RE: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity

Hi Owen


> Chris, w/re the points in your message below, because PDF is now an open
> standard, users are not required to have Adobe products in order to create
> PDFs.  Of course, Adobe will continue to strive to make its tools and
> services as desirable as possible so that folks may prefer to use them.
> However, other alternatives are available.
>

Correct - which is why I said that any response we develop must be
platform/software independent - suitable for anyone using any product to
produce a PDF file.

>
> For example, XML Simplicity’s StratML Editorial Portal already exceeds
> your suggestion for “one click save as PDF.”  *No* clicks are
> required.  PDFs are automatically transformed from StratML (XML) files:
> http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#XMLSimplicity  RTFs are also
> automatically created, thus meeting Australia’s accessibility standard
> (although the XML and HTML renditions should also meet accessibility
> standards).
>

The issue I have with that approach is the question I highlighted below -
what are the default settings - one click, or in XML Simplicity's case,
auto generation, is great - but only if the output is useful :) As regards
RTF - PDF/UA should be a better approach, as I'm sure AIIM would agree.

>
> Adobe’s PDF Fillable form for StratML includes an icon to use
> Acrobat.com to create PDFs:
> http://xml.gov/stratml/forms/StrategicPlan.pdf
>
>
>
> Joe Carmel is working on incorporating XSL-FO into his XForm for StratML,
> which already includes an XML+XSL button to apply an HTML stylesheet.  See
> http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#Carmel or, more specifically,
> http://xmldatasets.net/XF2/stratmlxform3.xml   In addition, he’s working
> on a “cataloging” button to produce the kind of metadata you are
> suggesting.
>
>
>
> Even Corel supports automated conversion of documents from their
> proprietary formats into PDF.  PDFs can also be opened for editing in
> WordPerfect (with some loss of fidelity).  Unfortunately, though, Corel
> doesn’t provide much support for XML.
> http://apps.corel.com/partners_developers/casb/serviceb/puttogether/pubpdf/index.htm
>
>
>
> It will be interesting to see the impact of i4i’s patent infringement
> lawsuit on the ability of MS to support the authoring and editing of
> “custom” XML (like StratML documents) in the Office Suite.  Ictect has
> provided a StratML Quick Start Guide for MS Word users, in DOC and PDF
> format:  http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm#Ictect
>

StratML does have its uses, and as you point out, quite a good core
following making some great implementations. However it cannot stand
alone, as the issue of publications goes far beyond Strategic Plans - our
response must be generic and schema non-specific. One of the key points of
XML and variants is that anyone can define thier own schema - and many
Governments and Agencies around the world will do just that. The groups
response must take that into consideration, even if StratML is used as an
example/case study of a schema being used against an appropriate
publication.

Cheers

Chris

>
> BTW, on February 18, Federal Computer Week is hosting a breakfast session
> hosted by Adobe on how to craft open gov plans.  See
> http://xml.gov/index.asp#February or, more specifically,
> http://custom.1105govinfo.com/events/adobe-transparency/home.aspx
>
>
>
> I am encouraging GPO and GSA to provide an “official” standard XSL-FO
> transforming agency open gov plans from StratML (XML) to PDF.
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Chris Beer
> Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 AM
> To: rachel.flagg@gsa.gov
> Cc: Owen.Ambur@verizon.net; 'eGovIG IG'
> Subject: Re: Ed and Outreadch Opportunity
>
>
>
> [deleted]
>
> I think there are a couple of other points to keep in mind as well while
> we discuss this.
>
> *	Not every Agency will have access to the full Adobe suite of products
> for PDF production, if any. The solution must be explainable as platform
> independent and agency size (ie: personnel and ICT tech limitations in
> mind) independent - assume that agencies could be using everything from
> Adobe to Word to GoogleDocs to OpenOffice and everything in between. And
> that they may have a standardised architecture, or they may not. They may
> have a central publications office. They may not.
> *	Not every Agency, or indeed, employees tasked with production of a
> publication in an Agency, will have a) a Publishing or IT background and
> b) access to training (due to funds or otherwise) to learn PDF production
> indepth. Old habits will certainly die hard, and one click "save as PDF"
> will still be utilised by many. (Hint).
>
> [deleted]
>
>
> Accessibility: In Australia the standard line is that documents provided
> as PDF's can be made "accessible" if you provide an RTF version alongside
> it. I'm sure we're not the only ones who interpret WCAG in that way
> either. Since my discovery of the concept of PDF/UA (nod to Owen and AIIM)
> this suddenly not only seems redundant, but quite silly - with PDF/UA not
> only superseding the need for RTF, but in many cases, we could produce PDF
> files that in fact read better than any print version - the idea of spoken
> word PDF documents isn't a bad one :)
>
> [deleted]
>
>
> Meta-data and machine-readability, document findability and preserving
> Government publications online: Identifying and encouraging the use of
> metadata schema's is obviously a must, as well as teaching others how to
> go about including this in a PDF document. Obviously including these
> fields (automated where possible) in a PDF "template" by default is a
> bonus for any agency.
>
>
>
> [deleted]
>
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 1 February 2010 22:22:47 UTC