Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

+1

Am 09.05.2017 um 12:16 schrieb Wolfgang Schindler:
> Hi all,
>
> in the EPUB ecosphere the host language HTML was enriched with 
> epub:type attributes to carry the structural semantics needed in 
> diverse fields (education, indexes, dictionaries, etc..). Whether we 
> express that information as @epub:type or as @role is just a syntactic 
> detail as long as the complete set of values for @epub:type from the 
> IDPF specs will be available as well-defined values for @role that 
> should be supported by any conforming RS.
>
> I think we should be very careful that we don't deprecate or supersede 
> @epub:type too quickly, before the adequate "port" of its 
> functionality to @role has been finished. I personally think we should 
> do our best not to lose  years of development of a specialized 
> descriptive vocabulary at IDPF in a quick move to another model. As 
> Matt pointed out: "We also still lack the vocabulary to make it 
> feasible to bring many of the satellite specs forward with only role, 
> and if we supersede epub:type it has to be ignored by reading 
> systems." I fully agree with this position..
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
> 2017-05-08 21:41 GMT+02:00 Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com 
> <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hello all.
>     As regards to:
>>     We could supersede epub:type, which keeps it for compatibility
>>     with older versions without generating any warnings.
>     I totally agree on this. To supersede.
>
>     Julian M. Calderazi
>     Team Leader @ DigitalBe.com <http://digitalbe.com>
>     +54 9 11 6762 7351 <tel:+54%209%2011%206762-7351>
>     Buenos Aires, ARG
>
>>     On May 8, 2017, at 14:40, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     This is what I'm waiting to hear more about. Deprecation means
>>     warnings per the specification, so part of this may be my own
>>     pedantic reading of things. We could supersede epub:type, which
>>     keeps it for compatibility with older versions without generating
>>     any warnings.
>>     No one went for that option, though, as it means duplication of
>>     role+epub:type everywhere that epub:type has significance for
>>     3.0. We also still lack the vocabulary to make it feasible to
>>     bring many of the satellite specs forward with only role, and if
>>     we supersede epub:type it has to be ignored by reading systems.
>>     Worrisome doesn't mean impossible, but if such a change were to
>>     be made it should be done asap before 3.1 takes legs without role
>>     for key content.
>>     Matt
>>     *From:*Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
>>     <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>]
>>     *Sent:*May 8, 2017 12:33 PM
>>     *To:*Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>; 'Paul Belfanti'
>>     <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com
>>     <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>>; 'Juli Calderazi'
>>     <jcalderazi@gmail.com <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>
>>     *Cc:*'Johnson, Rick' <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com
>>     <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>;
>>     public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>>     *Subject:*RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>>     I think this is a legacy-vs.-going-forward issue. Deprecating
>>     epub:type in favor of role is the right thing to do when creating
>>     new content. But there is a ton of legacy, published, distributed
>>     content out there using epub:type so it has to continue to be
>>     allowed. The new spec should encourage transitioning content from
>>     epub:type to role, and imo should also recommend that RS support
>>     both (is that an issue? I’m not an RS person). It should also be
>>     pointed out that role is preferred (required?) for accessibility.
>>     Bill Kasdorf
>>     VP and Principal Consultant |*Apex CoVantage*
>>     p:
>>      
>>     734-904-6252 <tel:%28734%29%20904-6252> m:734-904-6252
>>     <tel:%28734%29%20904-6252>
>>
>>     ISNI:http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
>>     <http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786>
>>
>>     ORCiD:https://orcid..org/0000-0001-7002-4786
>>     <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>>     *From:*Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com]
>>     *Sent:*Monday, May 08, 2017 10:46 AM
>>     *To:*'Paul Belfanti'; 'Juli Calderazi'
>>     *Cc:*'Johnson, Rick';public-publishingbg@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>>     *Subject:*RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>>     I think the comment under section 8 about investigating epub:type
>>     alternatives is supposed to be with this vocabulary.
>>     The metadata and vocabulary under section 8 is all schema.org
>>     <http://schema.org> and implemented through rdfa/microdata/json,
>>     so further integration with W3C doesn't seem applicable.
>>     (Dropping the LRMI vocabulary is noted in the appendix as a to
>>     do, so there's hopefully even less the CG would have to do.)
>>     Deprecating epub:type in a 3.1.x release after agreeing it was
>>     too big a change for a 3.x release strikes me as worrisome, but
>>     I'll wait to see how that actually plays out.. :)
>>     Matt
>>     *From:*Paul Belfanti [mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com
>>     <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>]
>>     *Sent:*May 8, 2017 10:09 AM
>>     *To:*Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>
>>     *Cc:*Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com
>>     <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>;public-publishingbg@w3.org
>>     <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
>>     *Subject:*Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>>     That’s correct, Juli.
>>     Paul
>>     —
>>     Paul Belfanti
>>     Vice President, Production, Manufacturing & Content Architecture
>>     (w) 978.639.3536 <tel:%28978%29%20639-3536>
>>     (m) 201.783.4884 <tel:%28201%29%20783-4884>
>>     *From:*Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com
>>     <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>
>>     *Date:*Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM
>>     *To:*Paul Belfanti <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com
>>     <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>>
>>     *Cc:*Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com
>>     <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>,
>>     "public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>"
>>     <public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
>>     *Subject:*Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>>     Paul, you are making reference to the structural vocabulary?
>>     Julian M. Calderazi
>>     Team Leader @ DigitalBe.com <http://digitalbe.com/>
>>     +54 9 11 6762 7351 <tel:+54%209%2011%206762-7351>
>>     Buenos Aires, ARG
>>>     On May 8, 2017, at 10:47, Paul Belfanti
>>>     <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com
>>>     <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>> wrote:
>>>     Rick,
>>>     This plan seems practical. The only thing that’s unclear to me
>>>     is what happens to the expanded semantics associated with
>>>     education content. Will that be fully deprecated, and if so, how
>>>     do we account for the structural needs of the edu segment?
>>>     Thanks,
>>>     Paul
>>>     —
>>>     Paul Belfanti
>>>     Vice President, Production, Manufacturing & Content Architecture
>>>     (w) 978.639.3536 <tel:%28978%29%20639-3536>
>>>     (m) 201.783.4884 <tel:%28201%29%20783-4884>
>>>     *From:*Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com
>>>     <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>
>>>     *Date:*Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM
>>>     *To:*"public-publishingbg@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>" <public-publishingbg@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3..org>>
>>>     *Subject:*EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>>>     *Resent-From:*<public-publishingbg@w3.org
>>>     <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
>>>     *Resent-Date:*Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:49 PM
>>>     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/
>>>     <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
>>>     <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
>>>
>>>
>>>     CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including
>>>     attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to
>>>     which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged,
>>>     and/or proprietary material. Any unauthorized review, use,
>>>     disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the
>>>     intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail
>>>     and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>
>


-- 
Bernhard Heinser
Mobile: +41 (0)79 703 37 71

Swiss Foundation Access for All / CEO
(www.access-for-all.ch)
bernhard.heinser@access-for-all.ch

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 13:02:06 UTC