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

RE: case for abstract?

From: <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:45:56 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU172-W2824883CE9A1C4E042D16EFAE60@phx.gbl>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, "DPUB-ARIA public-dpub-aria@w3.org" <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor <rse@rfc-editor.org>
That would be a preferable outcome, IMO, since there are people keen on keeping.
I don't see that adding a "prefix" changes it being abstract. A note that clarifies and references the "abstract roles" to make clear it is not one should reduce confusion. If someone is keen enough to read deeply enough into the spec to be able to understand abstract roles, they should be able to make the distinction.
We've removed the one offending sentence that has been pointed out at the beginning of the role summaries, since there are no abstract roles defined in the module.
Matt

> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:09:20 -0400
> From: schepers@w3.org
> To: schwer@us.ibm.com; ivan@w3.org
> CC: public-digipub-ig@w3.org; public-dpub-aria@w3.org; rse@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: Re: case for abstract?
> 
> 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 18:46:26 UTC

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