W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [DPUB][Locators]Cancellation and Next Steps

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 15:15:38 +0000
To: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, "public-digipub-ig@w3.org" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7498B4D0-8645-4154-A67A-D2F23EF29185@adobe.com>
>- what should a GET return for a locator (something which is or either refers to a manifest in the abstract sense)
>
I think you mean what should a GET return on the main URI for the PWP.  For any of the contents of the PWP, then you get the data of that object/resource – I don’t believe that is at issue.   However, there is NOT consensus about what gets returned for the main URI.

Some folks believe that we should be returning the manifest, while others (myself included) believe it needs to return the actual data of the PWP (assuming a packaged form of the PWP).   We need to resolve this issue.


On the manifest question, I think that the discussion taking place for EPUB about a JSON-based manifest may be useful here as there is definitely overlap in the organization and structure of that material that we would also want here.  And if we could potentially align these two efforts to a single manifest format, then it would make it trivial for implementations to author and provide it (no transcoding required).   But yes, there would need to be more stuff from PWP’s perspective (such as the optional mapping for external resources)


Leonard

From: Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:19 AM
To: "public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Subject: [DPUB][Locators]Cancellation and Next Steps
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 9:20 AM

Hi, folks—

Today's Locators Task Force meeting is cancelled, but our Task is not. ;-)

It has been suggested by several people that focusing on the actual structure of the locator, and getting a strawman proposal written down, is what we need to do now.

There has been some interesting discussion on the list:

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Dec/0163.html (from Daniel Weck)
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Jan/0095.html  (from Ángel González)

Ivan suggests that we need to write down:

- what should a GET return for a locator (something which is or either refers to a manifest in the abstract sense)
- what should a manifest, conceptually, include. At this moment, I see
                - an *identifier*
                - a mapping from absolute URL-s to relative URL-s (where relative means relative to the PWP instance URL)
                - a mapping from relative URL-s to absolute URL-s

Could somebody volunteer to draft a strawman proposal that we can use for the basis of discussion going forward?

--Bill

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
http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786

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]

image001.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 15:16:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:22 UTC