Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

+1

From:  Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>
Date:  Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM
To:  Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
Cc:  "Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>, W3C Publishing
Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
Resent-From:  <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Wed, 24 May 2017 14:51:39 +0000

Per usual, +1 to Matt's idea.

Best,
   Garth

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just curious, but was any thought given to keeping the document intact but
> dropping from a profile/specification to authoring guidance?
>  
> If we strip out the reading system requirements and IMS integration, and
> reword the RFC language to recommendations, what remains could conceivably be
> published as something like "EPUB Publishing Guidelines for Education" (or
> whatever).
>  
> If everything gets scattered, it only seems to make it that much harder for
> anyone to piece back together. Plus, I'm not sure how much material has
> another home (e.g., the required sectioning isn't really a fit for the
> accessibility specification or techniques).
>  
> A thought anyway, although maybe this belongs in the CG now.
>  
> Matt
>  
> 
> From: Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com]
> Sent: May 6, 2017 12:49 PM
> To: public-publishingbg@w3.org
> Subject: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>  
> All,
> 
>  
> For discussion on Tuesday¹s business group call:
>  
> After discussions among the steering committee, and with the community group
> chairs, and with IMS Global board members and staff, I would like to make this
> proposal for a path forward for the EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) specification:
>  
> EDUPUB/EPUB for Education Proposal
> (referencing the current draft at http://www.idpf.org/epub/profiles/edu/spec/
> )
>  
> Consolidate work around the EPUB 3.1 specification:
> All accessibility work, the ŒEducation Document Models¹ (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.  This includes the ŒContent Structure¹ details
> in section 4 (in essence, the content structure details and associated
> metadata defined in Accessibility 1.0 are all that will be made normative).
>  
> The ŒPublication Metadata¹ (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.  Where it makes
> sense, these can be rolled into a 3.1.x release. Special care should be drawn
> to the deprecation of epub type and the move to role in a 3.1.x release.
>  
> 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 any needed best practices and certification procedures.  We should
> allow them to have the freedom to use the EDUPUB name for that set of
> specifications, if they so desire.
>  
>  
>  
> -Rick