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

Re: case for abstract?

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:52:03 +0200
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0C192262-A1F2-48E0-AC96-9E20A53A836C@w3.org>
To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Indeed, all W3C documents must have an abstract! :-)

Ivan

> On 14 Apr 2015, at 16:37 , Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) <rse@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> Signed PGP part
> 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
> > *Cc:* 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>
> >
> > *Sent:*Monday, April 13, 2015 10:26 PM
> >
> > *To:*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
> >
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 14:52:34 UTC

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