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

[Minutes] 2014-12-22 Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:09:48 +0100
Message-ID: <5499315C.8080705@w3.org>
To: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>

Hi all,

The minutes of the Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference 
dated 2014-12-22 are now available at


These public minutes are also linked from the dpub wiki

Also find these minutes in a text version following, for your convenience.


Thierry Michel



       [1] http://www.w3.org/

             Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

22 Dec 2014

    See also: [2]IRC log

       [2] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/22-dpub-irc


           Charles LaPierre (clapierre), Heather Flanagan
           (HeatherF), Tzviya Siegman (tzviya), Ben De Meester
           (bjdmeest),  Dave Cramer (dauwhe), Mike Miller
           (MikeMiller), Peter Kreutzberger (pkra), Bill Kasdorf
           (Bill_Kasdorf), Madi Solomon (madi), Ivan Herman (ivan),
           Karen Myers (Karen_Myers), Thierry Michel (tmichel),
           TimCole (TimCole),  Markus Gylling
           Vladimir Levantovsky, Alan Stearns, Frederick Hirsch,
           Phil Madans, Julie Morris, Ayla Stein.

           Markus Gylling

           Ben De Meester


      * [3]Topics
          1. [4]next meeting
          2. [5]Metadata
          3. [6]A11Y
      * [7]Summary of Action Items

    <trackbot> Date: 22 December 2014

    <mgylling> trackbot, start telcon

    <trackbot> Meeting: Digital Publishing Interest Group

    <trackbot> Date: 22 December 2014

    <HeatherF> And there's a newbie on the call.

    <ivan> scribenick: bjdmeest

    Markus: topics: metadata and a11y
    ... objections to last minutes?
    ... no? approved

next meeting

    Markus: options: 5 or 12 january

    <Karen> DBW is 13-15 Jan.

    Markus: Will enough people be around at the fifth?

    <pkra> I'll be aroud.

    <pkra> around.

    <HeatherF> I will be available for both.

    <clapierre1> yes will be there

    <ivan> I'll be around

    \me I'm available

    <Karen> Karen not available; at CES in LV

    <Bill_Kasdorf> I'll be available

    <TimCole> I'll be around on 5th

    <AH_Miller> Good dates

    Markus: allright, I will not be available, but everyone else
    seems to

    tzviya: We have a new member

    Heather: I work with publishing IETF and so on

    Markus: [gives new member advice]

    <Karen> Welcome, Heather!

    <tzviya> +1


    <madi_> [8]http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/

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

    Bill: everyone got a look at the draft of the notes
    ... We would move on with the publication, without section 2
    ... Section 2 is replaced by a glossary (appendix A)
    ... so section 2 is redundant, and section 3 will be renumbered
    ... We sensed that this TF would not uncover any serious issues
    in OWP
    ... while publishers have many metadata issues, the ground of
    these issues are not part of the OWP
    ... some things might be refined

    <HeatherF> no dropouts for me

    Bill: but the problems are :
    ... there are a gazillion vocabaries
    ... there are very specific vocabularies
    ... W3C is providing a universal framework
    ... to express those vocabularies

    <HeatherF> ah. That's a good clarification for me; I was
    wondering if/how the archivist-themed metadata might fit in all

    Bill: We found that there are many different groups working on
    similar issues
    ... we want them to express withing and between domains the
    issues they face
    ... they all need to talk to each other
    ... the second bullet point
    ... tools and manuals of how to use metadata
    ... there were 2 subprojects: how much expressions of ID as
    URIs are there, and how many works are there about RDF?
    ... Madi started with a gigantic list of Identifiers
    ... a majority of them _can_ be expressed as URIs, many of them
    _are_ expressed as URIs
    ... but tends to be siloed
    ... there are areas where certain IDs are not expressed at all
    as URIs

    <HeatherF> same

    <Karen> same

    Bill: ISBN is currently possible to be expressed as a URI
    ... In both cases, the lists are not exhaustive
    ... Appendix C also shows a list of RDF-resources
    ... one of our criteria was: would an executive read this?
    ... this list is a starting point
    ... the issue is chicken-and-egg: no-one uses it because no-one
    uses it
    ... What is needed is an expanding of these resources
    ... last point is to associate rights metadata with
    ... e.g. ODRL
    ... personally, There should be an underlying framework to work
    with multiple vocabularies
    ... conclusion: the more W3C can disseminate specs and
    technologies to increase the interoperability, the better
    ... the note also includes the interviews (as mentioned before)

    tzviya: question: who's the target audience?
    ... there is a lot of assumed knowledge of publishing _and_ OWP
    ... I think we need one perspective, and a little more targeted

    <madi_> q

    Ivan: for W3C the question is: is there any work to be done by
    ... that was the starting position

    <tmichel> who is calling from france with + ?

