Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

This plays into a larger question I had about how these groups interplay
with each other...

I like Rick's proposal for consolidation.  As a next step for the epub for
education sub group in the CG, I think we should examine the elements of
the spec and break out what elements need to go where. We can document this
on the wiki. (Rather than outline them over email with is kind of brutal.)

Bill, this leaves room for BISG to continue down the path of authoring
guides but I'd like to see some coordination btwn the authoring guides and
the IMS work for messaging about ebook accessibility to the wider
educational community.

I'm involved in all three of these groups, as are a few others on this
chain.

So:

*w3c* - epub for education consolidation work; spec
*BISG* - authoring guidelines
*IMS* - ebook/accessibility education, plain language interpretations for
non-technical/no-publishing professional audience


Thoughts on that breakdown?
R

Rachel Comerford | Director of Content Standards | T 212.576.9433

*Macmillan Learning*

On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>
wrote:

> So are you suggesting that all these things shouldn’t be mentioned in
> authoring guidance?
>
>
>
> Or should the authoring guidance move, for example, to BISG, which often
> publishes Best Practices types of guidance?
>
>
>
> Bill Kasdorf
>
> VP and Principal Consultant | *Apex CoVantage*
>
> p:
>
> 734-904-6252 <(734)%20904-6252>  m:   734-904-6252 <(734)%20904-6252>
>
> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
>
> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
> <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 27, 2017 11:50 AM
> *To:* Matt Garrish; 'Ric Wright'; 'Garth Conboy'
> *Cc:* 'W3C Publishing Business Group'; 'Dave Cramer'; 'Rachel Comerford'
> *Subject:* Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>
>
>
> My view:  With the assumption that we have had an edit thru the document
> to align it with 3.1, and with the assumption that section 6 (IMS stuff) is
> removed, I want to ask each of the remaining sections and levels these
> questions:
>
> -Is what is being referenced a part of EPUB 3.1?  If yes, then we remove
> it.  If no, then we ask is there any existing implementations (or public
> plans to implement)?  If no, then we remove it.
>
>
>
> With that filter, looking at http://idpf.org/edupub we would drop open
> annotations, scriptable components, and distributable objects.
>
>
>
> Looking at http://www.idpf.org/epub/profiles/edu/spec/ that would change
> or remove sections 1.5, 2.1, 2.2, 3.3,  3.4, 5, 6, 8.3, 9, and 10
>
>
>
> -Rick
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, June 26, 2017 at 8:59 AM
> *To: *"Johnson, Rick" <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>, 'Ric Wright' <
> rkwright@geofx.com>, 'Garth Conboy' <garth@google.com>
> *Cc: *'W3C Publishing Business Group' <public-publishingbg@w3.org>, Dave
> Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>, Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.
> com>
> *Subject: *RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>
>
>
> I believe the only incompatibility between 3.1 and this specification is
> with the refines attribute. The audience and educationalAlignment
> properties relied on it, so either their expressiveness has to be reduced
> to a single property or the metadata has to move to an external record
> format.
>
>
>
> If we recommend following the accessibility specification, there are
> probably some bits that can be dropped (e.g., accessibility metadata and
> pagination).
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> *From:* Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com
> <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>]
> *Sent:* June 26, 2017 8:35 AM
> *To:* Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>; Garth Conboy <garth@google.com>;
> Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>; Dave
> Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com>; Rachel Comerford <rachel.comerford@macmillan.
> com>
> *Subject:* Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>
>
>
> Adding Dave/Rachel for the CG aspect.
>
>
>
> In general, I agree with this, but I believe there needs to be another
> pass thru the document to align with the work done since it was created
> (specifically 3.1 and accessibility 1.0), and perhaps to remove some things
> that in hindsight we may not want to formalize until sometime after wp/pwp
> (or is that now wpub and pk-wpub?).
>
>
>
> -Rick
>
>
>
> *From: *Ric Wright <rkwright@geofx.com>
> *Date: *Monday, June 26, 2017 at 8:22 AM
> *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
>
>
>
> +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 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/ )
>
>
>
> *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.  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
>
>
>