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

Hi All,

As an additional data-point (without drawing any definitive conclusions),
the Microdata part of the HTML specification
<https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/microdata.html>, while not
specifically citing schema.org's taxonomy as part of the normative spec,
nonetheless ONLY uses schema.org references in all of the examples shown. I
suspect that this would lead a lay implementor to potentially presume that
this is the definitive library (no other options are suggested or shown in
any of the examples). For example, the itemtype usage here:

<!DOCTYPE HTML>
<html lang="en">
<title>My Blog</title>
<article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/BlogPosting">
<header>
<h1 itemprop="headline">Progress report</h1>
<p><time itemprop="datePublished" datetime="2013-08-29">today</time></p>
<link itemprop="url" href="?comments=0">
</header>


Looking more closely at the itemtype attribute, it ultimately lands the
reader at the following:

When someone applying this specification to their activities decides that
they will recognize the requirements of such an extension specification, it
becomes an applicable specification for the purposes of conformance
requirements in this specification.

NOTE: Someone could write a specification that defines any arbitrary byte
stream as conforming, and then claim that their random junk is conforming.
However, that does not mean that their random junk actually is conforming
for everyone's purposes: if someone else decides that that specification
does not apply to their work, then they can quite legitimately say that the
aforementioned random junk is just that, junk, and not conforming at all.
As far as conformance goes, what matters in a particular community is what
that community agrees is applicable.

My (possibly flawed) interpretation of this is that, at least at WHAT WG,
they are allowing external references to be *applicable specifications*
without too much fuss: "*...what matters in a particular community is what
that community agrees is applicable.*"

> Specifically, is it possible to simplify [1] and make a clear reference
to schema.org instead of the hand-weaving approach we have there currently?


I will also note that when Microdata was still a stand-alone W3C Rec (
https://www.w3.org/TR/2017/WD-microdata-20170504/) it too referenced
schema.org with no further explanation, restriction, or guidance on
providing alternatives to schema.org, which again suggests to me that the
relationship between W3C spcs and schema.org is a little more 'baked in'
than, say other similar mechanisms (microformats for example).

Not sure what this all adds up to, outside of noting that schema.org has
been part of the larger normative ecosystem at the W3C for some time now,
if not directly, certainly by reference in normative specs.

FWIW

JF

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 3:26 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> 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 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).
>
>
> 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
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>
>
>
> ----
> 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
>
>

-- 
*John Foliot* |
Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |

"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"

Received on Thursday, 9 September 2021 12:17:07 UTC