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

Re: comments on metadata note

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 20:12:09 +0100
Cc: "bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com" <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, "DPUB mailing list (public-digipub-ig@w3.org)" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, "madi.solomon@pearson.com" <madi.solomon@pearson.com>
Message-Id: <A2701D03-D338-46AB-83F5-02619D457660@w3.org>
To: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Hey Tzviya,

I leave most of the things to Bill, who is the main editor, only a few remarks below,


> On 22 Dec 2014, at 18:53, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.
>  

Well, the IRC channel was just to make it short...

This group is, the DPUB IG, in fact. DPUB is a bit too general for my taste...

> 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.

That was, in fact, a temporary glitch in respec, which has been settled since. All DPUB terms should now link to the glossary, exactly for the reasons that you say. Please tell me if there are terms that I did not do yet...

> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  
> 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.
>  

As Bill said, these were transferred from a google sheet.

I am not 100% in this case. Yes, it can be transformed into DL lis, something like

ISBN
    URI form (if applicable)
     Authority
    Comments
...
     ...
      
Do you think it would really make it better? It will make a fairly long list... 

But if you really think it is better, I can do it I guess (although, at this point, I do not see any other way than doing manually)

thanks!

Ivan



> 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
>  

Received on Monday, 22 December 2014 19:12:39 UTC

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