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

Ralph, Philippe,

here is what we are thinking of doing:

- a separate W3C community group will be set up, whose sole purpose in life will be to be the guardian of the schema.org <http://schema.org/> a11y terms. The CG would take over (and clean up) [1]. Once the setup is done, we will also have to contact schema.org <http://schema.org/> to make the situation clear (and put some sort of redirect from [1] to the new CG's site). 
- the a11y specification would directly, and normatively, refer to the schema.org <http://schema.org/> vocabulary possibly referring to the Community Group's site, too. We believe that type of stability is important for the community. There is already a PR showing the differences in the spec[2]

Is this o.k. with you?

Thanks

Ivan


P.S. A an aside, the new CG would need a github repository under the w3c organization. I hope I have the green light to set up when the time comes.


[1] https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility <https://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility>
[2] https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/pull/1808 <https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/pull/1808>



> On 8 Sep 2021, at 22:05, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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