Re: EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal

Hi all,

in the EPUB ecosphere the host language HTML was enriched with epub:type
attributes to carry the structural semantics needed in diverse fields
(education, indexes, dictionaries, etc.). Whether we express that
information as @epub:type or as @role is just a syntactic detail as long as
the complete set of values for @epub:type from the IDPF specs will be
available as well-defined values for @role that should be supported by any
conforming RS.

I think we should be very careful that we don't deprecate or supersede
@epub:type too quickly, before the adequate "port" of its functionality to
@role has been finished. I personally think we should do our best not to
lose  years of development of a specialized descriptive vocabulary at IDPF
in a quick move to another model. As Matt pointed out: "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." I fully agree with this position.

Wolfgang


2017-05-08 21:41 GMT+02:00 Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com>:

> 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 <+54%209%2011%206762-7351>
> 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
> <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 <(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:* Matt Garrish [mailto:matt.garrish@gmail.com
> <matt.garrish@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, May 08, 2017 10:46 AM
> *To:* 'Paul Belfanti'; 'Juli Calderazi'
> *Cc:* 'Johnson, Rick'; 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
> <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>]
> *Sent:* May 8, 2017 10:09 AM
> *To:* Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Johnson, Rick <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>;
> 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 <(978)%20639-3536>
> (m) 201.783.4884 <(201)%20783-4884>
>
>
> *From: *Juli Calderazi <jcalderazi@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Monday, May 8, 2017 at 10:04 AM
> *To: *Paul Belfanti <Paul.Belfanti@ascendlearning.com>
> *Cc: *Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>, "
> public-publishingbg@w3.org" <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 <+54%209%2011%206762-7351>
> Buenos Aires, ARG
>
>
>
> On May 8, 2017, at 10:47, Paul Belfanti <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 <(978)%20639-3536>
> (m) 201.783.4884 <(201)%20783-4884>
>
>
> *From: *Rick Johnson <Rick.Johnson@ingramcontent.com>
> *Date: *Saturday, May 6, 2017 at 12:48 PM
> *To: *"public-publishingbg@w3.org" <public-publishingbg@w3.org>
> *Subject: *EPUB for Education (EDUPUB) proposal
> *Resent-From: *<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/ )
>
> *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
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>