W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-apa@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Another way forward? (Just an idea for discussion)

From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 08:29:45 +0200
To: "Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org>, David Wood <david.wood@ephox.com>
CC: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, W3C WAI Accessible Platform Architectures <public-apa@w3.org>, "public-rqtf@w3.org" <public-rqtf@w3.org>, DPUB mailing list <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D53094A4.B8A5B%laudrain@hachette-livre.fr>
On jeudi 4 mai 2017 à 08:04, Liam R. E. Quin" <liam@w3.org<mailto:liam@w3.org>> wrote :
[Would the PWP spec be clearer if any references to FRBR were entirely removed?]

A manifestation in FRBR context is a publishing/librarian notion that make sense in all the book/ebook supply chain. We have an ISO ID for that : ISBN.
It is not a Web « thing ».

It is quite different from the « manifest » that the PWP UCR document uses, which in turn is very important in the vision of Web friendly format.

If something should rewrote in that PWP document, I wouldn’t vote for removing reference to FRBR.

Luc Audrain
Hachette Livre
Head of digitalization

Received on Thursday, 4 May 2017 06:30:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:55:26 UTC