Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference -- 13 Aug 2013

<trackbot> Date: 13 August 2013

<duga> 3782# is not a valid passcode, apparently

<ivan> yes, duga, there has been a hiccup today

<ivan> please, use 26631 (CONF1

<duga> OK, thank you!

<ivan> sorry about that

<duga> Just so you know, I am on a bus so will have difficulty speaking

<mgylling> duga, okidok

<ivan> guest: karen, JeanKaplansky

<scribe> Scribe: Karen Myers

Guest: Jean Kaplansky

<ivan> scribenick: karen_

<tmichel> zakim says 3782# passcode is not valid !

<Sharad> passcode is not working

Passcode for today only has chnaged

<mgylling> Sharad, use 26631

<tmichel> I have tried at least 1à times I can't get in Zakim with code 3782# "passcode is not valid !"

<tmichel> what is the code then ?

<tmichel> OK works fine with code 26631 ...

Ivan: eventually zakim will learn code...
... apologies for the zakim hiccup; there was an administrative problem today

Markus: Shall we get started?

Ivan: yes

Markus: First thing is of course I forgot to put in the agenda the most fun item of all
... which is to bless or not last week's minutes
... open up floor if there are comments

Ivan: or forever hold your peace

Markus: sounds like there are not objections, so we're done with that
... I thought we could look quickly around to see if we have any new members joining us today

<ivan> For the records, last week's minutes: https://www.w3.org/2013/meeting/dpub/2013-08-06

Madi: hi everyone

Markus: I see one, Brady Duga from Google
... you may not be able to speak

Brady: Say hello, I've been around epub for many, many years
... have done liaising with W3C on CSS WG; and I'm on a bus

Markus: welcome, Brady, we are glad to have you
... anyone else new who was not here last week?
... While we are speaking about new members, we could go into this topic right away
... please keep an eye open to new members you would like to suggest
... please contact me
... Thank you, Jean, for pointing us to Bluefire

<JeanKaplansky> you're welcome!

Markus: we are talking to them now
... Chairs have done a fair amount of outreach over the past week
... Just like we've seen Brady join, we expect to see more folks join
... in large organizations it takes time
... Any other questions regarding membership that anyone would like to speak about?
... Next, a reminder that also email list
... Thierry sent out pointers to the TPAC face-to-face meeting in China
... This group will meet and many other groups in w3C

<TomDN> +q

Markus: For planning purposes, the W3C is asking everyone to register as soon as possible

TomDN: yes, I wanted to ask if there is going to be a telephone bridge to dial in?

Ivan: to the TPAC meeting?
... we will try to set it up
... one thing we cannot change is the time difference

Markus: right
... ok, so anything other regarding logsitics that I missed
... speaking of scribing, Karen is doing so today but will not moving forward
... we should try to identify the scribe in advance of each meeting
... so here is then an order for all of us
... if you are willing to scribe

<ivan> mail on TPAC registration

Markus: identify yourself on the email thread, if this does not work, we will select

Ivan: who is from 201 ac?

<tmichel> Good to know in advance people who volunteer to scribe

<tmichel> by responding to the agenda ...

Markus: welcome, Tsviya

<ivan> guest: Tsviya

Tsviya: I work for Wiley, also work with IDPF, with ePub standards

@: TPAC says we will meet with other groups

Ivan: Two days are Monday and Tuesday
... CSS plans to meet same days; we can plan to meet with them
... and we'll work with Markus and Madi about what other groups

Brady: so Monday and Tuesday for sure

Ivan: yes, but there are other groups meeting and you are welcome to stay for whole week

<tmichel> Everybody is welcome to attend any meeting during TPAC week as guest

Markus: suggest we go to next agenda items about the use case templates

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Template

Karen: emphasize point about need for visas to travel to China
... and need to get letter of invitation

