W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-publ-wg@w3.org > July 2017

Re: definition of Web Publication

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 23:43:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CADExNBOOMNF571aeZ208rqkVBAGOJgprzdCT6nHMk5iDMCx=Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, "Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Hi Rick,

I tend to think using "standard  OWP technologies" is likely the only
reasonable way of presenting WP content.  However...

It's a little bit unclear to me what "standard OWP technologies" means --
if I write my own CSS engine is that "non-standard OWP technologies" if I
don't use a system Browser or WebView is that "non-standard?".

So, I kinda think the "may" is correct -- in that it's requirement that
whatever we do is presentable using the "normal" stuff... but, I'm not sure
I'd make it a requirement.

Best,
   Garth


On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Johnson, Rick <
Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com> wrote:

> Leonard,
>
>
>
> Restating my issue with the original:
>
>
>
> In response to the word “MAY” in the definition of WP, I’m trying to
> understand the use cases for a W3C specification for any WP that does not
> present using OWP.
>
>
>
> Why would this not be “is” (to affirm that what we are doing is around
> OWP, while leaving open a door for non OWP) or “must” (closing the door for
> anything not OWP)?
>
>
>
> -Rick
>
>
>
> *From: *Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 24, 2017 at 5:14 PM
> *To: *Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, 'Garth Conboy' <
> garth@google.com>
> *Cc: *"'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken'" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, 'W3C Publishing
> Working Group' <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: definition of Web Publication
> *Resent-From: *<public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, July 24, 2017 at 5:13 PM
>
>
>
> Appreciate the attempt to open it, but I still am quite happy with the
> original.  I still don’t see a real need to change it…
>
>
>
> Leonard
>
>
>
> *From: *Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, July 24, 2017 at 6:18 PM
> *To: *Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
> *Cc: *"'Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken'" <tsiegman@wiley.com>, 'W3C Publishing
> Working Group' <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: definition of Web Publication
> *Resent-From: *<public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Monday, July 24, 2017 at 6:18 PM
>
>
>
> To Garth, no, not omitted on purpose so much as not having a lot of time
> to think about it before having to run out. :)
>
>
>
> To Leonard, sure, if you're concerned about interpretation it can be made
> more open. But, again, the definition as was written tells you nothing
> about a web publication or what makes it unique. I can see how that was
> agreed on for a specification that wasn't defining web publications, but if
> the idea is that we move to something more tangible, that's what I'd offer
> based on how discussions have progressed so far. It no doubt will need
> further tweaking as we progress, of course, and perhaps manifest will go
> away. But until then a manifest appears to be the course we're charting.
>
>
>
> Updating from my original post, perhaps:
>
>
>
> A Web Publication is a uniquely identifiable representation of a bounded
> work using Open Web Platform technologies. It is defined by a collection of
> constituent resources linked together through a manifest. The content of a
> Web Publication can take a wide variety of forms, from formal artistic and
> intellectual works to ad hoc documents and memos.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Garth Conboy [mailto:garth@google.com]
> *Sent:* July 24, 2017 1:42 PM
> *To:* Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com>; W3C Publishing
> Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: definition of Web Publication
>
>
>
> I'm gonna go with "+1".   I tend to think "uniquely identifiable grouping"
> is key.  Matt, did you omit that on purpose?
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>    Garth
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It's a somewhat vague definition, I find. What really sets it apart from a
> web page or web site, for example? Those have constituent resources, are
> uniquely identifiable and viewable using OWP technologies. It also leaves
> open the question of what "organized together" means.
>
>
>
> I hate writing quick responses to terminology, but something like the
> following would be more where my thinking is:
>
>
>
> A Web Publication (WP) is a representation of an artistic or intellectual
> work using Open Web Platform technologies. It is defined by a collection of
> constituent resources linked together through a manifest.
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com]
> *Sent:* July 24, 2017 1:04 PM
> *To:* W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
> *Subject:* definition of Web Publication
>
>
>
> The DPUB IG proposed a definition of Web Publications [1, 2]
>
>
>
> Here are the short definitions. Please see [1] for the longer definition.
>
>
>
> ·  A Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more constituent
> resources, organized together in a uniquely identifiable grouping that may
> be presented using standard Open Web Platform technologies.
>
> ·  A Packaged Web Publication (PWP) is a Web Publication
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fpwp%2F%23dfn-web-publication&data=02%7C01%7C%7C96b69b9e923b44adb55908d4d2e1e13a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636365314963898112&sdata=78TTzB3d9xd2MGb4e8E8LfuPFXJHErBd%2FTXUuCtjFzc%3D&reserved=0>
> whose constituent resources are combined into a single distributable file,
> using some standard packaging format.
>
> ·  In this document, manifest refers to an abstract means to contain
> information necessary to the proper management, rendering, and so on, of a
> publication. This is opposed to metadata that contains information on the
> content of the publication like author, publication date, and so on. The
> precise format of how such a manifest is stored is not considered in this
> document.
>
>
>
> If you are happy with these definitions, a simple +1 vote is sufficient.
> If you are not, please vote -1 and propose revisions.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/#whatisawebpublication
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fpwp%2F%23whatisawebpublication&data=02%7C01%7C%7C96b69b9e923b44adb55908d4d2e1e13a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636365314963898112&sdata=%2B0xPJGjK4CsEdtsCyGdPAaC5wVHtCpKCKvV6%2FDJ0%2Bik%3D&reserved=0>
>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp/#terminology
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2Fpwp%2F%23terminology&data=02%7C01%7C%7C96b69b9e923b44adb55908d4d2e1e13a%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636365314963898112&sdata=YvcFmBoAzRNPjYmroLVPb%2BZG19nahTIxbCps7dkn0Ek%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *Tzviya Siegman*
>
> Information Standards Lead
>
> Wiley
>
> 201-748-6884 <(201)%20748-6884>
>
> tsiegman@wiley.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2017 03:43:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:52:14 UTC