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

[dpub identifiers]The publication/package/fragment ID dilemma

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:58:35 +0000
To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CO2PR06MB572FF8D4C538FB0CA259A23DF0D0@CO2PR06MB572.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
On the call today (minutes at [1]) we decided to get the Identifiers TF discussion going on the list before organizing a conference call.

I'd like to start by raising a high-level issue. On the call, we discussed three different aspects of this issue:

--Identifying a fragment within a resource. The resource could be a textual document (in XML, or in HTML, or other); it could be media (e.g., a portion of a video); or it could be any number of other possible components of an EPUB-WEB publication. Ivan points out that there are already existing specific fragment identification schemes for various media, and suggests that we should be agnostic as to what scheme is used, so that a user can employ the scheme that makes the most sense. Markus pointed out that it is still useful to specify _how_ to address fragments in various EPUB-WEB components; so while that strategy acknowledges the need to tailor the fragment ID scheme to the media, it might lead to specific recommendations for specific types of media ("reference fragments in XML this way, HTML this way, video this way," etc.).

--Identifying the constituent component of a package (for an EPUB-WEB publication in the packaged state) that contains the intended fragment, and also enabling the same mechanism to be used when the EPUB-WEB publication is in the online state.

--Identifying the publication itself. Note that I strongly advocate that we standardize on the term "publication," e.g. rather than "document," because a publication can consist of many documents; and this helps people not reflexively think "book."

So here's my high-level issue: should we discuss this on the list holistically, or should we break this into three threads? Or should we start with a discussion of this way of looking at the problem, and _then_ fork it off into separate threads?

--Bill K

[1] http://www.w3.org/2015/03/23-dpub-minutes.html


Bill Kasdorf
Vice President, Apex Content Solutions
Apex CoVantage
W: +1 734-904-6252
M: +1 734-904-6252
@BillKasdorf<http://twitter.com/#!/BillKasdorf>
bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
ISNI: 0000 0001 1649 0786
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
www.apexcovantage.com<http://www.apexcovantage.com/>

[Corporate Logo-Copy]


image002.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image002.jpg)

Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 16:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:56 UTC