Re: case for abstract?

OK. Yes, we had a heck of a time moving our ARIA call the last time.

I will book this on the agenda for the next WAI-ARIA Call (next Thursday).
Hopefully, we can all make that work .  I will copy the public-dpub-aria
list.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From: Janina Sajka <janina@rednote.net>
To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Ivan Herman
            <ivan@w3.org>, "matt.garrish@bell.net" <matt.garrish@bell.net>,
            "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>, Doug
            Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
Date: 04/14/2015 05:05 PM
Subject: Re: case for abstract?



Hi, Rich:

As I understand the email exchanged this afternoon, Tzviya and a few
other Dpub folks aren't available next week.

We may be looking at taking time during the ARIA call on Thursday 30
April--if that will work for the Dpub folks. I've suggested we should at
least clear the air somewhat at the usual Dpub TF call this Thursday,
and propose dates to the other ARIA folks via the PF list.

Unfortunately, as Rich notes, we have Pacific Time people that are
important to the call, as well as CET European Time people. So, we've a
spread of 10 time zones to accomodate--never an easy chore.

Janina


Richard Schwerdtfeger writes:
> Tzviya,
>
> I appreciate your taking the initiative. If your intent is to have a
> meeting with the ARIA task force you need to coordinate with the PF chair
> or at least me. We have 2 people who work in California and they are not
> going to show up at 6am. I am also traveling this Thursday as I am
meeting
> with the HTML working group in Redmond. In fact, I fly out tomorrow
> morning. So, unfortunately, I have to send my regrets for this week.
>
> Was your intent to have a meeting first with the DPUB ARIA subteam alone?
>
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
>
>
> From:   "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> To:   Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc:   Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "matt.garrish@bell.net"
>             <matt.garrish@bell.net>, "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>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
> Date:   04/14/2015 03:37 PM
> Subject:   RE: case for abstract?
>
>
>
> DPUB-ARIA on Thursday at 9 AM Eastern.  I will send the full agenda
> tomorrow.
>
> Tzviya Siegman
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:32 PM
> To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
> Cc: Ivan Herman; matt.garrish@bell.net; public-digipub-ig@w3.org;
DPUB-ARIA
> public-dpub-aria@w3.org; Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor; Doug
Schepers
> Subject: RE: case for abstract?
>
>
>
> which agenda? the DPUB call?
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Inactive hide details for "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" ---04/14/2015
> 03:29:10 PM---It’s on the agenda. Tzviya Siegman"Siegman, Tzviya -
Hoboken"
> ---04/14/2015 03:29:10 PM---It’s on the agenda. Tzviya Siegman
>
> From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
> Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "matt.garrish@bell.net" <
> matt.garrish@bell.net>, "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>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
> Date: 04/14/2015 03:29 PM
> Subject: RE: case for abstract?
>
>
>
>
> It’s on the agenda.
>
> Tzviya Siegman
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 4:27 PM
> To: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
> Cc: Ivan Herman; matt.garrish@bell.net; public-digipub-ig@w3.org;
DPUB-ARIA
> public-dpub-aria@w3.org; Heather Flanagan RFC Series Editor; Doug
Schepers
> Subject: RE: case for abstract?
>
>
>
> Tzviya,
>
> I understand your concern. However, at least two representatives have had
> problems telling their developers not to use abstract roles. I can
honestly
> say that in IBM we have 1000 products and I have never had an issue
> regarding the use of abstract roles with product teams.
>
> The conversation has to be had with the ARIA task force.
>
> Rich
>
>
> Rich Schwerdtfeger
>
> Inactive hide details for "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" ---04/14/2015
> 02:59:12 PM---Hi Rich, We understand the concerns of this d"Siegman,
Tzviya
> - Hoboken" ---04/14/2015 02:59:12 PM---Hi Rich, We understand the
concerns
> of this dedicated term, and I don’t want to insist on the word “
>
> From: "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>
> To: Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, "matt.garrish@bell.net" <
> matt.garrish@bell.net>
> Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, "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>, Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
> Date: 04/14/2015 02:59 PM
> Subject: RE: case for abstract?
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> We understand the concerns of this dedicated term, and I don’t want to
> insist on the word “abstract”, but I am troubled by the objection that
this
> will confuse newbies. I truly believe that we can write this in a way
that
> will clarify the issue.  The spec makes it fairly clear which roles are
> abstract in 2 ways:
> There is a list of abstract roles [1] and specifying after the role name
> that a role is an abstract role as with command [2]. Role=”abstract” [3]
> has none of these. I am not a programmer, but I am someone who frequently
> has to approach specs that I have never before seen. It is possible to
> write this in such a way to make both worlds happy.
>
> Since NONE of the DPUB roles are abstract. We can add a comment to that
> effect to Section 4.1. We can further spell out that role=”abstract” is
not
> an abstract role in its definition [3].
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#abstract_roles

> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria-1.1/#command

> [3] https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html#abstract-1

> [4] https://rawgit.com/w3c/aria/master/aria/dpub.html#role_definitions

>
>
> Tzviya Siegman
> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
> From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2015 3:21 PM
> 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]
> > >
> >



--

Janina Sajka,   Phone:   +1.443.300.2200
         sip:janina@asterisk.rednote.net

      Email:   janina@rednote.net

Linux Foundation Fellow
Executive Chair, Accessibility Workgroup:   http://a11y.org


The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
Chair,   Protocols & Formats   http://www.w3.org/wai/pf

   Indie UI
http://www.w3.org/WAI/IndieUI/