Re: Agenda items for 4/4 steering committee call

On EDUPUB: I am not sure what the status of the annotation work is within EDUPUB, but we may want see whether we could simply deprecate it in favor of the new W3C recommendation.

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



> On 4 Apr 2017, at 14:08, Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com> wrote:
> 
> Regarding the EDUPUB conversation item in my proposed agenda, I would like to discuss the below (sharing via email to avoid issues with irc).
>  
> -Rick
>  
> EDUPUB/EPUB for Education Proposal
> (referencing the current draft at http://www.idpf.org/epub/profiles/edu/spec/ )
>  
> All accessibility work, the ‘Education Document Models’ (section 3), Annotations (section 9), Navigation (section 7), and the inclusion of scriptable components (section 5) or distributable objects (section 10) are the purview of, and stated to align with the W3C work on EPUB and future iterations of EPUB.  In short, we tell people to use EPUB 3.1, and future versions for these items.  The work done for EDUPUB is deprecated in favor of EPUB 3.1 and future versions.
>  
> The ‘Content Structure’ details (section 4 and the related vocabulary), along with the ‘Publication Metadata’ (section 8 and the related vocabulary)) have value to be made normative for educational use, and should be given to the CG to finalize as a set of specifications for educational use of EPUB 3.1.  Attention should be given to harmonizing this work with other W3C investigations, such as is illustrated in the comment at https://github.com/w3c/html/issues/846#issuecomment-290399200
>  
> Dealing with (section 6) outcome results flowing back to a grade book, and integration with educational systems needing interoperability (such as LTI) are not the purview of a horizontally focused organization (like the W3C), and should be given over to a vertically focused organization (like IMS Global) to standardize best practices and certification procedures.  If they are interested (and I know that they are!) in having the freedom to use the EDUPUB name for that set of specifications, we would give them the ability to do so.
>