Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

+1 from me also.

From: Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>
Date: Monday 26 June 2017 at 13:22
To: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>, 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: Monday 26 June 2017 at 13:24

This message originated from outside your organization
________________________________
+1

From: Garth Conboy <garth@google.com<mailto:garth@google.com>>
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 9:51 AM
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com<mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>>
Cc: "Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com<mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>, W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>]
Sent: May 6, 2017 12:49 PM
To: public-publishingbg@w3.org<mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

All,

For discussion on Tuesday’s 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/<http://www.idpf.org/epub/profiles/edu/spec/> )

Consolidate work around the EPUB 3.1 specification:
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.  This includes the ‘Content Structure’ 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 ‘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<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