis@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:56:22 -0700
To: "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org>, Bobby Caudill <rcaudill@adobe.com>
CC: Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>, eGovernment Interest Group WG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, Christopher Testa <ctesta@ushmm.org>, Miguel Ángel Amutio <miguel.amutio@map.es>, John Sheridan <John.Sheridan@nationalarchives.gov.uk>
Message-ID: <C6138F16.10D44%dmcallis@adobe.com>
I noticed that Larry Masinter's message didn't include the larger distribution; ISSUE-18 regarding scope:

Because of the similarity of purpose, the eGovernment initiative should carefully consider reuse of the relevant definitions from the Web Accessibility guidelines in developing government guidelines. In particular:

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/


In particular

technology (Web content)
mechanism <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#mechanismdef> for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#useragentdef>
Note 1: As used in these guidelines "Web Technology" and the word "technology" (when used alone) both refer to Web Content Technologies.

Note 2: Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to synchronized media presentations to dynamic Web applications.

Example: Some common examples of Web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript.



Note that the examples of "Web content" are not restricted to "web content whose format were defined by W3C alone". It may well be that W3C may restrict its technical recommendations to formats and protocols within its control (i.e., not try to redefine the HTTP protocol) but in policy development, a realistic policy would address real-world content, as was the case with WCAG.

Larry
--
http://larry.masinter.net


On 4/21/09 1:19 AM, "Jose M. Alonso" <josema@w3.org> wrote:

Dave, Bobby,

I think we are talking about ISSUE-18 again here, what standards
besides W3C's should be added to the document. Some comments about this.

I'm sure we all agree on the usefulness and heavy use in government of
several standards beyond W3C's. Said that, here's my rational _not_ to
include those you are referring to (and others).

1) This is W3C and the document is titled? "... of the Web" and I
prefer to stick to Web standards for now. For me, e.g. PDF/A and OOXML
are not Web standards but something you can link to from the Web, as
you can link to a ZIP file. Not an expert in the field and welcome any
additional info but quite sure we could discuss for hours and hours
what is Web and what is not and we would probably have as many
versions as group participants.

2) I would like to see the Web-related use cases to add this or any
other technology and not adding them just for growing the list of
standards referenced in the document.

3) Why add only ISO ones, why not IETF ones or others'?
As an example, I recently learned about the study for the catalogue of
standards usable by governments here in Spain, and heard Miguel Amutio
speak about it saying 400 coming from dozens of bodies were analyzed.
Not to mention other similar initiatives such as the U.S. TRM.

4) We don't have a liaison with ISO and I would prefer this Group not
to make interpretations on the use of standards developed by other
organizations without discussing with them how they fit in our work.


Scoping the Group's work was a difficult challenge and I don't think
that broadening the scope now that the charter is about expire makes
sense.

I think we should disregard this for now but discuss it when
developing the 2nd charter, see if we should work on a broader suite
of standards, setup a liaison with more SDOs, etc.

One more comment, you mention:
> On reading the document several times, it seems uncleaqr if we are
> focused on transient data and remunging such, on archival and
> temporal validation of such.  I think this came through in some of
> the discussions on socila media in the last telecon.

I wish we had some text in the "Long Term" section but we don't yet.
There were former IG Members tasked to provide use cases on the
differences you mention. I remember we were going to get a use case on
"Temporal Data" but unfortunately that didn't happen.

