Re: [w3ctag/design-reviews] Review of IMSC-HRM (Issue #788)

Hi @nigelmegitt. We discussed this in our TAG call today, and have a couple of questions. As the substance of this spec has been previously published before, what level of review would you like from us? Would you like a complete re-review of the whole HRM (which would make sense if it has changed significantly), or a review of the delta (in which case, could you provide a summary of changes)? Are there any particular architectural issues you would like input to address?

> either to 1) normatively reference IMSC-HRM as a conformance requirement or 2) informatively reference the IMSC-HRM as an optional conformance requirement for users to decide on.

Could you clarify this a little more please, and I'm sorry if I'm missing something obvious - which component(s) in the ecosystem would be required to conform to the IMSC-HRM in this context?

My personal feeling (not at this point representing TAG consensus) is that the utility of the IMSC-HRM algorithm as a tool in the ecosystem is clear. What I'm less clear on are the benefits of publishing it as a REC. If an implementation of the algorithm takes the form of a validator, and (if I understand correctly) 1) the ecosystem doesn't have much need for more than one validator against which to test content; and 2) the content itself is not constrained by the HRM, but simply subject to analysis whereby a value for complexity of the content is output; then an informative NOTE seems to me to be the appropriate way to express this. 

On the other hand, if 1) there are to be multiple validators which all need to yield the same results for any given content; and/or 2) if a system which produces the content is itself constrained by a particular complexity value which it then needs to produce content in accordance with; I can see the case for a REC. In the latter case, the content producing system would need to implement the HRM in order to ensure it produces content with a particular complexity value (established by some external means) - is that correct?

-- 
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/788#issuecomment-1376192275
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.

Message ID: <w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/788/1376192275@github.com>