Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

+1 as well


*David Stroup*Solutions Manager
MarkLogic & APIs
Semantic Markup: Narrative, Assessment & Interactives
Content Platform and Programs

*Mobile:*  +1 585 708 9651
*Calendar:* *Link
<https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=david.stroup%40pearson.com&ctz=America/New_York>*

Learn more at *pearson.com <http://pearson.com>*

*ALWAYS LEARNING*

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Baker, Mike (Dublin) <mike.baker@hmhco.com>
wrote:

> +1 from me also.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>
> *Date: *Monday 26 June 2017 at 13:22
> *To: *Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, Matt Garrish <
> matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>, W3C Publishing
> Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
> *Resent-From: *<public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday 26 June 2017 at 13:24
>
>
>
> *This message originated from outside your organization*
> ------------------------------
>
> +1
>
>
>
> *From: *Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM
> *To: *Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>, W3C Publishing
> Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
> *Resent-From: *<public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wed, 24 May 2017 14:51:39 +0000
>
>
>
> Per usual, +1 to Matt's idea.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>    Garth
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Just curious, but was any thought given to keeping the document intact but
> dropping from a profile/specification to authoring guidance?
>
>
>
> If we strip out the reading system requirements and IMS integration, and
> reword the RFC language to recommendations, what remains could conceivably
> be published as something like "EPUB Publishing Guidelines for Education"
> (or whatever).
>
>
>
> If everything gets scattered, it only seems to make it that much harder
> for anyone to piece back together. Plus, I'm not sure how much material has
> another home (e.g., the required sectioning isn't really a fit for the
> accessibility specification or techniques).
>
>
>
> A thought anyway, although maybe this belongs in the CG now.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com]
> *Sent:* May 6, 2017 12:49 PM
> *To:* public-publishingbg@w3.org
> *Subject:* EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> For discussion on Tuesday’s business group call:
>
>
>
> After discussions among the steering committee, and with the community
> group chairs, and with IMS Global board members and staff, I would like to
> make this proposal for a path forward for the EPUB for Education (EDUPUB)
> specification:
>
>
>
> EDUPUB/EPUB for Education Proposal
>
> (referencing the current draft at http://www.idpf.org/epub/
> profiles/edu/spec/ )
>
>
>
> *Consolidate work around the EPUB 3.1 specification:*
>
> All accessibility work, the ‘Education Document Models’ (section 3),
> Annotations (section 9), Navigation (section 7), and the inclusion of
> scriptable components (section 5) or distributable objects (section 10) are
> the purview of, and stated to align with the W3C work on EPUB and future
> iterations of EPUB.  In short, we tell people to use EPUB 3.1, and future
> versions for these items.  The work done for EDUPUB is deprecated in favor
> of EPUB 3.1 and future versions.  This includes the ‘Content Structure’
> details in section 4 (in essence, the content structure details and
> associated metadata defined in Accessibility 1.0 are all that will be made
> normative).
>
>
>
> The ‘Publication Metadata’ (section 8 and the related vocabulary)) have
> value to be made normative for educational use, and should be given to the
> CG to finalize as a set of specifications for educational use of EPUB 3.1.
> Attention should be given to harmonizing this work with other W3C
> investigations, such as is illustrated in the comment at
> https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/846#issuecomment-290399200.  Where it
> makes sense, these can be rolled into a 3.1.x release. Special care should
> be drawn to the deprecation of epub type and the move to role in a 3.1.x
> release.
>
>
>
> Dealing with (section 6) outcome results flowing back to a grade book, and
> integration with educational systems needing interoperability (such as LTI)
> are not the purview of a horizontally focused organization (like the W3C),
> and should be given over to a vertically focused organization (like IMS
> Global) to standardize any needed best practices and certification
> procedures.  We should allow them to have the freedom to use the EDUPUB
> name for that set of specifications, if they so desire.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -Rick
>
>
>