Fwd: Personalization metadata comparison

Greetings all,

Until such time as Sam is formally added to this Task Force (i.e. W3C
paperwork resolved), he is unable to post to this list. I am sharing his
thoughts here for the TF to review.

Cheers!

JF


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sam Goto <goto@google.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 11:29 AM

Regarding the taxonomy, IIUC, in the Adaptable Content Module
<https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#values>
there
is a classification of action-based semantics. It would be great if you
could list somewhere prior art that you've explored and the tradeoffs that
you considered. FWIW, here are a few things that I'd expect to see in a
background research section somewhere in your explainer:

- academically: framenet, verbnet, wordnet
- standards track: activity streams and schema.org actions
<http://blog.sgo.to/2014/02/a-taxonomy-for-verbs.html>
- industry applications: opengraph actions
<https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/opengraph/using-actions>, gmail
actions
<https://developers.google.com/gmail/markup/actions/actions-overview>, search
actions <http://blog.sgo.to/2014/09/schemaorg-actions-implementations.html>

These are all more action-oriented and don't cover your other modules (e.g.
easylang, numfree, etc). There were also designed for a different
application (activity streams for social applications and schema.org for
search/conversational assistants, e.g. alexa/siri/home) but seemed like
somewhat related technologies.

Hope this is being helpful,

Sam

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:37 AM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
wrote:

> +Lisa
> I think Lisa might be able to add some more perspective on that as this
> was moved over from the Cognitive Task Force, so I am not sure of the
> history to be honest.
>
 We could move this discussion to our list if we want to flesh this out Sam
> some more.
>
> Thanks
> EOM
>
> Charles LaPierre
> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org <charlesl@benetech.org>
> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
> Skype: charles_lapierre
> Phone: 650-600-3301
>
>
>
> On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:30 AM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
>
> Yep, that list. Wondering what other things you have looked at prior to
> coming up to that list. It would be good to document that as alternatives
> considered too.
>
> Sam
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:53 AM, Charles LaPierre <charlesl@benetech.org>
> wrote:
>
>> As for the Taxonomy question, I believe that is what we are defining in
>> our list of value pairs in our Personalization modules
>> <https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#values> is
>> it not?  Or do we have to go deeper.
>> Thanks
>> EOM
>>
>> Charles LaPierre
>> Technical Lead, DIAGRAM and Born Accessible
>> E-mail: charlesl@benetech.org <charlesl@benetech.org>
>> Twitter: @CLaPierreA11Y
>> Skype: charles_lapierre
>> Phone: 650-600-3301
>>
>>
>>
>> On Apr 26, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Sam Goto <goto@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> + john / charles from the other thread
>>
>> That's a really great starring point Michael, thanks for sharing. Really
>> good job and I think your analysis is spot on!
>>
>> I was struggling with a similar problem while annotating forms when I was
>> working in Search, so I'm really glad to see this trade-off analysis here.
>> I still don't feel like any of those are great :(
>>
>> I think, however, it is worth exploring and adding to your list a lower
>> level API per the Extensible Web Manifesto
>> <https://extensiblewebmanifesto.org/> and leave the ergonomics to
>> userland code. Here are a couple of ideas worth comparing and contrasting:
>>
>> (1) JSON-LD
>> (2) A JS API (viz the AOM
>> <https://github.com/WICG/aom/blob/gh-pages/explainer.md>)
>>
>> In both (1) and (2) the approach here is that you (a) detach the
>> semantics from the DOM/presentation and (b) leave ergonomics (or the color
>> of the bikeshed) to be explored/innovated from userland code with
>> polyfills. So, for example, you'd expect user agents to understand these
>> low-level APIs (1) or (2) and you'd allow/foster/encourage JS libraries to
>> fill the gap of ergonomics. In time, if you find a specific userland
>> framework has won and everybody converged to it, you bake that into the
>> user agent.
>>
>> I think that one of the reasons why you may be struggling to find a
>> silver bullet in your current analysis in because I believe that there is a
>> fundamental difference between the DOM and the data structure you want to
>> build. Specifically, when it gets to `position: absolute` everything falls
>> apart, and, in my experience, a lot of production-level code (e.g. things
>> that you'd find on gmail.com, yelp.com, hertz.com, opentable.com, rather
>> than on demos/prototypes) is written in a manner where the DOM doesn't
>> represent anymore the semantic data structure.
>>
>> In Google Search, we have found that the semantic web has taken off when
>> JSON-LD was introduced: de-coupling the semantic information from the DOM
>> substantially increased its expressivity, earlier tied to microdata/rdfa.
>>
>> Here is an example of what that could look like:
>>
>>
>> <html>
>>
>>   <script src="https://jquery.com/a11y.js">
>>
>>   <button intent="undo"/>
>>
>> </html>
>>
>> Which would be equivalent, from a user agent perspective, if the user had
>> written something along the lines of:
>>
>> <html>
>>
>>   <button id="1"/>
>>
>>   <script>
>>     document.a11y.actions.push({
>>       label: "undo",
>>       id: "1"
>>     })
>>   </script>
>>
>> </html>
>>
>>
>> The latter is obviously unergonomic, so we wouldn't encourage people to
>> use it directly, but the cool part about it is that it enables/delegates
>> the bike-shedding to userland, giving somebody else the ability to come up
>> with a different serialization, like
>>
>>
>> <html>
>>
>>   <script src="https://anotherpolyfill.com/a11y.js">
>>
>>   <button itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/UndoAction"/>
>>
>> </html>
>>
>> Unclear to me if this is any better than what you currently have, but it
>> seems like a fundamentally different approach worth comparing / contrasting
>> :)
>>
>> I'll think about this deeper and see if there are more alternatives worth
>> considering.
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>>
>> PS when I mentioned earlier about prior-art / alternatives considered I
>> was hoping I'd be able to find some research in both serialization (what
>> you have done, "how to embed semantic information") but also the taxonomy
>> (e.g. "what semantic information to attach", e.g. what does "undo" mean?).
>> Any chance you would have anything handy for the latter too?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sam - I've taken a pass at populating the pros / cons for different
>>> approaches to adding personalization semantics to content:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Compar
>>> ison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content
>>>
>>> I tried to describe briefly the approaches I know are on the table and
>>> consider pros / cons for host languages, authors, and user agents. At the
>>> bottom is a more generic breakdown of advantages each approach provides,
>>> but it's very reductionist. It's a start for conversation.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion