Re: iMinds' Comments on proposed charter for Interest Group on eBooks/Digital Publishing

Thank you Erik!

Your comment resonates well with other comments we have received. Our current thinking is that the more general IG would be organized around task forces, probably one for eBooks and the other one around general digital publication (and the possibility to set up such TF should be part of the charter). Being separate TF-s would ensure to find the right focus for the deliverables, but being within the same group rather than independent groups would ensure the synergy among the various requirements.

You are right that the deliverables should reflect these.

Would such a Task Force organization answer your concerns?

Thanks again!

Ivan

On Mar 18, 2013, at 13:19 , Erik Mannens <erik.mannens@ugent.be> wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> 
> The charters are roughly the same, with the main difference being the scope. While the first focuses only on eBooks, the other also includes digital news, magazines, etc. In our opinion both have advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> eBooks:
> - Narrowing the scope certainly makes it easier to create an exhaustive survey, as is mentioned in the charter, since the IG would only consider publications of the eBook type.
> - The IG could create more specific use cases, where the group wouldn't have to worry what to do with different types of publications. For example: could a digital magazine be used as an audiobook?
> - However, this also means that it should be very well defined what an eBook precisely is, to avoid confusion. For example, it could be a problem to decide when something is an eBook and when it is a digital magazine. What if the same format is used for both? 
> 
> Digital Publishing
> - Broadening the scope would satisfy the needs of more organizations, and thus, would probably draw more members to the IG.
> - However, creating an exhaustive survey of publishing options for such a broad spectrum of publication types could become a daunting task.
> - It would also limit the possibilities for specific use cases, or at least make specifying the use cases more difficult, since all publication types must now be considered.
> - In our opinion, an IG like this would most likely lead to the publication of several IG Notes, where the scope of each Note is defined to a separate group of publication types. For example, one Note about the needs of eBooks, another for the needs of digital magazines, another for digital news publishing, etc. This is mainly because the platforms on which these publication types are read are typically very different (e.g., an eBook will be read in a reader or reader-app, whereas a newspaper will be read in a browser). This doesn't have to be a bad thing, since all standardization efforts across these publication types would then have a strong level of synchronization, whereas they would not if only an eBooks IG exists.
> 
> To summarize, We think the Digital Publishing IG would offer more value to the community in the long run, and would make sure the standarization efforts across the different publication types are strongly synchronized. However, with regard to the success criteria defined in the charter, the eBooks IG would have more chance of meeting these, since the scope is better defined. IDPF's EPUB3 will be utilized for a broad range of content, including books, magazines and educational, professional and scientific publications, therefore the main issue at hand is the misalignment between digital publishing formats and current W3C recommendations, which is common to both eBook publishing and magazine publishing. As such the different use cases could also be used to provide more focus.
> 
> 
> Sincere greetings,
> 
> 
> 
> The iMinds-team (Hajar, Miel, Tom, Wesley, and myself)
> 
> 
> 
> <Signature-Erik.png>
> 
> 
> 
> iMinds vzw - Future Media & Imaging Dept. | Gaston Crommenlaan 8 box 102 | 9050 Ghent | Belgium | www.iminds.be
> T: +32 9 331 49 93  | F: +32 9 331 48 96 | M: +32 473 27 44 17
> 
> Ghent University  | Faculty of Engineering and Architecture | Dept. ELIS - MMLab
> E: erik.mannens@ugent.be | W: http://www.mmlab.be/emannens | T: @erikmannens
> 
> ---
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 12:57:07 UTC