RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

> I believe the EPUB Annotation spec may be deprecated in favour of [1]

 

Possible, but I recall there being requirements specific to EPUB (naming conventions in the container, location requirements, our own initial context, etc.), but it's been a long time since I read it over.

 

Matt

 

From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: May 8, 2017 9:13 AM
To: Tzviya Siegman <tsiegman@wiley.com>
Cc: Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>; W3C Publishing Business Group <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

 

 

On 8 May 2017, at 15:04, Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> > wrote:

 

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.

 

- We tried to make the Web Annotation documents compatible with the EPUB version. The [1] documents are now in JSON(-LD), which was one of the difference, and there were some minor accessibility (I believe) extensions in the EPUB version that are reflected in the Web Annotation version, too.

- Actually, [2] for the fragment selectors still refers to CFI:-)

 

I believe the EPUB Annotation spec may be deprecated in favour of [1]

 

Ivan

 

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

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

 





 

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

 

 

Tzviya Siegman

Information Standards Lead

Wiley

201-748-6884

tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto: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/> 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

 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Publishing@W3C Technical Lead

Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153

ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704