    Madi: I think we should have this one doc, with extra deepening

    Bill: This is more a progress reports, we don't want to
    replicate material that already existed

    TimCole: there are some very usefull documents on the Web
    ... about URIs etc
    ... One of the things that came up: what are good example URIs?
    ... e.g., Google URI is not neutral
    ... the tradeoff: do we want to include useful URIs, even
    though they are tied to organizations?

    <Karen> +1 include library communties

    Ivan: [about not including google IDs]
    ... The google way examplifies an organization that does some
    work for itself, and adds some useable URIs for itself
    ... if we do that, we should add more than just Google URIs
    (e.g., Gutenberg, Europeana, etc)
    ... atm, the current URIs are standard or from a group of

    Bill: trade publishers will say: what about Amazon?

    Ivan: indeed
    ... We can review the note in a year
    ... but now, we need to be consistent

    TimCole: do we have text in the note about those IDs (Google,
    Amazon), that explains the rationale?

    Bill: that should be good

    tzviya: Explanation about only listing the non-proprietary IDs
    would be good

    Bill: The note could be publishable with the changes mentioned?
    (leaving out section to and adding the URI explanation)

    <ivan> PROPOSED: the metadata report should be published as a
    NOTE in January

    <Karen> +1 add some context per Tzviya's suggestion

    <HeatherF> I think those subsequent projects would be useful

    Bill: question: do we want to alude to the point that we want
    to do subsequent projects?

    Ivan: ATM, I am not sure that we have reasonable chances to do
    more projects properly

    <ivan> +1

    <mgylling> +1


    <HeatherF> +1

    <laudrain> +1

    <madi_> +1

    <clapierre1> +1

    <pkra> +1

    <TimCole> +1

    <tzviya> +1

    <Bill_Kasdorf> +1

    <dauwhe> +1 with edits suggested by Tzviya

    <ivan> RESOLUTION: the metadata report should be published as a
    NOTE in January (modulo some editing)


    <AH_Miller> +1

    <clapierre1> [9]https://github.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/wiki

       [9] https://github.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/wiki

    clapierre: The wiki has three sections
    ... We are going to see which techniques are relevant for DPUB
    ... then, from that sublist, we go from the google sheets to
    the wiki
    ... as there are a lot of people working on these techniques
    ... afterwards, we will dig into the relevant techniques
    ... and look for comments, provide examples
    ... our ultimate goal is to create an accessible note on a11y
    ... with comments of what publishers should be aware of, and
    what we might need
    ... I am not sure if we need to be concerned about ARIA, except
    for UAAG WCAG and ATAG

    Bill_K: observation: what is your target audience?

    clapierre: we want guidelines for publishers, not for W3C
    ... if there are gaps, we would escalate that to protocols and
    standards, for example

    Ivan: question: whether the 3 docs (WCAG etc) cover what the
    publishers need
    ... that needs to be answered to the W3C groups
    ... this is easier than metadata, easier to separate
    ... 2nd question: what are the used techniques
    ... again, less of a problem then for metadata TF
    ... [about ARIA] that work is very different, this TF should
    focus on the current 3, and put ARIA aside for the moment

    clapierre: we just got the google sheets done, and linked from
    our wiki, now it is a matter of filtering the content
    ... we will concentrate in the first quarter of 2015 if the
    status is good

    tzviya: concern: It looks like an enormeous amount of work, do
    you have enough resources to move forward?

    clapierre: I will link to the google sheets, then everybody can

    Markus: [about whether this is the right approach] I certainly
    think they are not out of scope, this is very relevant work
    ... starting with the guideline trio is good to me
    ... covering DPUB needs in these documents using ARIA? No, ARIA
    covers very rudimentary html pages, not books or magazines
    ... we don't need to throw ourselves at that right now
    ... [about resources] what is your timeline for hitting a first
    readable version?

    clapierre: we are with a dozen or less, we could be a lot
    ... if anyone is interested, we need some extra help
    ... this TF has always had a difficulty to find people
    ... a lot of people, a lot of timezones (for organizing conf
    ... I hope to get something by the end of the first quarter
    ... Once experts have determined what is relevant, we can go
    from the google sheets to the Wiki
    ... but no fixed timeline

    Markus: So, once all google sheets are ready, they are all fed
    into the wiki?

    clapierre: yes

    Markus: There is a lot of work
    ... How can the IG stay connected to this?

    clapierre: I don't have any ideas, tzviay is on our TF as well

    tzviya: It would be good to have a (bi-)weekly telcon, maybe on
    alternating timezones
    ... to have, e.g., something finished by the end of january,
    and DPUB issues can be solved starting from february

    Markus: that concludes today, and that concludes this year
    ... next telcon on january 5th 2015

    <HeatherF> Thanks all!

    <pkra> happy holidays!

    <laudrain> happy new year

    <tzviya> happy new year

    <mgylling> +regrets Ayla

Summary of Action Items

    [End of minutes]

     Minutes formatted by David Booth's [10]scribe.perl version
     1.140 ([11]CVS log)
     $Date: 2014-12-23 09:05:07 $
Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2014 09:09:58 UTC

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