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

RE: case for abstract?

From: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 16:16:43 -0400
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP8504643AC27F34A340DDB2FAE60@phx.gbl>
To: "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>
CC: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, <public-dpub-aria@w3.org>, "'Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor'" <rse@rfc-editor.org>, "'Doug Schepers'" <schepers@w3.org>
Right, I completely understand. I still favour that approach if we're to
keep the role, so was just giving my affirmative again.

 

I'd like to understand more about the confusion, though. Is something going
to go bad if someone doesn't grasp the difference? Is it just that they
won't think the role is available for use? If someone isn't going to take
the time to learn about abstract roles, then isn't the bigger danger that
they will use them thinking they're fine?

 

Would it reduce the confusion to add "(role)" after each of our roles to
further reduce any confusion? There seem to be plenty of indicators we can
use to disambiguate.

 

Matt

 

  _____  

From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: April-14-15 15:21
To: matt.garrish@bell.net
Cc: Ivan Herman; public-digipub-ig@w3.org; DPUB-ARIA
public-dpub-aria@w3.org; Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor; Doug Schepers
Subject: RE: case for abstract?

 

I gave the same argument as Doug if you recall Matt. However, many in the
ARIA task force did not agree with me. Although I chair it I represent only
one vote and we need to reach consensus. 

The authoring practices tell authors to not use "abstract" roles. Their
contention is that new users will get confused. 

As common as "abstracts" are in publishing, abstract classes are in object
oriented programming. The WAI-ARIA is a taxonomy of semantic roles that
include abstract classes that are inherited from. I can make the distinction
because I have been working in the field for some time but newbies will have
a problem. 

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger

Inactive hide details for ---04/14/2015 01:46:35 PM---That would be a
preferable outcome, IMO, since there are people keen on k---04/14/2015
01:46:35 PM---That would be a preferable outcome, IMO, since there are
people keen on keeping. I don't see that ad

From: <matt.garrish@bell.net>
To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
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>
Date: 04/14/2015 01:46 PM
Subject: RE: case for abstract?

  _____  




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]
> >
> 


image001.gif
(image/gif attachment: image001.gif)

Received on Tuesday, 14 April 2015 20:16:50 UTC

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