Re: DPUB module comments

On 10/03/2015 3:30 PM, James Craig wrote:
>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 11:45 AM, Michael Cooper <> wrote:
>> We agreed at the 7 January 2015 PF Editors meeting that for DPub we would waive the normal requirement for new role modules to have a prefix, because they are coordinating closely with us through the DPub ARIA task force.
> We’re trying to actively avoid role proliferation, especially because we now have real evidence that authors are confused by some of the nuanced differences between roles. I think it’s a bad idea to waive this requirement.
Certainly. The PF saw the importance of this at the January 2014 face to 
face meeting and decided that it would ask that non-core modules use 
prefixes until mature enough to make the modules formally a part of 
ARIA. However, the DPub people told us they would have increased 
difficulty developing their roles under such a constraint. In 
discussion, we agreed that if they coordinate closely enough with us to 
mitigate those concerns you raised, that it would be ok not to require a 
prefix. That's what we confirmed at that PF editors meeting, which you 
were at, and I thought you accepted that outcome based on the discussion 
and commitments made.

If new information has come to light, we can reopen that discussion of 
course. But we need to acknowledge that the current form of the DPub 
module is not incorrect according to the instructions we gave them. I 
think we haven't yet fully exercised all the cautions we promised to put 
in place, so the first action I would suggest is to pursue that and see 
if it resolves the concerns, rather than change the agreement. We can 
also explore further the concerns you're raising (the "real evidence 
that authors are confused by some of the nuanced differences between 
roles") as part of this. Until we've both exhausted the reasonable 
protections, and gotten clear on what the problems in practice are so 
far, I would ask that we not ask the DPub ARIA TF to change course. 
Perhaps we will want to set First Public Working Draft as a milepost by 
which we need to resolve this fully, which may mean a longer review 
period than is usual to approve a FPWD transition.


Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:01:19 UTC