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: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:14:36 +0000
To: "Solomon, Madi" <madi.solomon@pearson.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0f4a14160b244af4a86e54c831a7e612@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
All good suggestions, Madi! My specific responses are in <BK>  </BK> delimiters below.


From: Solomon, Madi [mailto:madi.solomon@pearson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:06 AM
To: Ivan Herman
Cc: Bill Kasdorf; W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: [METADATA] Updated draft for review

Thank you Bill for the pulling all this disparate information together to form a whole.

Here are just a few minor suggestions:

  *   I wonder if the Interviews, including my contribution, might be relegated to an Appendix?  Including them in the reports deters from the goal of the paper which is to concentrate on recommendations for the Task force moving forward. I see the interviews and reports as reference materials. <BK> Yes, that's exactly the plan. They will probably be in a separate document referenced from the main document. They actually started out that way, and got merged into the document at Ivan's request (for convenience at that stage, not to be published that way) and will be moved out as we refine and finalize this. </BK>
  *   in Primary Observations, the second-to-last paragraph starting "In thinking about metadata, it is important to distinguish..."  Do we need this here?  I understand why it's important but since you opened the document with these distinctions,  I don't think we need it restated. <BK> This is a relic of my having tacked on the new Overview section at the top without yet revising any of the rest of it. Yes, indeed, a lot of this kind of cleanup will need to be done. I was holding off partly so that we could see more discussion before doing much more revision, but also frankly because I only had time to do the Overview! </BK>

  *   Is it possible to end with a Summary following Important Themes?  In this section we could revisit the Recommendations as stated in the Overview.  This would give us specific goals to discuss with the Task force and allow details to be flushed out at TPAC, or any other meeting.  This wold include the options for schema.org<http://schema.org> as touched on in this email string. <BK> Excellent idea. </BK>
  *   In Important Themes, under my key themes, would you pleased delete the second-to-last bullet point: "Need for a Centralised Authority or Entity" as it's redundant to "Lack of Authority".<BK> Okay, will do. (Actually, Ivan, while you're merging your recent changes, could you take care of this edit too?) </BK>
Thank you again Bill for this.  We're making the best out of messy metadata.


Madi Weland Solomon
Director, Semantic Platforms and Metadata
From US: (011 44) 207 010 2335
D: +44 (0)20 7010 2335
M: +44 (0)79 7077 3449

On 30 September 2014 10:00, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:

On 29 Sep 2014, at 16:17 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote:

> 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.

This is not cast in concrete. If we feel we want to spin off the interviews into a separate document on github, that is easy to do; we can then publish it as a separate note referred to from the 'main' one. I guess this is something for later.

> 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.


In the meantime, I have made some minor editorial changes in a separate branch, see:


it is just that I separated the examples to make them clearer, and I also removed the old recommendation section (which has become obsolete). Do you mind if I merge these changes to the main branch?

> 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.

We touched upon STEM related metadata yesterday... I think it is worth mentioning.

> 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<http://schema.org> and with STM/SSP/ALPSP/AAUP/CrossRef/CHORUS/etc. people to get a journals or scholarly vocabulary into schema.org<http://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.)

Agreed on all grounds. Also, if we include some words on the RDF version of ONIX, that is probably less relevant to STEM insofar as many of the vocabularies they use (eg, for bibliography) have a version or an alternative to RDF already. I have not looked lately on whether these have a representation in schema.org<http://schema.org> (I do not think so), but it may be closer to the work done by libraries. So, if we have to make a choice, the ONIX work would probably be my favourite because it is a more serious work to do... *If* we say we do it, that is...


> --Bill
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org<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<http://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<http://schema.org> vocabulary? Are we talking about proposing new terms to schema.org<http://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?
> Ivan
> On 26 Sep 2014, at 17:32 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto: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<tel:%2B1%20734-904-6252>
>> M: +1 734-904-6252<tel:%2B1%20734-904-6252>
>> @BillKasdorf
>> bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
>> ISNI: 0000 0001 1649 0786
>> https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786

>> www.apexcovantage.com<http://www.apexcovantage.com>
>> <image003.jpg>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153>
> GPG: 0x343F1A3D
> WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153>
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2014 15:15:07 UTC

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