- From: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:36:10 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>
I like this restatement. :) > I am a little bit bothered that this definition becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is just the nature of the beast... I admit that we have added a bunch of clarifications of SHOULD/ISN'T to the main definition, but also we have just made a series of small, granular definitions, which is a good way to go. > * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a > single Web Resource I am very happy with this definition. I assume we are all happy with the presumption that a set can have only one member, which is the primitive case of document. And I am very happy with using "intention" rather than "curation." "Collated," I think, is very good as well, because it gets at the idea that these resources are supposed to be discussed in aggregate, without using the loaded term I had chosen, namely, "packaging." For that matter, I would be equally happy with "aggregate," if anyone has a problem with collated. > * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition > of a 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... No problem. I was running off the suggestion someone (Olaf, maybe?) had made that we think of these as intersecting definitions of portable and document, but I like the way you have phrased it as well. Thank you so much, Ivan! Deborah
Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 13:37:35 UTC