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

Re: For the discussion on the PWP

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 09:38:25 +0100
Cc: Hadrien Gardeur <hadrien.gardeur@feedbooks.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <D9DE2DF1-9A1B-4148-87B1-6F32705E58B8@w3.org>
To: Dave Cramer <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com>
First of all, I am not sure what you describe is enough. The library gets a copy of the book indeed, but I think that the real, 'authoritative' URL for that 'work' is the one published by P, ie, h <https://www.acme-labs.com/Orlando/c001.html#x>ttps://www.publisher-P/new/Orlando/. (I deliberately do not want to use the term 'canonical'.)  But, of course, if L also has the information on the URL at P, then the annotation's URL can also be reconstructed.

I guess the issue is who does the reconstruction and, maybe more fundamentally, which information are stored and where to keep this doable? I guess this is where the background of our thinking is: that the copy at L must have a reference, eg in its manifest, to the URL at P, and that the copy by B must have a reference both of P and L.

Then there is the other direction. If user D only knows about the address at P, ie, makes a reference to P, is there any way for user U to know about that? Is it necessary?

The whole situation becomes fairly murky by virtue of moving things around.

Ivan

> On 22 Nov 2016, at 19:05, Cramer, Dave <Dave.Cramer@hbgusa.com> wrote:
> 
> 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/ <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>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 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.


----
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





Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2016 08:38:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:35 UTC