W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > December 2014

RE: comments on metadata note

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 18:37:12 +0000
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, "madi.solomon@pearson.com" <madi.solomon@pearson.com>
Message-ID: <CO2PR06MB57231A5ED9AF2BF18AF25FFDF560@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Thanks for this feedback, Tzviya. My comments in <BK>  </BK> delimiters below.

--Bill

From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 12:54 PM
To: Bill Kasdorf; DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org); madi.solomon@pearson.com
Subject: comments on metadata note

Hi Bill and Madi,

Thank you for all your work on the metadata note [http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/]. As I mentioned on the call, I have some edits that I hope will be easy to execute. Some of these are just picky.

I recommend against including phrases that indicate time. For example, eliminate the phrase, "new annotations WG", because it immediately dates the document.

Can we make a decision about DPIG vs. DPUB? This document refers to DPIG. Our IRC channel and such use DPUB. I vote for DPUB.
<BK> I have always been confused about this. We are the Digital Publishing Interest Group, so I thought the official acronym was DPIG. I thought DPUB was just a colloquial usage that's easier to say. But if DPUB is the official acronym, then I stand corrected. The main issue is how this IG should be identified within the context of the W3C, the audience for this document. I'll go whichever way the leadership tells me-and you're one of the leaders. ;-)
</BK>

Audience:
As discussed on today's call, this document is targeted at a W3C audience. We will assess at a later date whether there will documents targeting a publishing audience. That being said, I think this document assumes a bit too much familiarity with publishing. A way to alleviate that is to link to the defined terms in the appendix. I think it would also be helpful to eliminate or reword some of the statements that end up sounding like commentary.

See "Example 1".
CrossRef-which provides (among other services) cross-publisher linking from citations to cited publications using the DOI [link to definition of DOI] (the identifier that has become fundamental to the scholarly publishing ecosystem)-has for some time recommended that DOIs always be expressed in the form of a URI. However, this is inconsistently done because of the lack of understanding (perhaps change to familiarity with?) of the URI by publishers and other participants in the publishing ecosystem and the large number of existing published DOIs expressed in the previously recommended format, which was not a URI.

I think doing this will neutralize the document as well as make it briefer.

<BK> I disagree on the edits on the para about CrossRef. The suggested deletions are not commentary, they're explanatory. Those parenthetical comments are there specifically _because_ the audience is largely unfamiliar with CrossRef. Thus we don't want to leave the impression that citation linking is its only service; in my experience most folks in the tech side are pretty unfamiliar with the DOI (in fact I will have to say most have not heard of it unless they deal with STM publishing or other specialized areas); and most importantly, the issue is NOT just that publishers don't have a good understanding of the URI, it is an issue across the publishing ecosystem (and I think the right word is understanding: they are familiar with it, but I am constantly asked what's the difference between a URI and a URL and a URN: they know it exists but don't understand what it is). So I would really prefer not to make the deletions you suggest. </BK>

Section 1.1 "...in the three modes described at the beginning of this section."  - I am a little unsure about what the three modes of publishing are.
<BK> They are the three bullets that begin Section 1, the very opening of the document:

  *   Metadata that is incorporated within a publication (e.g., an EPUB, a website).
  *   Metadata that is separate from the publication or publications it describes (e.g., the periodic "metadata feeds" that publishers provide to the supply chain).
  *   Metadata that is incorporated in systems designed to provide information about publications (e.g., a publisher's, retailer's, aggregator's, or library's website).
</BK>

Appendix B & C
As part of my goal of eliminating tabular objects that do not need to be tables, please consider making this thing called a list into an actual list. Imagine reading this on a phone or with AT.
<BK> Since Ivan created those from the Google Doc worksheets we used, I will defer to him on this. </BK>

Please let me know if I can help in any way,

Thanks,
Tzviya

[1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/

****************************
Tzviya Siegman * Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead * John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
111 River Street, MS 5-02 * Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774 * 201-748-6884 * tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 18:37:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:53 UTC