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

RE: [METADATA] Updated draft for review

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:17:01 +0000
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d3b104c3449440a89788da8fd2c20b19@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Hi, Ivan--

Yes, this is just the discussion I was hoping to prompt. As I mentioned in the draft, it is a draft . . . a starting point.

I had originally intended to reference all the interviews and Madi's report as a separate resource, but you had asked me to include them in the document. I think that's good for now, to make everything very accessible (in the easy-to-find sense), but I have always thought they were too lengthy to be in the report proper.

I will wait for others to comment on the list before making any changes to the document itself, but for the record: yes, of course, these recommendations need to be much more specific, I didn't want to get too specific before getting others involved in the discussion.

Also for the record: if we do want to include magazines, I can definitely contribute detail there, and we should involve the organization responsible for PRISM, namely IDEAlliance; and if we are including magazines we should include journals too, for which our STM WG will be an essential resource. An important part of the discussion is how broad vs. specific we want our recommendations to be. Focusing on just ONIX for Books means we can probably come up with something very useful sooner; but on the other hand I have always favored being as publication-agnostic as possible, so perhaps parallel initiatives with the IDEAlliance folks to get some magazine vocabulary into schema.org and with STM/SSP/ALPSP/AAUP/CrossRef/CHORUS/etc. people to get a journals or scholarly vocabulary into schema.org should be part of our recommendations. (Most likely, imo: start with Onix for Books and then use that as a model for the magazine and scholarly/STM vocabularies, rather than trying to mash them up into all one vocabulary, which would undermine their value for the sectors they're designed for.)


-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2014 7:56 AM
To: Bill Kasdorf
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: [METADATA] Updated draft for review

Hey Bill,

Concentrating on the two recommendation bullet items:

- The vocabulary/schema.org item: 
	- it is not really clear *what* is put forward here as a proposal. "develop an optimal way for book publishers to embed appropriate and useful metadata in Web content based on the well known and widely implemented ONIX model." is a bit too general for me, I think we need some more specific goals. 
	Are we talking about making the bridges with the schema.org vocabulary? Are we talking about proposing new terms to schema.org to make such bridging possible? Are we talking about contributing to an RDF mapping of (a subset of) ONIX to make it more palatable to RDFa, JSON-LD? All of the above?
	It is not 100% clear to me what the BISG group is aiming to do, and how what they do maps to these issues. Maybe Graham and/or Julie can comment on that.

	- are we talking about ONIX (ie, books) only, or do we want to enlarge the scope to magazines and such? The latter would be good, but I am not sure we can handle it...

- The 'educate publishers' item:
	- I think it is worth emphasizing that the publishers do not act in a vacuum here. We should make a survey of the various primers and documents that already exist and may be relevant to help the community finding their ways. The long discussion on identifiers is certainly an indication of the various issues that could be discussed. 

I have some editorial issues, too. I presume that, in the new structure, the current section 6 should go altogether. Is it o.k. if I do some editorial changes or do you prefer to keep the pen for now?


On 26 Sep 2014, at 17:32 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote:

> Hi, Folks-
> Based on a discussion Ivan, Tzviya, Madi and I had, I have updated the early draft of the "Metadata Task Force Report" on GitHub [1].
> The only changes are:
> --Added an Overview section at the beginning.
> --Added a placeholder for a section in which we will provide brief explanations of publishing industry terms and concepts that might not be familiar to W3C folks ("ONIX," etc.), linking to fuller explanations in a glossary at the end of the document and also to relevant web resources.
> Currently, the balance of that report is unchanged: a summary of what was concluded in the interviews Madi and I did, followed by an appendix consisting of Madi's report and my reports of the individual interviews that I did.
> Although we intend this to be the starting point for the document we will ultimately provide to the W3C, it is likely to be changed significantly.
> This is intended to be a vehicle for discussion, in three contexts:
> --Discussion of issues on the list. Please keep those issues granular: start a new thread with a new subject line when there is a new topic, prefixed by [METADATA].
> --Continual update of the document in GitHub as appropriate.
> --Discussion at the F2F at TPAC.
> Please take a look and comment. Thanks!
> --Bill Kasdorf
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/
> Bill Kasdorf
> Vice President, Apex Content Solutions Apex CoVantage
> W: +1 734-904-6252
> M: +1 734-904-6252
> @BillKasdorf
> bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
> ISNI: 0000 0001 1649 0786
> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
> www.apexcovantage.com
> <image003.jpg>

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me
Received on Monday, 29 September 2014 14:17:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:52 UTC