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

Re: definition of Web Publication

From: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 19:13:40 +0530
Message-ID: <852CB6F5E4A94BDBB67C4D1468A5D58D@AvneeshHP840>
To: "Baldur Bjarnason" <baldur@rebus.foundation>
Cc: "Romain" <rdeltour@gmail.com>, <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
Sure, going to some technical detail is important, it depends on the depth 
to which one should go while defining principles.
Having a common definition is good, but we may not spend too much time on 
word smith.
Personally, I would be ok to see a list of bullet points for defining WP.

With regards
Avneesh
-----Original Message----- 
From: Baldur Bjarnason
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 18:23
To: Avneesh Singh
Cc: Romain ; public-publ-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication

IMNSHO, you cannot author a usefully guiding principle for technical 
development without getting into technical issues and implementation 
specifics. But that has been declared as off-topic.

- best
- Baldur Bjarnason
  baldur@rebus.foundation



> On 26 Jul 2017, at 12:50, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> As per my interpretation of discussions in Monday’s call, the objective 
> was to have common agreement on definition, to act as guiding principle 
> for technical development.
>
> With regards
> Avneesh
> From: Romain
> Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 18:00
> To: public-publ-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Sorry to deviate slightly from the discussion, but... we're reaching 40+ 
> answers already in this thread, and despite seeing some progress towards 
> consensus and having read some interesting points, I'm not sure I 
> understand the point of the thread [*].
>
> Are we trying to wordsmith a definition that would end up in the spec? or 
> are we trying to get a general agreement on a web publication, to all be 
> on the same page?
>
> In the first case, I would suggest to wait until the technical details of 
> the spec are more advanced, and a definition would probably come much more 
> naturally. Getting the technical points right is more important to the 
> success of our WG IMO, especially given the aggressive timeframe.
>
> In the latter case, I think we probably all have a more or less converging 
> view of what is a Web publication. The devil's in the details, but 
> tackling these details will be more enlightening than just discussing an 
> abstract definition.
>
> Again, it's just my personal opinion, feel free to disagree.
>
> Romain.
>
> [*] besides, perhaps, trying to break the record set by the 90-or-so-reply 
> thread in the IG.
>
>> On 26 Jul 2017, at 14:02, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A general +1 to everything you've said, Luc. I also prefer Greg's 
>> original wording. I only wonder if it would make sense to be even more 
>> explicit that we're creating a work out of the resources, and that's what 
>> makes a publication unique. For example:
>>
>> A Web Publication is an explicitly authored/created collection of one or 
>> more constituent resources, bound together through a manifest into a 
>> single logical work with a defined though not necessarily required 
>> reading order. The Web Publication is uniquely identifiable, presentable 
>> using Open Web Platform technologies, and available online or off.
>>
>> (As a side note, I hate acronyms in specifications and would prefer we 
>> avoid WP as a shorthand, even if we use it for simplicity in 
>> discussions.)
>>
>> Matt
>>
>> From: AUDRAIN LUC [mailto:LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr]
>> Sent: July 26, 2017 4:32 AM
>> To: Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>; 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
>> Subject: Re: definition of Web Publication
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Boundedness/boudaries and creator intent: Work
>> This is where the library FRBR model brought us in IG to speak about « 
>> “manifested” (in the FRBR [frbr] sense) ».
>> There is a boundary around what has been chosen, curated, included in the 
>> WP by the creator/editor.
>> • I use creator and not author, so that we don’t think it is only for 
>> books… IMO, it is also relevant for any document
>> • I think it is more than « organized ». In the « FRBR sense », it brings 
>> the idea of a manifestation of a work.
>> • The creator's intent makes him create and/or choose content that 
>> represent for him/her an intellectual idea, the work.
>> • A WP is a possibility to manifest in digital form this work
>>
>> This confort the idea that a WP differs from a website by its manifest 
>> (that should reflect somehow the manifestation boundaries)
>> => I support Greg’s wording « A Web Publication (WP) is a[n explicitly 
>> authored/created] collection of one or more constituent resources, bound 
>> together »
>>
>> Controlled updating:
>> We shouldn’t limit these boundaries to « static content ».
>> I like here the idea brought by Jason « an algorithm »: WP content should 
>> be updatable under the control of a creator algorithm.
>> This kind of updating includes the dynamic view of the web in the 
>> boundaries of the WP.
>>
>> Out of bounds: a generic link to a Web page that may disappear in time is 
>> IMO
>> Within bounds: an internal process included by the creator in a WP making 
>> a call to a controlled set of data from a reliable source
>>
>> => the WP Definition should somehow reflects this essential processable 
>> nature of WP, perhaps in adding that algorithm are among the primary 
>> resources?
>>
>> Best,
>> Luc
>>
>> De : Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com>
>> Date : mercredi 26 juillet 2017 à 05:57
>> À : 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" <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
>> Objet : Re: definition of Web Publication
>> Renvoyer - De : <public-publ-wg@w3.org>
>> Renvoyer - Date : mercredi 26 juillet 2017 à 05:57
>>
>> 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:
>>>>
>>>> ?       “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
>>>>> ?       “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
>>>>> ?       “uniquely identifiable grouping”: As we have discussed, 
>>>>> identification of a WP is a separate issue so that doesn’t belong in 
>>>>> the definition
>>>>> ?       “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 13:44:08 UTC

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