RE: Normative reference to schema.org in EPUB Accessibility?

The odd thing in this case is that the same people primarily responsible for
developing the accessibility metadata in schema.org are the same people
working on the EPUB accessibility specification. I was the editor of the
schema.org proposal, for example, working for Benetech at the time. Charles
Lapierre, George Kerscher, and Avneesh Singh were also all involved in the
original proposal and are members of the WG, and Madeleine Rothberg
represented IMS and continues to work with us on the metadata and
implementing it in EPUB.

So in that sense, we know that the metadata itself is stable, as we're still
the primary maintainers even if the charter/funding of the original grouping
has lapsed. We've been using the EPUB/publishing accessibility groups as a
meeting space over the years.

That said, we're currently working to create a more formal maintenance
structure, most likely a W3C community group similar to how schema.org
itself is maintained, as everyone recognizes the web schemas wiki page is
dated, insufficient to the task, and lacks a formal update policy (that
"issue tracker" link is a relic of some really old email discussions, as
we've been logging issues in the publishing accessibility group's tracker[1]
until we find a more permanent home). It exists because that's where we were
pointed to document the properties when we first proposed them.

That said, the reason why we don't reference the properties directly in the
specification is entirely related to the process we had to follow to get 1.0
of the specification through ISO standardization. The original IDPF version
has the schema.org properties listed, but ISO would not recognize the
vocabulary as a referenceable standard so the only workaround was prose
descriptions. I'm sure everyone in the group would like to go back to
referencing the properties directly again, as the current situation does
nothing but add confusion. We didn't think it was an option in W3C, either,
however.

Assuming schema.org in itself isn't a barrier to being cited normatively, is
the only need here to prove that the accessibility metadata itself is
stable? If so, then I suppose the next step is to expedite the move to form
a maintenance community group (cc'ing Avneesh). Given that we've been
maintaining the metadata for years, and are known to the schema.org
maintainers as the owners of the metadata, would formalizing the group prove
sufficient stability?

[1]
https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atype-
schema.org

Matt


-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> 
Sent: September 8, 2021 5:05 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Public Archives <www-archive@w3.org>; W3C Chairs of EPUB 3 WG
<group-epub-wg-chairs@w3.org>; Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com>;
Philippe le Hégaret <plh@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Normative reference to schema.org in EPUB Accessibility?



On 2021-09-08 09:37 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:
> Ralph, Philippe,
> 
> this type of question comes up regularly, but I did not see any clear 
> cut answer.

There's no absolute determination in advance; this is intentional.  Each
case has its own considerations.

> The EPUB Accessibility spec[1] has a section on package metadata[2] to 
> refer to metadata like access mode or accessibility features. The 
> specification defines these terms in general, meaning that it is not 
> properly defined which terms are to be used in a real metadata 
> instantiation; this is left to the separate WG Note on a11y 
> techniques[3] which reveals the thinly veiled fact that, in practice,

"thinly veiled" is a big flag for me.  The spec should be clear and as
precise as possible about the Working Group's intentions.  If the WG intends
that the conformance expectations for an eventual W3C Recommendation
maximize interoperability with specific metadata usage it should state so.
If it believes that the schema.org terms and their definitions are the
correct solution, it should state so -- and be prepared to argue its
position with the Director, the W3C Members, and the Community.

> these general terms refer to their equivalents in schema.org 
> <http://schema.org>[4]. Indeed, all the terms defined in [2] are, 
> actually, defined in schema.org <http://schema.org>, and those are the 
> only mappings for those terms. Those terms are not out of the blue,
> actually: they have been developed, originally, in cooperation with 
> the IMS Global[5] and are now maintained on [6].

"maintained on [6]" does give me pause.  [6] does not state a maintenance
policy and refers to an issue tracker that uses the pronoun "I" in many
places, including its Resolved Issues section, and was last modified on 5
January 2018.  The parent page (WebSchemas) is explicitly disclaimed as
"left primarily for historical record".  Is this in fact the authoritative
place for maintaining the current accessibility vocabulary?

> The reason of this somewhat weird setting in [2] is to avoid 
> normatively referring to schema.org <http://schema.org>.

If the WG believes such a normative reference is what the Web needs, it
should not shy away from stating that.

>  Actually, the
> accessibility spec has an earlier version published at the ISO, and in  
>ISO land it was a clear no-no to do so. However, W3C is meant to be 
>more  flexible and therefore the question does arise. However, our 
>document on  normative references[7] is not 100% clear cut for me.
> 
> Hence this mail: does W3C has an official position as for a normative 
> reference to schema.org <http://schema.org> terms?

In this, as in many things, if the WG is able to obtain a clear and
authoritative statement on the stability of the parts it wants to
normatively reference, the organization (or community) who "owns" that
stability, and the open process by which the referenced material is
maintained, that is important to the Director's consideration.

> Specifically, is it
> possible to simplify [1] and make a clear reference to schema.org 
> <http://schema.org> instead of the hand-weaving approach we have there 
> currently? In case of a positive answer, can we, possibly, add a 
> reference to schema.org <http://schema.org> in [7] just as we do with 
> the WhatWG?

It depends on the answers to the questions above (and maybe other questions
that could arise) :)

-Ralph

> Thanks for your help
> 
> Ivan
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/>
> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/#sec-disc-package
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/#sec-disc-package>
> [3] https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-tech-11/#meta-002
> <https://www.w3.org/TR/epub-a11y-11/#sec-disc-package>
> [4] https://schema.org/accessMode <https://schema.org/accessMode> [5] 
> http://www.imsglobal.org/activity/accessibility
> <http://www.imsglobal.org/activity/accessibility>
> [6] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility
> <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility>
> [7] https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references
> <https://www.w3.org/2013/09/normative-references>
> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
> <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2021 20:35:46 UTC