[dpub] metadata TF recommendations

Hi All,

Bill and Madi recently published an update to the metadata publication [1]. In it they include some recommendations for next steps for the DPUB metadata task force and W3C [excerpt below].  Given the lively conversations surrounding these topics that we've seen on this list, it is surprising that there has been no commentary on this. Is this where the TF should be headed?  Are there other areas on which you recommend a focus?

Thanks,
Tzviya

The Metadata Task Force of the W3C Digital Publishing Interest Group makes the following general and specific recommendations to the W3C with regard to the use of metadata within the OWP.

 *   Enable the use of existing vocabularies rather than creating new ones. The vocabularies needed by different types of publishers vary tremendously, and in order to be effective they tend to be highly specific to certain disciplines, use cases, or sectors. A great number of these vocabularies already exist and are in wide use within the communities they were designed to serve. The role of the W3C should be to provide means to enable publishers and others in the publishing ecosystem to efficiently and effectively use those vocabularies in the three modes described at the beginning of this section. Specific recommendation: TheW3C should collaborate with BISG<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-bisg>, the Book Industry Study Group; EDItEUR<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-editeur>, the international organization responsible for ONIX<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-onix>, the standard messaging format for dissemimation of book supply chain metadata; and schema.org<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-schema.org>, which provides the most commonly used means of embedding metadata in web content; and other appropriate parties to 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<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-onix> model. The BISG<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-bisg> has already formed a Working Group to address this issue from the point of view of its US constituency, and that WG is chaired by the Executive Director of EDItEUR<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-editeur>, who can ensure that the resulting recommendations are globally applicable.
 *   Educate publishers and their partners on how best to use existing features of the OWP. While technical specifications, sometimes supplemented by primers, are already provided on such features by the W3C, these are often targeted at technical users. There is a need for much simpler, more user-friendly documentation aimed at non-technical people within the publishing ecosystem. There is also a need for much more aggressive dissemination of this information throughout the publishing ecosystem to demystify these features of the OWP and encourage their broad and proper use both by creators and recipients of metadata. Specific recommendation: Focus initially on encouraging proper understanding and use of URIs and of RDF/RDFa.
EXAMPLE 1
CrossRef<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-crossref>-which provides (among other services) cross-publisher linking from citations to cited publications using the DOI<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-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 still seldom done because of the lack of understanding of the URI by publishers and other participants in the publishing ecosystem.
EXAMPLE 2
ISBN<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/#dfn-isbn>s-the primary product identifier for books-can also be expressed as a URI. Better understanding of the URI and how to use it would be an important step in the improvement of metadata implementation within Web content and systems.
EXAMPLE 3
Many publishers who lament the lack of ability to describe their content at a very granular level are unaware of, or have only a vague understanding of, RDF and RDFa, and these technologies are seldom implemented in the systems used for the discovery and dissemination of publications. Better understanding of RDF and RDFa across the publishing ecosystem could promote the use of a technology that is currently significantly underutilized.

[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<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>