Markus: if you can, follow the link on irc
... or in the email sent out a couple hours ago, go to template page
... there are many different aspects to what we need to decide here
... Assume we'll start out with the wiki for the use cases
... we can move to something else eventually, but let's start there [with wiki]
... Before we start talking about details
... Madi and I have prepared this statement for today
... many of you have been through this type of exercize before
... likely experienced useful and not so useful approaches
... we would like to tap into all of your collective experience
... any suggestions on changes to what we have here is more than welcome
... this is just an early draft to start
... So basically, if you look at the template page
... small chunks like this in these fields is what we would be producing
... many of these use cases will be produced; organized in different ways
... this is one approach to the template
... a quite standard approach
... there is a use case field
... that describes some kind of action or sequence of actions that an actor performs
... Second field is the requirements from the use case
... We've also been discussion...more interesting
... the additional fields that should be provided
... Suggestion for stakeholder field
... which requirement this applies to
... is it stakeholder, retailer, etc.
... could be done in later organization to sort things
... based on stakeholders involved to each case
... Another possible field is ranking
... will be a lot of stuff over the year
... One of things working groups, once we start approaching them
... is how we rank
... ranking is difficult to do, so would like to get your input from your experience
... in a way that makes sense
... Next field is relations dependency...to describe how it relates to another use case
... helps to navigate
... Finally we have the field for mentioning which groups we believe to be involved in which use cases
... Sometimes we know, other times we do not
... good to see which activity is involved
... So those are the starting point fields
... There are two examples below to describe how we could look
... Look at completely ad hoc examples, not intended to be real
... Stakeholders field is enumerated
... ranking field is left out since we don't know how to do that
... That is a quick 101 on the starting template
... I would like to open the floor for all of you to tell us what you think
... what you like, not, what we should do differently

Ivan: For those who are new, put yourselves on queue
... what I miss is something which tells me that this use case is here
... because these are the technical problems with the current W3C specifications
... these are the features I need to do that and I don't have them
... we certainly do not want use cases that cannot be solved without current recommendations

Markus: exactly
... we won't be adding anything if it's not a problem

Ivan: later when we have several of those we can group the various entries
... according to problem areas and regroup certain areas and hand over to CSS for example
... could be 3-4 use cases for example that testify to those

Markus: the field you would like to see, how would it look?

Ivan: if it's more granular than W3C groups
... the technical feature that you ened

s/need

scribe: we don't know in detail, but we need something

Markus: ok, make sure I understand
... Looking at examples and requirements listing
... those are feature descriptions to me

Ivan: ok
... I see what you mean
... Ok, so we should try to be as specific as possible
... to make the later work easier
... you are right, requirement is there
... we should avoid to give a very high-level requirement

JeanKaplansky: I will be quick
... for people who are invited guests, how do you want to proceed if we have one to offer?
... do we do by proxy, or send themselves?
... I don't have access to the wiki

Markus: Ivan?

Karen: best to send to mailing list for now
... two ways to participate are as member or Invited Expert (IE)
... we'll be happy to discuss with anyone in either situation offline

Markus: If we get a big corpus, we'll likely move to a data table since wiki will be messy
... point you are raising about making it easier...we want to filter by W3C area
... WG by specification
... agree that the current field
... where we list something
... is not ideal
... better to be more specific
... For each of these examples there are two reuirements that spawn from use cases; but no way to tell which applies to which WG below
... so that is one thing we can solve
... many ways to do that
... Are there any other comments, thoughts or reactions on this?
... Does it look reasonable to you? Other experiences that you have had?
... All open to making changes now

TomDN: keeping list of use cases easy to go through
... would it be good to have a set number of fields
... that we can enter
... For example, looking at publishers and accessibility
... could we keep a list of those values
... and avoid near duplicates

Markus: agree; stakeholders field
... also pointer to relevant W3C activity
... So yes, that is a good point; we should do that

Ivan: it's simple because we can refer to W3C WG that is relevant

Markus: when it comes to stakeholders, we could evolve for a while but would need to maintain a list
... publishers-all
... there are certain things of interest to digital publishers
... science publishers have different wishes, so specify that somewhere
... as we get use cases that pertain to a specific group
... Any other thoughts or comments?
... Again, in my experience, and we'll be talking next about the taxonomy, the higher level organizatoin
... not so critical to get right; that can change over time with multiple views of same data
... but it will be painful to change if we get this wrong
... Good to settle the format for the use cases
... How do we want to proceed?
... Madi, any reactions?

Madi: this whole wiki is new to me
... so not at this times

Markus: to start generating we could declare a two-week period of trial
... where we test the usage
... and after that we can do a review
... and make any changes needed
... Not too far off from now, I would like to nail down the sytax
... but worthwhile to try it out for a while first
... So unless there are more comments, suggestion is that we will use this layout for two weeks
... depending upon how much progress we make
... and return to call two weeks from now
... How does that sound?

Ivan: very practical advice
... because we don't have yet everybody on this call, it's probably worth sending a separate email to everyone on the mailing list
... and maybe even do a small blog on the activity blog

Markus: to the structure of the use cases?

<tmichel> maybe we can have a summary in the minutes email and request for tests cases ...

