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

> On 9 Sep 2021, at 09:24, Avneesh Singh <avneesh.sg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ivan
>  
> “To avoid unnecessary administration: wouldn't it be possible for the EPUB WG to formally take over the maintenance via some process? After all, the EPUB WG is now the guardian of the A11y EPUB document…”
>  
> Both of us discussed this some months ago, and we concluded that schema.org is not specific to publishing, by moving it under any publishing group we will end up creating a perception that it is specific to publishing.
> At this point of time moving maintenance of schema.org a11y metadata to a CG looks as a low resistance solution.

Oh yes, I remember now and I understand. A separate CG it is then…

Ivan



>  
>  
> With regards
> Avneesh
> From: Ivan Herman <>
> Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2021 12:28
> To: Matt Garrish <>
> Cc: Ralph Swick <> ; W3C Public Archives <> ; W3C Chairs of EPUB 3 WG <> ; Philippe le Hégaret <> ; Avneesh Singh <>
> Subject: Re: Normative reference to schema.org in EPUB Accessibility?
>  
> Thanks Matt. I am happy to yield to you for the various details, I only acted as a go-between. One remark, though:
> 
>> On 8 Sep 2021, at 22:35, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@gmail.com <>> wrote:
>>  
>> The odd thing in this case is that the same people primarily responsible for
>> developing the accessibility metadata in schema.org <http://schema.org/> are the same people
>> working on the EPUB accessibility specification. I was the editor of the
>> schema.org <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://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).
>  
> To avoid unnecessary administration: wouldn't it be possible for the EPUB WG to formally take over the maintenance via some process? After all, the EPUB WG is now the guardian of the A11y EPUB document…
>  
> Ivan
>  
>  
> 
>> Given that we've been
>> maintaining the metadata for years, and are known to the schema.org <http://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- <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>
>>> 
>> 
> 
>  
> 
> ----
> 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>
>  


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704