W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > April 2015

RE: case for abstract?

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:41:15 +0000
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
CC: "public-dpub-aria@w3.org" <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CO2PR06MB572BF2271996577A23F3332DFE60@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Good point. Heather, am I right that they are clearly and explicitly labelled as abstracts in the content? That has a bearing on the AT issues, imo.--Bill

From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) [mailto:rse@rfc-editor.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 10:37 AM
To: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Cc: public-dpub-aria@w3.org
Subject: Re: case for abstract?


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

FWIW, technical standards may use an abstract as well (e.g., all RFCs must have an Abstract).  The Series started with strong ties to academia, but I wouldn't label it as such today.

- -Heather Flanagan

On 4/14/15 7:29 AM, Bill Kasdorf wrote:
>

      > I agree that abstract is most commonly used in publishing in
      scholarly content, and there, almost always in journals. Books are
      just now beginning to acquire abstracts (in the past very few
      books contained them, though some did), and there they are often
      treated as metadata, not rendered content. In a journal article,
      an abstract is almost always a clearly distinguished structural
      element in the rendered content—which, btw, almost always has a
      heading identifying it explicitly as the abstract, which of course
      AT would read. And even then, in JATS, the XML model
      overwhelmingly used for almost all journal articles, the article
      abstract is in the <article-meta>, the "metadata header" at
      the beginning of every JATS XML article, from which it is
      retrieved for rendering. (Figures and tables can also have
      <abstract>s.)

      >

      >

      >

      > So imo there are better reasons to exclude "abstract" from
      the vocabulary than to include it, given the conflict with ARIA's
      use of the term.

      >

      >

      >

      > *From:*Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@bell.net]

      > *Sent:* Monday, April 13, 2015 10:30 PM

      > *To:* public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>

      > *Cc:* public-dpub-aria@w3.org<mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>

      > *Subject:* Re: case for abstract?

      >

      >

      >

      > Oops, meant to send this to the dpub ig, but keeping both
      lists on since it seems appropriate to both...

      >

      >

      >

      > *From:*Matt Garrish <mailto:matt.garrish@bell.net><mailto:matt.garrish@bell.net>

      >

      > *Sent:*Monday, April 13, 2015 10:26 PM

      >

      > *To:*public-dpub-aria@w3.org
      <mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org><mailto:public-dpub-aria@w3.org>

      >

      > *Subject:*case for abstract?

      >

      >

      >

      > In the interests of solving abstract, the first question I’d
      ask is: is it critical for the first iteration of this vocabulary?

      >

      >

      >

      > It was a term that was introduced in epub for education, and
      it seems more suited to scholarly and education publishing. I’m
      not even sure the last time I spotted an abstract outside of those
      contexts, or specifications, at any rate. We’re not trying to
      cover everything, and there are absences like dedication that seem
      more commonly usable.

      >

      >

      >

      > Should it be punted to future discussions about
      stem/scholarly, as we’ve similarly passed on assessments,
      learning-* and statement?

      >

      >

      >

      > And if anyone is using it currently in their EPUBs, please
      feel free to make a case for or against swapping in summary. I’ve
      said my fill on where I think we’ll run into ambiguity with that
      term in the other thread, but I don’t have any skin in the game
      and talking theory is about as useful as spouting hot air.

      >

      >

      >

      > Matt

      >

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVLSYlAAoJEER/xjINbZoGONMIALF8Vk1lpmOilN4/z9vssZfN
tz4IDjvqkhrXEzhFp4AzB7YoeDIjq9P456HJw/phy2jynHbI4C56MKhlOjsf1f/Q
fXva3Cyn+9dpIe0RLDShrLF7Ghtma4M5vP4EN8s0DCYmraNv13X/aWf9xwR45Aij
+C+ZsXe+saesur+yIq9YgXdNgZE12XN3fLl8HmZ6kXvIcKnOiCC3hEKJiKBAQnQs
bsvvCDrnYbHfyquW4OC7rlLs7zBoVHP0dlxKmlrQPGn5GDT492wf+mS0fEYDJL6j
Z2fFJuIA/FpDPSNBBr7B3pP9ZJOt2x9jw9ldGShoegJX+XM3GWtfUCyqzoVpDns=
=w/Jj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 14:41:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:59 UTC