RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

> All else aside, EPUB Anno relies on CFI, which we all but killed in 3.1.

 

We only removed required support for linking in and between content documents, since it's not web technology. It's still critical for internal operations, like referencing annotations. What has to be done is make support for CFI explicitly required by the annotation spec (i.e., it's a shift of support to specifications that actually need CFIs).

 

CFIs are listed in the Web Annotations specification as a fragment selector,[1] as there isn't a suitable alternative at this point for referencing into the zip container. We discussed this problem quite a bit in that group, but CFI was the only practical solution.

 

But, yes, updating the references to the new REC is a necessary step, and renaming to "Web Annotation in EPUB" would probably help.

 

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#fragment-selector

 

Matt

 

From: Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken [mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com] 
Sent: May 8, 2017 9:05 AM
To: Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>; public-publishingbg@w3.org
Subject: RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

 

Hi Rick,

 

This sounds like a good plan. I think we might want to give a little thought to annotations. Ivan is better equipped to address this than I am, but I believe that the EPUB Annotations spec is based on the Open Annotations model, which is fine but somewhat dated. We might want to discuss updated to reflect the W3C Web Annotations family of specs [1]. All else aside, EPUB Anno relies on CFI, which we all but killed in 3.1.

 

[1] https://www.w3.org/annotation/

 

 

Tzviya Siegman

Information Standards Lead

Wiley

201-748-6884

 <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> tsiegman@wiley.com 

 

From: Johnson, Rick [mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com] 
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 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/ )

 

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