- From: George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 09:11:37 -0600
- To: "'Bill McCoy'" <bmccoy@w3.org>, "'AUDRAIN LUC'" <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>, "'Dave Cramer'" <dauwhe@gmail.com>
- Cc: "'W3C Publishing Steering Committee'" <public-publishing-sc@w3.org>
I agree, and the SC still needs to review the prepared documents before it is put on the agenda for the PBG, which is not completely different from the old IDPF Board's approach. Best George Best George -----Original Message----- From: Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 8:35 AM To: 'AUDRAIN LUC' <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr>; 'Dave Cramer' <dauwhe@gmail.com> Cc: 'W3C Publishing Steering Committee' <public-publishing-sc@w3.org> Subject: RE: agenda topic for June 4 call: formality of EPUB 3.2 approval steps Thanks Dave for clarifying. +1 to the plan to use IDPF designations. And I don't actually think this "contradicts" the general CG process document per se - referring to the output generally as a Report and using that template, while still terming it, depending on stage, a "Proposed Specification" or whatever seems fine and it's totally consistent with how the JSON LD-1.1 "Report" also refers to itself as a "Recommendation". It's a fine point but the IDPF process had a gate of Board approval to get to Proposed Specification status, i.e. the IDPF EPUB WG couldn't unilaterally declare that. Similarly perhaps we should ask the BG to formally OK that milestone when the CG feels it's timely (this SC was originally a proxy for IDPF Board but now that we've recast it as a coordination group it would seem more appropriate to leave that decision in the hands of the BG as a whole). --Bill -----Original Message----- From: AUDRAIN LUC <LAUDRAIN@hachette-livre.fr> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 7:06 AM To: Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>; Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> Cc: W3C Publishing Steering Committee <public-publishing-sc@w3.org> Subject: Re: agenda topic for June 4 call: formality of EPUB 3.2 approval steps Hi Dave, Nice take ! Luc Le 27/04/2018 13:38, Ğ Dave Cramer ğ <dauwhe@gmail.com> a écrit : >Sorry for top posting, but it seems appropriate. What I was trying to >express the other day is that the W3C rec-track Process (with a capital >"P") does not apply to community group work. When questions of process >arise, one must look at the CG charter[1]. We find: > >> For consistency with EPUB 3 development to date, and to make it clear >>that EPUB 3 work in this CG is not Recommendation-track work according >>to the full W3C Process, the expectation is that historical IDPF >>designations for specification maturity shall be utilized (³Public >>Draft², ³Proposed Specification², ³Recommended Specification², and >>³Informational Document²). > >This does contradict the general community group process document [2], >where specifications produced by CGs are known as "Community Group >Reports." And it gives no details on what each of those terms mean. > >I'd propose that when the community group decides that EPUB 3.2 is >essentially complete and ready for wide review, we can have a "proposed >specification" phase, where we solicit feedback from everyone we can. >After incorporating this feedback, we can propose a final version of >our report, ask for the blessing of the business group, and collect >Final Specification Agreement [3] committments from CG members. > > >[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/02/EPUB3CGcharter >[2] https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/ >[3] https://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/final/ > >Thanks, > >Dave > >On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:26 AM, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@w3.org> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Dave Cramer in last BG call said that he thought we should not have >>any particular formality around the interim approval steps for EPUB >>3.2 (such as IDPFıs Proposed Specification) to avoid folks getting >>confused between W3C CG work product and WG work product. >> >> >> >> I would like to revisit this and ask the SC to agree where the >>responsibility should be for deciding this and related questions about >>the formality of EPUB 3.2, so I would request we add this to our >>agenda for June >> 4 (unless itıs clear from email that there is an obvious consensus >>and no discussion is needed). >> >> >> >> To me, this question belongs primarily to the BG not the CG since the >>BG has the responsibility to address business-level ecosystem needs >>as well as oversight and approval responsibility for the work product >>of the CG. Of course the BG shouldnıt be allowed to burden the CG >>excessively but it seems to me the BG should have the main voice in >>deciding how we need to promote and market EPUB. And approval of >>specifications is a key part of that promotion and marketing. Dave >>you may in fact have intended to provide a BG perspective >>representing Hachette Book Group, since it was during the BG meeting, >>but this wasnıt clear (at least to me) given your co-chair-ship of >>the CG. But since it wasnıt an explicit agenda topic I didnıt want to >>chime in on it in our limited