RE: [w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr] Remove "Other" and "misc" (#68)

Hi Bill,

I agree that it’s a very important use case for publishing, but is it relevant to this document?  What does the use case have to do with portability or the publication, per se?

We concluded that CSS-specific issues, for the most part, were not relevant to this document, so we removed almost all of them. If this is relevant to the document, where do you recommend putting the use case?

Thanks,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Ivan Herman; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: RE: [w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr] Remove "Other" and "misc" (#68)

Just a further point on this. Thus far, ARIA solutions tend to be very general and lack the specificity that this use case requires. (Our unsuccessful attempt to be able to distinguish link types is a case in point.) I would be delighted to find that this could be the solution, but I really doubt that most publishers with specialized domain semantics would find that it serves their needs. Perhaps you're saying that ARIA will be the _mechanism_ by which the specialized domain semantics would be incorporated. Well, if that means ARIA is expanding from an accessibility focus to a broader focus, maybe that will work. But it's still a use case for publishers. It is a critical use case for many publishers, more important than most CSS issues, for example. It's about essential functionality in their content. Not  a nice to have. A must have.—Bill K

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2016 1:01 AM
To: Tzviya Siegman
Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG
Subject: Re: [w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr] Remove "Other" and "misc" (#68)

+1 for the removal for both sections.

The "domain semantics" seems to reflect what the group has been doing in conjunction with ARIA. Whilst important, I am not sure this is a specifically PWP use case and issue; it is a work that we (the dpub community) would have to pursue no matter what… Ie, removing it from this document sounds right to me.

Ivan


On 1 Sep 2016, at 00:21, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote:

Hi All,

Please take a look at this pull request and confirm that you are OK with this proposal of removing what had been the “Other” and “Misc Requirements” sections of PWP-UCR.

The one use case that I pause over is what had been labeled 9.3:
“9.3 Specialized Domain Semantics

TBD

Placeholder: Formal usage terms and engineering or legal documents, possibly for accessibility also.
Specialized semantics are required for users and processors.”

While I agree that we have a need for specialized semantics,  I am not sure that this document is the right place to identify the need.

Some potential use cases could include:

TextBookPublisher organizes some of its publications around learning objectives (as opposed to chapters). Every paragraph, question, and assessment in the publication is associated with a learning objective. For processing purposes, the publisher requires a method of identifying the objects that are learning objectives. Users require a method of accessing the learning objectives from other parts of the publication.

Georgina is publishing a paper with groundbreaking mathematical information. She indicates which part of the paper is the proof using specialized, discoverable vocabularies so that she can share her work with others.

There are numerous other use cases. I hesitate to add a section to the document for this alone. Does it belong here at all? Where can we add it?

Reminder: As of 1 September, we enter a feature freeze so that Nick and Heather can edit.

Thanks,
Tzviya

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Tzviya [mailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 6:08 PM
To: w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr
Subject: [w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr] Remove "Other" and "misc" (#68)

Use cases in "Other" and "Misc" duplicate use cases present in other sections.
________________________________
You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:
  https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/68
Commit Summary

  *   Remove "Other" and "misc"

File Changes

  *   M index.html<https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/68/files#diff-0> (94)

Patch Links:

  *   https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/68.patch

  *   https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/68.diff

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/pull/68>, or mute the thread<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ALFPWcJUJyAAk0eMTUvsUmafl44vKFFwks5qlftQgaJpZM4JyHfI>.


----
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