RE: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

Sorry to be joining this discussion late.

A more traditional (albeit a bit scholarly) take on the title would be “Toward the Development of Web Publications” or something of that sort. That implies that it’s input and suggests what the output is expected to be.

Even more scholarly, plugging in the obligatory colon: “Toward the Development of Web Publications: Vision and Background”.

Bill Kasdorf

VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage

p:

734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786

ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>


From: Heather Flanagan (RFC Series Editor) [mailto:rse@rfc-editor.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:41 AM
To: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

I definitely prefer the more active titles. "Vision and Background" is excellent.

-Heather

On 4/19/17 7:21 AM, Bill McCoy wrote:
+1 to the renaming of the IG documents.

It’s a nit but I would recommend naming that captures a bit more actively the spirit of the documents, since terms like “reflections”, “contemplating”, “deliberations” (not to mention “ruminations”) are pretty passive and really don’t connote anything. E.g. I could suggest: “Envisioning Web Publications”, or “Motivation and Requirements for Web Publications”, or “Vision and Background for Web Publications” or something along those lines that would give someone reading the title a bit more of a clue as to the content.

--Bill

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org]
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:46 AM
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com><mailto:garth@google.com>
Cc: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com><mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>; W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org><mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>; W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org><mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Comment on "Call for Review: Publishing Working Group Charter"

I would propose three things.

- The IG is winding down anyway, and I do not think it would work on its document in the upcoming time. I would propose that IG publish these documents as IG Notes as soon as possible (which will mean after the AC meeting when the publishing moratorium is over).
- To avoid any further misunderstandings I would prefer the IG change/modify the title of the documents rather than change the charter. "Ruminations on Web Publications" sounds sexy, but I am not sure it is appropriate for a W3C /TR document.
- Add some texts on the fact that the WG has the possibility to change the names if it wishes to do so.


As for 'ruminations'…

- "Technical reflections on Web Publications"
- "Contemplating Web Publications"
- "Deliberations on Web Publications"

The input of a native Anglo-Saxon may be helpful here…

Ivan


On 19 Apr 2017, at 15:35, Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>> wrote:

Okay, got it.

I'll leave our Charter Master Extraordinaire, Ivan, to propose any clarifying language.  :-)

Best,
   Garth

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com<mailto:daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>> wrote:
Le 19/04/2017 à 14:52, Garth Conboy a écrit :

> We could, as you suggest in your other mail, decide to find another name
> for the input document or deliverables but we all know that such
> discussion could lead to a long bike-shedding match -- I fear that.
> Instead, if necessary, we can add to the charter something making it
> clear that the WG has the possibility (as all WG-s have by default) to
> change the terms used in the deliverables and/or completely ignore the
> input documents, if that makes things clearer.

I have no religion here. Only thing I know if that even a geeky reader
like myself found "Web Publications" and "Web Publications" on one hand,
"Portable Web Publications" and "Portable Web Publications" on the
other, rather confusing. Your reading of the prose, where documents
are different and WG ones are not supposed to be the REC track of the
IG ones, was 100% unclear to me. If it was unclear to me, it's probably
unclear to some others too...

</Daniel>



----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704