Sticking to the Web standards part above, I think that section was
intended to talk about "Web Archiving" and maybe the closest view is
that of the draft use case John submitted a while ago -- http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/wiki/Use_Case_10_-_Persistent_URIs


-- Jose



El 09/04/2009, a las 21:41, Dave McAllister escribió:
> Actually, I think it important that we do recognize and extend to
> relevant standards. PDF (as in ISO 32000) is such, as are PDF/A, PDF/
> E, PDF/X.  There are also best practices based on such , e.g.  PDF/
> Healthcare. PDF/UA is approaching such status as well.
>
> It is interesting to note that right now neither Mars nor XPS are
> formal standards, though I suspect XPS will be approved in Ecma
> shortly (as was OOXML for th starting point of that most painful
> standard process.
>
> On reading the document several times, it seems uncleaqr if we are
> focused on transient data and remunging such, on archival and
> temporal validation of such.  I think this came through in some of
> the discussions on socila media in the last telecon.
>
> Reworking the world from PDF (to which there are numous independent
> implementations)seems counter intuitive in this best practices style.
>
> davemc
>
> On 4/9/09 11:47 AM, "Owen Ambur" <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> If PDF is expressly referenced, so too should Adobe's Mars Project
> -- http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/mars/ -- as well as XFDL -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Forms_Description_Language
>  -- and XPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_Paper_Specification
>
> Owen Ambur
> Co-Chair Emeritus, xmlCoP <http://xml.gov/index.asp>
> Co-Chair, AIIM StratML Committee <http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm>
> Member, AIIM iECM Committee <http://www.aiim.org/Standards/article.aspx?ID=29284
> >
> Invited Expert, W3C eGov IG <http://www.w3.org/2007/eGov/IG/>
> Communications/Membership Director, FIRM Board <http://firmcouncil.org/id5.html
> >
> Former Project Manager, ET.gov <http://et.gov/>
> Brief Bio <http://ambur.net/bio.htm>
>
>
>
>
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
> ] On Behalf Of Bobby Caudill
> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 10:11 AM
> To: public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Subject: PDF's usefulness to the semantic web
>
>
> Calling out PDF specifically here should be reconsidered.
>
> >From a semantic web perspective, PDF is more useful than many other
> formats, including graphics, imagery, audio and video, all of which
> are very useful formats for government to consider when becoming
> transparent. Given that documents are machine readable as well as
> human readable, technologies do exist today that are capable of
> extracting an ontology, making the information more useful to the
> semantic web.
>
> In addition, there simply are times when a secure container is
> required for publishing information. While typical internet
> technologies, such as outlined above, are very good for sharing and
> transparency, they are not necessarily always appropriate for
> information types that require assurances of authenticity, privacy,
> authoritativeness, etc.
>
> Further, is the requirement to archive PSI. Again, with
> consideration that many government processes are document based, PDF/
> a (ISO 19005-1:2005) provides a standards based approach to ensuring
> the long term preservation of government information. PDF/a based
> documents are both machine readable, making them searchable,
> discoverable and available to the same technologies as an ISO 3200
> PDF to extract ontologies. Likewise, the standard's based nature of
> PDF/a ensures the ability to allow human access to the documents
> into the future.
>
> I am concerned that this paper is limiting it's focus and not taking
> into consideration the wider view of government processes, many of
> which depend upon more traditional document formats for legitimate
> business reasons.
>
> Thank you for the consideration.
>
> Bobby Caudill
>
>
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Bobby Caudill
> Solution Architect, Global Government Solutions
> Adobe Systems Incorporated
> 8201 Greensboro Dr., # 1000
> McLean, VA 22102
> 703.883.2872 - Office
> 703.855.9945 - Mobile
> @BobbyCaudill - Twitter
> Bobby Caudill - Facebook
> www.governmentbits.com - Blog
> rcaudill@adobe.com
>
>
> --
> Dave McAllister
> Director, Standards and Open Source
> 650-523-4942 (GC)
> 408-536-3881 (Office)
> Dwmcallister (Skype, Aim, YIM)
> http://blogs.adobe.com/open



--
Dave McAllister
Director, Standards and Open Source
650-523-4942 (GC)
408-536-3881 (Office)
Dwmcallister (Skype, Aim, YIM)
http://blogs.adobe.com/open
Received on Tuesday, 21 April 2009 21:57:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 21 April 2009 21:57:40 GMT