W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > August 2017

Re: Identifying a book on the Web today

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 06:54:57 +0200
Cc: Baldur Bjarnason <baldur@rebus.foundation>, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>, David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <191DA62E-1E6F-4B29-98D9-D597D152B846@w3.org>
To: MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>

> On 3 Aug 2017, at 23:10, MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>> wrote:
> 
> Oops.  I made a big mistake.  Let me try again.
> 
> I am talking about both primary and secondary resources within PWPs. 
> I would like them to be first class citizens of the web.   This allows use 
> of fragment identifiers, annotations, etc, and  thus provides smooth 
> transition between PWPs and WPs.

From a WP point of view, there is no difference between a primary and secondary resource insofar as they are all resources on the Web. I would actually turn things around: _all_ the resources that we are talking about are part of the Web in the first place, they are nothing special; what WP means is a conceptual step _on top_ of all those resources to group them together to form a single conceptual entity. To give some extra structure to those resources, so to say, without changing any of those resources in any significant manner. (The only change that might occur is the addition of some metadata.)

For PWP the situation is a little bit more complex because the package may be 'elsewhere', ie, not on the Web but, if we regard (which I think is the case) a PWP some sort of a frozen version of a WP through some packaging, then the internal structure of a PWP would 100% reflect its 'exploded' WP ancestry. 

Bottom line: I do not see the problem. But that may only be me.

Ivan






> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 2017-08-04 5:55 GMT+09:00 MURATA Makoto <eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp <mailto:eb2m-mrt@asahi-net.or.jp>>:
> 
> 
> 2017-08-04 0:19 GMT+09:00 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>:
> 
> 
> For the time being we are talking about WP-s and not PWP-s (ie, packaging is not yet discussed). WP-s, clearly must be first class citizens on the Web. PWP-s probably, but how packaged are handled may be a different issue.
> 
> I am talking about secondary resources within PWPs.  I would like them to be first 
> class citizens of the web.   This allows use of fragment identifiers, annotations, etc.
>  
> 
>> If this is accepted as a desideratum, we will then have to provide a mechanism.
>> I think that a new URL scheme for PWP is a candidate of such a mechanism.
>> Thus, I do not want to shut the door for such a URL scheme.
> 
> I am not sure I understand how a new URL scheme comes into the picture. I actually do not even understand what you mean by a new URL scheme:
> 
> - Does it mean that we would have publ://aaa.bbb.ccc <> ? Ie, we would have to define a new protocol instead of HTTP? 
> 
> 
> Yes.  This is orthogonal to locator-independent URLs. 
> 
> But I do not want to discuss such a scheme now.  I would like to know 
> if secondary resources in PWPs should become first-class citizens of 
> the Web.  I think that this is crucial for the smooth transition between 
> PWPs and WPs.
> 
> Regards,
> Makoto
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Praying for the victims of the Japan Tohoku earthquake
> 
> Makoto


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 04:55:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:49:06 UTC