W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > January 2017

Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web Publication?"

From: Nick Ruffilo <nickruffilo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:19:29 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+Dds5_nqnUY=Y1JSDLjA89y9eVmR+u32gtmmdQJ-TtSwmNd0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
A general comment - The more concise a definition, the better it serves its
constituents.  The Open Web already allows content creators to do some
amazing things.  Extending things, and taking them a step further with PWP
is a great way to ensure certain functionality not already available
becomes available making publications play nicer on the open web platform.

For example (and this is NOT an assertion I'm making), a Textbook might
make a great PWP but a Course (as referenced previously in this thread)
might not fit the definition of a PWP.  But that doesn't mean that a course
cannot live on the open web platform (in fact, tons already do).

Alternatively - what *is not* is just as important as what *is *when it
comes to a definition.  It would be good for us to be clear as to how we
are defining what a publication is.  As we've seen with the web, content
creators will always be super creative given the limitations and create
products that go far beyond our imagining, but having a limited scope
definition will yield the best results.

** stands on soapbox * *I vote that accessibility be a must.  More than
ever, equality is a key and fundamental right.

-Nick

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
> On 23 Jan 2017, at 14:42, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > I have the advantage to be on the other side of the pond
> >
> Me too today, sitting in Paris…
>
>
> :-) I was actually wondering before you reacted on something on the issue
> list this morning; but I had colleagues who worked very late at night in
> the US, I thought you are one of those...
>
>
>
> I also agree with both of you – using the later definition is good and
> they should be merged.  @Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> did you want to do
> that or should I?
>
>
>
> Let us wait until after the call. I would like to hear Dave's reaction
> before changing things, who has originally proposed this text.
>
>
> > I believe we do have to say that a WP must have a unique identifier.
> >
> Yes, we all agree on that…
>
>
> >Maybe we should remove or change the word 'origin'?
> >
> It’s a special word for web folks, so we should either use it with the
> same meaning or (my preference) not use it at all.
>
>
>
> I think the original context in which it was used is important, but I
> would agree not to use the term. I proposed to say ""a Web Publication's
> identity is essential information…". Remember that this is an introductory
> text, not a formal specification.
>
>
> >I believe the term 'functional' is sufficiently (and intentionally)
> vague: it does not imply that it should have exactly the same features,
> >it only says that it should not be impossible to consume the WP's content
> when it is offline.
> >
> And I disagree.  If an author wishes to construct a WP that only works
> when online, they should be able to.   Remember we are talking about a WP
> here, not necessary a PWP.  And that's an important different we need to
> remember – WP vs. PWP.
>
>
>
> Hm. "P" stands for "Packaged" these days, not "Portable", so I am not sure
> this is relevant. I think we disagree on this, let us see what others say.
>
>
>
> > Terminology put aside, I do not understand what the problem is with the
> description of a manifest (in the more technological sense).
> >
> Since we don’t know what a manifest will look like or contain, other than
> as a list of things, we shouldn't state anything about how it is (or is
> not) used – such as ordering or presentation.
>
>
>
> And the text does not say anything about the format. However, as we have
> seen in the discussion on the UCR, the fact that we need to make, somehow,
> the list of resources and the default consuming order available seems to be
> essential for a WP. The text should say (maybe another way of saying this?)
> that conveying this type of information as part of the creation of a WP is
> essential. (I do not want to use the word 'metadata' for this, because that
> term is also used in different ways…)
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
> *From: *Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
> *Date: *Monday, January 23, 2017 at 1:29 PM
> *To: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Cc: *W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Some significant items for discussion on "What is a Web
> Publication?"
>
> Leonard & al,
>
> (I have the advantage to be on the other side of the pond, ie, that you
> have already discussed some of the issues while I was asleep:-)
>
>
> On 22 Jan 2017, at 17:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> While working on the PWP document today, I can into a few things that I’d
> like to raise for discussion (either via email or phone tomorrow, or both).
>
> Let’s start right up front with the definition of a Web Publication J.
> It currently reads “A Web Publication (WP) is a bounded collection of
> resources, envisioned and created as a whole”.  I would like to review the
> second half of that sentence – about the envisioned and created as a
> whole.  In the world of documents, the most popular feature of processing
> applications is the ability to combine parts of other documents together to
> create a new one.  In that use case, the resources weren’t “envisioned and
> created as a whole”.  You could say that the author/publisher envisioned
> that collection and intentionally collated those resources together – but
> that’s different from what is here.  I would also put forth that the
> application of annotations to a WP can create a new WP that also was not
> “envisioned and created as a whole”.
>
>
>
> I tend to agree with David, that the definition elsewhere in the document ("A
> Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more constituent resources,
> organized together in a uniquely identifiable grouping, and presented using
> standard Open Web Platform technologies.") is more precise. I would
> probably retain that as a "formal" definition of a WP. (As an aside, we
> should indeed avoid double definitions.)
>
> That being said: if I do not consider the statement above as being the
> formal definition of a WP, but rather as a higher level description of what
