Scope of the STEM Task Force

From: Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 12:29:04 -0500
To: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <027701cf8988$811f8d80$835ea880\$@illinois.edu>
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 14:59 +0200, Peter Krautzberger wrote:

...

I added a few use cases to the STEM section recently (chemistry, diagrams,
graphing). I'm trying to come up with something along the lines of Madi's
excellent report on metadata that I could take to the MathJax sponsors
(mostly scientific publishers). However, I found it hard to identify the
scope of the DPIG here (progressive enhancements? new standards? UA
suggestions?). I hope today's discussion will get us started towards a
clearer position by collecting potential options.

Peter.

...

My comment (in response to your post last week and to tail end of today's
discussion) that I was going to make when we ran out of time on today's
call:

I think the idea of seeking priorities, identifying additional use cases and
vetting use cases so far gathered via interviews along the lines of what
Bill and Madi did with metadata [1][2] makes good sense, but I wonder if we
should also consult as stakeholders in addition to publishers a few
researchers, librarian types and other consumers/authors of published STEM
content  as well. For example in regard to mathematics I'm thinking in
publishers) about people like Ingrid Daubechies and Cliff Lynch who
co-chaired the NAS/NRC Committee that produced the recent "Developing a 21st
Century Global Library for Mathematics Research" report [3], or Peter Olver
who also was involved in that report and who chairs the International
Mathematics Union's Committee on Electronic Information and Communication.
(Full disclosure, I am a member of the CEIC and was also involved in
creating the NAS/NRC report, which is why these names come so quickly to
mind - obviously there are others as well.)

I don't want to make the process of further data gathering unwieldy, and I
don't want to dilute publisher inputs, but I think these additional sources
would provide some complementary insights regarding use cases and
priorities. I'd be happy to help with regard to data gathering for
mathematics, and I think I could also get some help here as well for
Engineering data gathering. (For the moment I'm using the most common
NSF-DUE definition of  STEM as Science, Technology, Engineering and
Mathematics, [4] though I realize we're still figuring this out.)

Anyway, that was the gist of the comment I was going to make when the clock
ran out - looking forward to next week's call and happy to be of help if
needed with the work of your task force since this is an area of long-term
interest here at Illinois.

Tim Cole

University of Illinois at UC

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2014Apr/0062.html

[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2014Jun/att-0000/The_M