Charter Review

Dear all,

This may sound like "me too", but I will try to provide some
additional discussion especially regarding the scope issue.

* I welcome the creation of such an interest group, and I think that
this is a very appropriate time for it.
I think that the W3C is very well placed and motivated to ensure the
success of the group, and has engagement from at least the majority of
the players that are essential for that success.

* I share the concerns about scoping, even with the Digital Publishing
version rather than the eBooks version of the charter.
In particular:

1. That the scope covers only Born Digital and not Digitized Physical
or Born Digital Facsimile should be clarified, assuming that is the
intent.
To describe the distinction I see between these:

Born Digital:  "EBooks" that, while they might be also published in
print, there is at least one electronic version generated directly
from the source and it is treated as at least equivalent or equal
expressions of the work.
Digitized Physical: "EBooks" that are generated by digitizing a
physical object and converting the images (and maybe text) into an
electronic format.
Born Digital Facsimile:  "EBooks" that are generated in an electronic
environment, but are intended to be an access copy to a primary
physical entity.  For example, one might make a fully digital
facsimile of a particular copy of a physical book without digitizing
it directly.

2. Even the expanded "digital publishing" is still quite weak in terms
of its definition.  Some genres that are unclear as to whether they
are in or out of scope:
- Comics, and especially Manga with its layout issues
- Brochures or Pamphlets (at which point it's very close to just a web page)
- How much text is required, if any? It would seem none, but then a
photo album is in scope?
- Is the assumption only 2 dimensional? For example electronic popup
books with 3d pages? Or objects where consuming the work requires
manipulation in a 3d space: the digital equivalent of a stone tablet
or vase that carries text.
- Is the assumption linear reading? For example pick-a-path type books
where the reader decides on choices how to resolve the story
- Is the assumption that there are pages? A digital scroll would be
out of scope, but otherwise a poster might end up in scope.

3. I assume that creation and authorship is out of scope, but should
it be clearly stated so?  Equally, the packaging side seems to be left
out of the scope, but that would mean that distributed maintenance of
the resources that make up the ebook is in scope?


* It would be good to include NISO in the other interested
organizations, assuming that Todd Carpenter agrees.


* My final concern is the ability to gain traction in other WGs.  As
the IG would not develop specifications, it relies on the existing WGs
to take the IG seriously and make whatever allowances are needed.
This seems like it may require direct W3C intervention to clarify the
status of the IG as something to be engaged with and taken seriously,
otherwise I could see (as a very hypothetical example) the HTML5 work
simply ignoring any requirements the IG proposes.


Hope that helps, and apologies for the lateness of the review.

Rob Sanderson

Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 23:13:22 UTC