> we are after. Leonard, you seem to read the half sentence ("envisioned and
> created as a whole") to refer to the *resources*. I actually read the
> same half sentence as referring to the *collection*, and *not* to the
> individual resources.  If one reads that sentence like that, then I do not
> see any problem with all the rest of the issues you describe: the
> additional act of creating the WP is to collect all the resources into one
> coherent resource which *is* then considered as a whole. Whether the
> individual resources were thought to be part of that collection from the
> start or not is then besides the point.
>
> What about something like:
>
> "A Web Publication (WP) is a bounded collection of resources, where the
> collection is envisioned and created as a whole"
>
> May be sounds a bit more convoluted, but more precise.
>
>
>
> There is a requirement that “The package must include the unique
> identifier of the manifestation—a Web Publication’s origin is essential
> information if a PWP becomes portable”.  Two paragraphs later it goes into
> further detail about the origin inclusion and even mentions trust.
> Unfortunately, that requirement seems to imply some potential
> implementation considerations that the WebPackaging work is proving to not
> be feasible – see https://github.com/dimich-g/webpackage/issues/7.  I
> would like to remove the second half of that sentence (about the origin)
> and also remove the bit about trust from the latest paragraph.  Let’s just
> leave it open that we want a unique identifier, but that’s it, and that the
> origin is not necessarily related to the identifier.
>
>
>
> I am not sure what you mean by "Let's just leave it open that we want a
> unique identifier". To make it clear, I believe we do have to say that a WP
> must have a unique identifier. But I am not sure that the word 'origin' is
> to be taken literally here, ie, that the origin must be an HTTP address. It
> can be a generic URN of some sort, a DOI in http form, whatever. It is an
> 'origin' in the abstract sense. I do not see how that would imply any
> implementation issue apart from the fact that it must be available.
>
> Maybe we should remove or change the word 'origin'? Simply say "a Web
> Publication's identity is essential information…"
>
>
>
> Here’s the one where George, Charles and others are going to be scream –
> but I believe it is an extremely important point – you can’t mandate
> accessibility in a WP (ie. “A Web Publication must be accessible to the
> broadest possible range of readers”). We should make it a strong
> recommendation (a “should” vs. a “shall” in ISO terminology) and do all we
> can to promote this direction.  However, given our goals to support not
> only curated publications but also ad-hoc publications, it is not
> reasonable to expect them all to be accessible.  Just as not every page on
> the web is accessible, web publications need not be either.
>
>
>
> I am torn on that one, to be honest. Just as, I believe, we do not say
> anywhere at W3C that a Web Page MUST be accessible, I wonder whether can do
> anything more for a WP in general. After all, the goal of this (and
> subsequent) work is to make WP-s first class entities on the Web,
> minimizing the step it takes to go from a 'traditional' web site to a WP.
>
> We may get into a different discussion if we were to impose a MUST on
> EPUB4, for example, but I tend to agree with Leonard on this one for
> general WPs.
>
>
>
> Another area that we cannot mandate – but should make a strong
> recommendation – is that “A Web Publication must be available and
> functional while the user is offline”. An author may produce a publication
> that is only designed to be used online – for example, one that connects to
> an online system. We don’t wish to prevent the development of such a
> publication.
>
>
>
> I think offline/online is one of the essential features that differentiate
> WPs from average Web pages. I believe the term 'functional' is sufficiently
> (and intentionally) vague: it does not imply that it should have exactly
> the same features, it only says that it should not be impossible to consume
> the WP's content when it is offline. (The, by now evergreen, example of
> different fonts come to my mind.) If it connects to an online system: it
> depends what it means. Obviously, a gmail application cannot really
> function offline (although one could imagine a complicated caching system),
> ie, it would not be a WP. I am fine with that. On the other hand, a
> mathematical publication reaching out, say, to a Maple server to run
> examples if necessary, but where the core of the publication is simply the
> mathematical theory is fine; the necessary examples should just make it
> clear to the user that he/she should be online to use that.
>
> Ie, we may want to make it clearer what 'functional' means, but I would
> stick with the rest of the sentence.
>
>
>
> Finally, I think we say too much about the use of the manifest.  It says
> “We also introduce the abstract concept of a manifest, which serves to
> carry information about the constituent resources of the publication, their
> sequence, and presentation”.  I think we should only say that it carries
> the resources and not mention sequence and presentation. This is consistent
> with our statement, earlier in the same section, about how we aren’t going
> to define “manifest” (and leave it in the generic FRBR sense).
>
>
>
> I am not sure I agree. I think it is an editorial issue; the term manifest
> in "which must be “manifested” (in the FRBR [frbr
> <http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp/#bib-frbr>] sense) by having files on a
> Web server" seems to be used in a very different way than "concept of a
> manifest, which serves to carry information about the constituent resources
> of the publication, their sequence, and presentation". I guess the first
> occurrence of the term clearly refers to FRBR only, and that is different.
> Maybe we should use a different term in the second usage although,
> unfortunately, the terminology is there.
>
> Terminology put aside, I do not understand what the problem is with the
> description of a manifest (in the more technological sense).
>
> Talk to you later!
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Digital Publishing Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153 <+31%206%2041044153>
> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
- Nick Ruffilo
@NickRuffilo
Aer.io an *INGRAM* company
Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 15:20:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:36:37 UTC