time. >> >> >> >> If we agree that this is a BG decision then I would propose to add a >>topic for approval steps for EPUB 3.2 for the next BG call and >>perhaps have some email about that en route. >> >> >> >> Because, I believe Daveıs plan to avoid any formality is contrary to >>the business needs for a stable and reliable EPUB specification, both >>in general and based on the current need to crisply move past the >>EPUB 3.1 snafu. I agree with Dave and others that EPUB 3.2 is >>inherently not that important in the sense that what we need to be >>promoting is EPUB 3, but the fact that the latest extant version of >>EPUB 3 is problematic and that the organization that developed it no >>longer exists or supports it is a weak point. That work has started >>on what may be an EPUB 4 further confuses things. Iım told there were >>people at last Frankfurt saying ³EPUB 3 is dead² and thatıs troubling. >> So I think itıs critical that EPUB 3.2 be seen as a real thing not an >>ad hoc product of an ad hoc group. And the arrangement between IDPF >>and W3C was explicitly designed to facilitate this. The BG oversight >>and approval of the CG work on EPUB 3 revisions was intended to >>function in a directly analogous manner to the AC approval of W3C >>specifications produced by WGs, and the membership approval of IDPF >>specifications. Both approval processes include approval of interim >>versions not just a blessing of the final work product. >> So I think that we should do likewise and have at least one interim >>approval gate by the BG en route to finalizing EPUB 3.2, and do some >>PR around the hopefully positive result. >> >> >> >> Yes we should avoid confusion about the CG work product being the >>same as a W3C Recommendation but this seems like a minor concern >>especially since we will be using the CG document template a la [1], >>something weıve already agreed on and that I donıt propose to >>revisit. >> >> >> >> Daveıs overall approach seems to be based on an argument that since >>CGıs donıt have any particular process requirements that therefore we >>should not impose any. But this is both contrary to the IDPF-W3C >>understanding as well as a logical fallacy. That some (maybe most) >>CGs are very ad hoc about their processes doesnıt imply that we must >>be also. That there are no particular process requirements for CGs >>doesnıt imply that we canıt have any, it only means that we are free >>to do whatever makes sense to meet the overall goals. >> >> >> >> And while Iım not suggesting that we invent a new report template I do >>think >> we can and should get creative in maximizing EPUB 3.2 being seen as a >>³real >> specification² equally if not more vetted and valid than anything >>previously >> produced by IDPF. If we donıt do this, we risk further muddying the >>waters >> which again with 3.1 being problematic would be extra bad. And as Iıve >>said, >> we need to show that EPUB 3 is alive and well and being well maintained >> within W3C. >> >> >> >> If we quickly do an ISO standard based on 3.2 and/or a W3C >>Recommendation a >> la JSON-LD, then that will of course help. But in either of these paths >>we >> will not want to create forking. We donıt want a 3.2 from the CG that is >> merely viewed as fodder for an ISO standard or W3C Recommendation, we >>would >> want these outputs to be completely compatible. So that still argues for >> focus on EPUB 3.2 being dependable, not the result of an ad hoc >>process. So >> to me the more ³window dressing² we can put around this to maximize the >> perception of dependability, the better. Of course I donıt propose that >>we >> overly burden the CG, but I donıt think that for example bringing at >>least >> one interim draft to the BG for approval would do so (and again doing >>so is >> arguably an implication of having the approval responsibility per the >> IDPF-W3C deal as embodied in the respective charters). >> >> >> Re: naming, I donıt necessarily have a great answer but I also think >>this >> deserves more discussion. We are in agreement to use the CG Report >>template >> which makes it very clear in the preface that the results are not a W3C >> Recommendation but JSON LD 1.1 [1] very clearly calls itself a >> ³Recommendation²: ³This document is one of three JSON-LD 1.1 >>Recommendations >> produced by the JSON for Linking Data W3C Community Group:² >> >> So I think itıs fair game for us to do likewise, adopt IDPF naming, or >> whatever the BG thinks will best serve the goal. So if we called the >>final >> result a ³Recommendation², then we could call the interim milestone >> something accordingly. We should perhaps investigate what JSON-LD 1.1 >>did. >> >> >> >> Again while I have a personal perspective here on whatıs best for the >> ecosystem and W3C, my main goal in sending this email is to clarify >>whether >> this group feels that this should be a BG decision and if so to get it >>in >> the stream to be an explicit agenda topic there which I think deserves >>a bit >> more than just Dave saying in passing what he wants to do as CG >>co-chair. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> --Bill >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] https://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld/20180215/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 27 April 2018 15:12:13 UTC