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

Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:03:11 +0200
Cc: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>, Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org>, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com>, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
Message-Id: <2E3644FA-A452-499B-B106-C6D8FB7CEC07@w3.org>
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Leonard,

You said, in [1], that

> "I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions.    If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”.     This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about."

My conviction is that we should focus our attention on documents/publications/whatever that are in the realm of Digital Publishing and our attention should not be diverted by more general considerations. It is not our role and place. It is in response to this and your mail that I suggested the change.

That being said, although my preference was to remain with (Portable) Web Document, I did not have very strong feelings about it. I am happy to change that back; because we are now in alignment, we can finally close the issue.

I have changed it on the glossary page.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0103.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0103.html>


> On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:31 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
> 
> [Sorry for the delay in responding]
> 
> I am going to (as you might have imagined) STRONGLY object to the removal of Web and inclusion of Digital.   There are MANY existing types of Portable Digital Documents used in the context of Digital Publishing today that are not based on Web Resources.  Using this term is only going to confuse.
> 
> I would ask that you revert to Portable Web Document.
> 
> Otherwise, I think we’re all in alignment.
> 
> Leonard
> 
> From: Ivan Herman
> Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:41 AM
> To: Tzviya Siegman
> Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick
> Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
> 
> In the spirit of trying to close this discussion, I have made the following changes:
> 
> - I exchanged the term (Portable) Web Document to (Portable) Digital Document. I said in my previous mail[1] that I do not care about the name; in fact, I am not 100% sure this change is fine, because I am a bit concerned about giving the impression to be outside of the realm of the Web. That being said, a Digital Document is a set of Web Resources, so it may be fine.
> - I exchange the term "exclusively" to "essentially" in the definition of the Portable Web Resource. I hope this will not backfire on us later (we shall see) but it may be acceptable in closing this issue.
> 
> I have copied the full set of definitions below; I have also updated the Glossary page[2].
> 
> I would propose to freeze these definitions now. I believe it reflects an acceptable consensus from all involved in this mail thread. We can reopen the conversation if we hit issues with them later, but I believe we should give the priority in defining the other entries in the glossary. After all, as Tzviya said below, our goal is to communicate clearly with other W3C groups and others. A number of those glossary entries may reveal technical issues that remain to be solved; locating those is the real job this IG has.
> 
> Thanks to all
> 
> Ivan
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org <http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary>
> 
> [[[
> • A Web Resource is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc.
> • Essential content of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content.
> • Functionality related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action.
> • A Digital 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
> • A Digital Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Digital Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms.
> • A Digital Document should provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms.
> • A Digital Document should provide accessible access to content.
> • A Digital Document is not an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not necessarily equivalent to an HTML Document.
> • A Web Resource in a Digital Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying essentially on the Web Resources within the same Digital Document.
> • A Portable Digital Document is a Digital Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable.
> ]]]
> 
> 
>> On 11 Sep 2015, at 21:01 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> A morning of meetings, a pile of emails.
>> 
>> I am going to attempt to make some sense of this and set a goal for this group to a decision by the time I return to my desk on Wednesday morning:
>> 
>> Ivan has provided revised definitions [1] of “Web Resources”, “Web Document”, and “Portable Web Document” based on the extensive feedback from this group.
>> 
>> It seems to me that some of the conversation has gotten to the point of reminding ourselves what our task is.
>> 
>> 1.       We are defining terms that we (DPUB IG) use so that we communicate clearly with one another as well as with other W3C groups (and anyone else). This may mean saying “Bagel is a bread product originating in Poland, traditionally shaped by hand into the form of a ring from yeasted wheat dough, roughly hand-sized, which is first boiled for a short time in water and then baked.” [2]. This definition clearly indicates that we are not talking about “The Montreal bagel, a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York-style bagel the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.” [3]
>> 2.       We are NOT detailing information about formats in the glossary. This is not a specification. It may seem that information about formats is implied, but that is not the discussion we are having now.
>> 3.       We are NOT providing information about the process by which one achieves any of the terms identified. Unlike the bagels, the cooking is not part of the definition. This too may be part of a future (or not – TBD).
>> 4.       We are NOT attempting to redefine terms like “Web”. Those terms have widely-known and accepted meaning and we do not wish to usurp them, and we do not need to explain them here.
>> 
>> As Ivan mentioned [4], our current charter includes working on EPUB+WEB (or whatever name you would like to recommend for this white paper).
>> 
>> Although there has been much discussion today, the only recommendation I see for a change is to remove the word “exclusively”. I think this term clarifies the intent of “portable”, which we have addressed at greater length in our packaging document [5].
>> 
>> If anyone takes issue with a definition or a piece of definition, can I request a proposed change of text?
>> 
>> Thank you and have a good weekend.
>> 
>> Shana tova to those for whom it is relevant,
>> Tzviya
>> 
>> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary>
>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel>
>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel>
>> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html>
>> [5] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging>
>> 
>> Tzviya Siegman
>> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead
>> Wiley
>> 201-748-6884
>> tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 13:03:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:12 UTC