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

Re: case for abstract?

From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:09:20 -0400
Message-ID: <552D57D0.9090100@w3.org>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, W3C PF - DPUB Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
Hey, folks–

Isn't the term "abstract" only used in the ARIA specs as a class of 
roles, not a value itself or role itself (that is, it's not something 
used in content)? If so, I don't see a conflict there, just a small note 
in the spec to clarify that the role "abstract" is distinct from the 
notion of "abstract roles".

Regards–
–Doug

On 4/14/15 10:57 AM, Richard Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> It could be given a role pubabstract or pub-abstract to eliminate the
> confusion with abstract ARIA roles.
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Inactive hide details for Ivan Herman ---04/14/2015 09:53:08
> AM---Indeed, all W3C documents must have an abstract! :-) IvanIvan
> Herman ---04/14/2015 09:53:08 AM---Indeed, all W3C documents must have
> an abstract! :-) Ivan
>
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> To: "Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor)" <rse@rfc-editor.org>
> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, W3C PF - DPUB
> Joint Task Force <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>
> Date: 04/14/2015 09:53 AM
> Subject: Re: case for abstract?
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
> [attachment "signature.asc" deleted by Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM]
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 18:09:30 UTC

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