Comments on latest UCR for discussion

[I am happy to submit PR’s (or just commit changes) but wanted to raise them for discussion first]

1 - Adding references to documents and ad-hoc publishing to the Abstract.  They are mentioned in the introduction but not in the Abstract.  I’d like to make some minor tweaks so that someone just reading the abstract knows we are looking at both. Any objections?

2 – Removing the word “traditional” publication from many instances.  Is there a reason we need to clarify them this way?  Let’s just call them publications (or at least, using our new term) Web Publications.   Objections?

3 – Replacing references to books (outside of examples!) with publication.  There are still a few of these left that aren’t appropriate for the general descriptions.  Objections?

4 – Is pagination a function of the publication or the user agent, or both?  The current text isn’t clear nor do I think we have ever considered which option(s) we want here.  My recommendation is to make it clear that it could come from either the pub itself or the UA.  Objections?

5 – Currently there is an example in 2.2.6 (Personalization) about Buffy and her need for a WebPub that only provides captions & transcripts.  To me, this fits better in 2.2.7 (Constituent Resources) where it can focus on the need to only load certain types of resources (rather than treating it as a “personalized experience”).   Objections to moving it?

6 – In 2.2.8 (metadata) the first two Usage Examples are more about requirements than use cases, as they don’t include specific people or scenarios (as all our other ones do).  I’d like to move the text out in the description and add some actual use cases that reflect them.  Objections?

7 – I don’t get section 2.2.9 (Manifests Access) at all.  This is something that has been added recently (without discussion, AFAIK) and only serves to bring specific implementation and technical details into this document without any benefit.  I’d like to remove the remove the entire section and find a good home for the usage example – perhaps under personalization, with an additional piece there about publisher personalization (beyond just users).   Objections?

8 – 3.2 (Distribution Process) needs a usage example of email distribution of an ad-hoc publications, such as a secretary sending out meeting minutes or pre-read material.  Objections to adding one?

9 – Just to make the flow a bit less confusing, I’d like to switch the order of 3.3 (Archiving) and 3.4 (Manifests and Links).  Due to the sub-sections of 3.3, it was confusing to just into the manifests without realizing that it was a level up.  By making the next thing after 3.3, be 4 Security should make things flow better.  Objections?

Received on Monday, 31 October 2016 15:28:24 UTC