Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

Hello all.
As regards to:
> We could supersede epub:type, which keeps it for compatibility with older versions without generating any warnings.
I totally agree on this. To supersede.

Julian M. Calderazi
Team Leader @ DigitalBe.com <http://digitalbe.com/>
+54 9 11 6762 7351
Buenos Aires, ARG

> On May 8, 2017, at 14:40, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This is what I'm waiting to hear more about. Deprecation means warnings per the specification, so part of this may be my own pedantic reading of things. We could supersede epub:type, which keeps it for compatibility with older versions without generating any warnings.
>  
> No one went for that option, though, as it means duplication of role+epub:type everywhere that epub:type has significance for 3.0. We also still lack the vocabulary to make it feasible to bring many of the satellite specs forward with only role, and if we supersede epub:type it has to be ignored by reading systems.
>  
> Worrisome doesn't mean impossible, but if such a change were to be made it should be done asap before 3.1 takes legs without role for key content.
>  
> Matt
>  
> From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com] 
> Sent: May 8, 2017 12:33 PM
> To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>; 'Paul Belfanti' <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>; 'Juli Calderazi' <jcalderazi@gmail.com>
> Cc: 'Johnson, Rick' <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>; public-publishingbg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>  
> I think this is a legacy-vs.-going-forward issue. Deprecating epub:type in favor of role is the right thing to do when creating new content. But there is a ton of legacy, published, distributed content out there using epub:type so it has to continue to be allowed. The new spec should encourage transitioning content from epub:type to role, and imo should also recommend that RS support both (is that an issue? I’m not an RS person). It should also be pointed out that role is preferred (required?) for accessibility.
>  
> Bill Kasdorf
> VP and Principal Consultant | Apex CoVantage
> p:
> 734-904-6252  m:   734-904-6252
> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786 <http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786>
> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786 <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>  
>  
> From: Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com <mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com>] 
> Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 10:46 AM
> To: 'Paul Belfanti'; 'Juli Calderazi'
> Cc: 'Johnson, Rick'; public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>  
> I think the comment under section 8 about investigating epub:type alternatives is supposed to be with this vocabulary.
>  
> The metadata and vocabulary under section 8 is all schema.org and implemented through rdfa/microdata/json, so further integration with W3C doesn't seem applicable. (Dropping the LRMI vocabulary is noted in the appendix as a to do, so there's hopefully even less the CG would have to do.)
>  
> Deprecating epub:type in a 3.1.x release after agreeing it was too big a change for a 3.x release strikes me as worrisome, but I'll wait to see how that actually plays out. :)
>  
> Matt
>  
> From: Paul Belfanti [mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>] 
> Sent: May 8, 2017 10:09 AM
> To: Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>
> Cc: Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>; public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>  
> That’s correct, Juli.
>  
> Paul 
> —
> Paul Belfanti
> Vice President, Production, Manufacturing & Content Architecture
> (w) 978.639.3536
> (m) 201.783.4884
>  
>  
> From: Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com <mailto:jcalderazi@gmail.com>>
> Date: Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM
> To: Paul Belfanti <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>>
> Cc: Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>, "public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>" <public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
> Subject: Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>  
> Paul, you are making reference to the structural vocabulary? 
>  
> Julian M. Calderazi
> Team Leader @ DigitalBe.com <http://digitalbe.com/>
> +54 9 11 6762 7351
> Buenos Aires, ARG
>  
>  
>> On May 8, 2017, at 10:47, Paul Belfanti <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com <mailto:Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Rick,
>>  
>> This plan seems practical. The only thing that’s unclear to me is what happens to the expanded semantics associated with education content. Will that be fully deprecated, and if so, how do we account for the structural needs of the edu segment? 
>>  
>> Thanks,
>>  
>> Paul 
>> —
>> Paul Belfanti
>> Vice President, Production, Manufacturing & Content Architecture
>> (w) 978.639.3536
>> (m) 201.783.4884
>>  
>>  
>> From: Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com <mailto:Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>>
>> Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM
>> To: "public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>" <public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
>> Subject: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
>> Resent-From: <public-publishingbg@w3.org <mailto:public-publishingbg@w3.org>>
>> Resent-Date: Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:49 PM
>>  
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message including attachments, if any, is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> 
>  
>