Re: For the discussion on the PWP

So... Publisher P publishes Orlando:

h<https://www.acme-labs.com/Orlando/c001.html#x>ttps://www.publisher-P/new/Orlando/

Library L gives Publisher P lots of money, and gets a copy of the book, and hosts it themselves:

h<https://www.example.com/my-books/Orlando/c001.html>ttps://www.library-L/stacks/fiction/Orlando/

User U checks out the book, a copy of which is in their personal bookshelf:

h<https://www.example.com/my-books/Orlando/c001.html>ttps://www.library-L/user-U-bookshelf/Orlando/

User B, who has also checked out the book, annotates something in chapter 1:

h<https://www.example.com/my-books/Orlando/c001.html>ttps://www.library-L/user-B-bookshelf/Orlando/c001.html#x

Library L knows the URL of User B's annotation, and knows the base URL of all its copies of the book. So the library should be able to construct the full path to User U's copy:

h<https://www.example.com/my-books/Orlando/c001.html>ttps://www.library-L/user-U-bookshelf/Orlando/c001.html#x

Won't this just work (with relative and base URLs) as long as Library L can recognize that all these various items/folders represent the same manifestation?

Dave
























From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 at 11:56 AM
To: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com<mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>>
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>, Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com<mailto:rkwright@geofx.com>>, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org<mailto:laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>>
Subject: Re: For the discussion on the PWP
Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 16:56:48 +0000


On 22 Nov 2016, at 17:27, Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com<mailto:hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>> wrote:

Thank you Ivan for these additional info.

But the complication you describe for the packaged state is still around if we let things be modified, and we may want to simplify and, therefore, forget about some of the issues. After all, we may be stepping on the area of FRBR, on what the URI of the 'work' is, etc. So we may decide to give up on that level of complication; I do not have a clear opinion at this moment I must admit.

I think that we need to know exactly what the use cases will end up being, for example:

  *   do we want canonical references for locators, no matter if online/offline or packaged/unpackaged?

I think so. The canonical (sic!) example is scholarly publishing, where a very precise reference is a must.

  *   can you update a specific resource in a package or do you have to update the whole publication/package?

Hm. I *think* the latter. But I am not sure.

I would expect some sort of signatures mechanism coming to the fore in practice to ensure the integrity of publications. That certainly points to the second.

  *   when you create a packaged version of a WP, are you allowed to rewrite all links pointing to resources from the publication?

You mean links in the resources within a WP? My answer would be no. The resources, when put into a package, should be unchanged (with a possible exception for the manifest, maybe).

Ivan

I know that there are already a number of use cases in the current document, but it's worth exploring which ones are worth keeping and which ones are missing.

Hadrien


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




This may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender, delete immediately, and understand that no disclosure or reliance on the information herein is permitted. Hachette Book Group may monitor email to and from our network.