- From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 09:27:17 +0530
- To: "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@gmail.com>, "'Garth Conboy'" <garth@google.com>, "'Laurent Le Meur'" <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
- Cc: "'Leonard Rosenthol'" <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "'Greg Albers'" <GAlbers@getty.edu>, <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4C858510BD014BCDBD374075428CE5D3@AvneeshHP840>
We have developed a lot of usecases on basis of current stage of publishing industry, which is good.
At the same time, the publishing industry is likely to evolve with time, and soon we may see the publications that are updated on weekly or even daily basis.
I see the following differences between publications and webpages.
1. Publisher defined Boundaries and reading order for at least primary resources.
2. Well defined information about major and minor updates.
3. well defined metadata (point 2 is also related to it).
4. Online as well as offline access.
With regards
Avneesh
From: Matt Garrish
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 05:09
To: 'Garth Conboy' ; 'Laurent Le Meur'
Cc: 'Leonard Rosenthol' ; 'Greg Albers' ; public-publ-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: definition of Web Publication
The phrase "intentional curation" sounds more like what web publications enable than a characteristic of the content, although I appreciate what is being sought with it.
And leaving out boundedness from the definition while it was heavily emphasized in the vision document doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What makes publications unique from web pages is the idea that they represent a bounded work, even if the bound is a single document. If that's not true, then can we really call these "web publications" or are they just "identifiable document sets on the web"?
Matt
From: Garth Conboy [mailto:garth@google.com]
Sent: July 25, 2017 5:12 PM
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>; Greg Albers <GAlbers@getty.edu>; public-publ-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
And to a certain extent these "bounds" could also be the part of the publication that is published on the publication date, and can be expected not to change without a new publication. This lack of change after publication is key to me (or at least some way to get back to the "originally published content") -- signatures may play a role here.
Best,
Garth
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org> wrote:
The bounds of a WP are IMO the resources that will be packaged when a PWP is created. Take the exemple of an html page (a primary resource of a WP) containing a video hosted on YouTube. The video content will stay out of the boundaries of the PWP. We can package some constituents of a WP, not all of them.
Laurent
Le 25 juil. 2017 à 22:20, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> a écrit :
I don’t understand how a user would ever know (or care) about the “bounds” of a WP. Can you give an example?
At its simplest, a PWP is a WP that has been packaged up into a single physical container of content (ala EPUB). Beyond that, we still have lots of work to do to understand how (if at all) it would differ from a WP.
On the “states” issue, we spent a *lot* of time in the IG trying to use that states model and when we presented it to the rest of the W3C it was too confusing for many as it’s a very complex grid. It’s also not clear whether we actually need all the various differences in that grid given many things going on with the OWP itself…
Leonard
From: Greg Albers <GAlbers@getty.edu>
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 3:30 PM
To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Cc: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
Thanks all. Glad to be here and I think, now that I gave the w3c permission to archive my posts, they'll show up here normally.
Leonard, good thoughts, thanks! On this though:
a.. “bound” vs. organized: The word bound, to me, feels more like packaging – and so I think we should avoid it for now. But it’s a good word for when we get to PWP
I would argue that a Web Publication, whether packaged or not, must have a sense of boundedness. That those boundaries and a users implicit or explicit understanding of them are a key to exactly what distinguishes a web publication from a website. Particularly from a user's (reader's) perspective, whereas yes, I think from a user agent's perspective, it is the manifest. That makes a lot of sense to me.
A related question I had for you all was around the distinction between a WP and a PWP. To me packaging is a state of a WP not a separate entity from it. And even in our charter it states the PWP as something that we might define and spec out but that we might not depending on activities elsewhere in the w3c. Shouldn't then our definition of a WP encompass its states more holistically. Online v offline, packaged v not packaged, with everything v only with essential resources, etc...?
Thanks,
Greg
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 25, 2017, at 10:54 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote:
Greg had an excellent point about curation, so let me try to add that in using a term that we’ve been trying out here (so feedback on that welcome too)
A Web Publication (WP) is an intentionally curated collection of one or more Web resources organized together through a manifest and presented to users using Open Web Platform technologies.
There were some other things in the suggestion that I didn’t take and I’d like to explain
a.. “bound” vs. organized: The word bound, to me, feels more like packaging – and so I think we should avoid it for now. But it’s a good word for when we get to PWP
b.. “uniquely identifiable grouping”: As we have discussed, identification of a WP is a separate issue so that doesn’t belong in the definition
c.. “reading order”: Having this in the manifest definition, I saw no need to duplicate it in the WP definition.
Leonard
From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM
To: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>, "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 1:34 PM
Laurent - good rewrites, but let me play with it a bit…
Do we really need the middle sentence? It doesn’t say anything useful (IMO). The first and third, however are good. We can then put it all together as:
A Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more Web resources organized together through a manifest and presented to users using Open Web Platform technologies.
Now to apply some simplification to the Manifest definition:
A manifest is structured information about a Web Publication, such as informative metadata and the default reading order of its primary constituents.
I’m not thrilled with that since it’s still not clear to me if we want all that stuff (metadata + resources + reading order + ….) in a single “manifest” *or* we will end up with multiple ones (but even then, it may still conceptually be a manifest).
Thoughts?
Leonard
From: Laurent Le Meur <laurent.lemeur@edrlab.org>
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:38 AM
To: "public-publ-wg@w3.org" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Publishing Working Group <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
Resent-From: <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 11:38 AM
The current definition is facing a large set of comments. From these comments, I tried a variant of Matt's proposal:
A Web Publication (WP) is a collection of one or more Web resources organized 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. Web Publications are presented to end-users using Open Web Platform technologies.
A manifest is the structured information necessary for the proper identification and description of a Web Publication, plus the default reading order of its primary constituents.
Laurent
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2017 03:57:46 UTC