Ivan: the fact that they are there and people should begin to post use cases

Markus: So before we move on, the ranking field, arguably the most tricky one
... use cases are irrelevant for some, and 'to die for' for others
... how do we do it? Try at all or not?
... It appears that this might be a separate thing all together
... The importance ranking might be better to do later on
... ask stakeholders to rank
... that could be one approach to rank after the use cases are there

<ivan> +1 to postpone

Markus: could be post-ponted to later stage

<tmichel> In the additional info field, we could have links to other technologies dealing with this use case

Markus: not sure
... other suggestions?

Tzviya: I think post-poning prioritization is ok, but I've learned that timelines and prioritization are related

<TomDN> +1 sounds better indeed (no one will rank their own use case as low-priority ;-) )

Tzviya: can it be implemented in six or twelve months

Markus: yes, we'll see

Madi: I agree with what was just said
... we also need to flesh this out
... ranking is one of this group's biggest deliverables
... we need to prioritize some of the work teams
... and flesh out who has voting rights
... So I vote for separating it
... if we finalize on it; who will be ranking
... and we report where that particular use case or specification
... however we want to do it

Markus: right
... so it sounds like we have agreement to post-pone and not have ranking in the use case now but do it at a later stage
... do it when we sort out other things

<tmichel> have the ranking latter when we have a list of use cases

Markus: That is good; one field less to worry about
... To get started then
... An area where we enumerate stakeholder field; anything else?
... I guess that's it
... All right
... unless there are more comments on the use case template, let's move on to the taxonomy

<tmichel> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Categories

Markus: URL is here
... thanks, Thierry
... Again, my personal view is getting the individual structure of use case right is much more important now
... we can have multiple views of same data, but we need one place to start
... we could actually use the categories as a table of contents
... at least one categorical view
... not just be a wiki page with headings; as we add use cases we would add under the headings here
... The purpose here is to have...somebody comes along with new problem area
... we have not thought of; so it's no problem
... if we have to reorganize, it's no problem
... in order to help us
... also to see where we are making progress
... why suggestion here is to use the overarching taxonomy
... these are basically top level, where there are things very likely to be added
... so it's quite a straight-forward approach
... we have added demos for first entries to see how it can be expanded downwards
... We don't have to enumerate now
... See as we go along
... This should be our starting point in the wiki
... Use cases will be listed here; way to navigate the corpus and see how we are making progress
... Any thoughts, suggestions or comments?

Madi: actually, it was earlier in conversation
... Now, as a taxonomist, looking at this
... the domain specific content types might be a problem
... each one of those will have dependencies in layout, accessibility
... how to keep this hierarchical and multiple links to different categories
... might be a problem

Markus: yeah, I agree; not sure how to do that

Madi: give it some thought

Markus: one individual use case
... say metadata and infographics
... link to it twice here
... can do in wiki as opposed to dataformat
... keep it up to date in the short term
... content types need to be different
... so any suggestions on how to organize that are welcome

Ivan: First to react to what Madi said, to have same entry appearing under different headings here seems to be perfectly fine
... not as strict...more a categorization of different aspects
... I think that will be fine to handle problem she [Madi] was referring to
... original reason I was on queue was to ask where we put interaction
... relevant for children's books or educational material
... now with existance of Java Script, SVG, ePub3 opens up for this
... I don't see where this fits
... Interaction for me is a top level category

Markus: yes, probably you are right
... I think we should add that
... I was thinking we have the assessments for example
... We could add more specific one
... Scientific interaction need is different from children's books

Ivan; yes, it comes back to what Madi said

scribe: several entries will fit in to several categories
... internationalization or accessibility will have overlaps as well

Markus: so refresh page and you will see Interaction field
... Good, to summarize then
... we have trial period for the use case structure
... We have this page which we will probably rename
... entry page for the whole wiki where we link the use casees
... anybody who adds use cases must add it also to the mailing list

Ivan: absolutely

Markus: adding to mailing list is also required
... any remaining questions or comments

Thierry: one detail
... for @...would it be good to have name of author who is entering the use case?
... we could ask person for clarification?

Markus: added by, yes
... that could be good
... what is the proper English term?
... submitted by?

Ivan: that works for me

Markus: Final agenda item

Thierry: don't we also need a date/

s//?

scribe: if you want to know new and former use cases
... has it been reviewed or not; is it a new draft; has it been discussed by the group
... there will be a workflow for agreement for that
... we can have that later
... But sooner the better because people will fill it in

Markus: try to stick with submitted by and dates
... very annoying to do all the down
... becomes stale
... when I tried dit
... In terms of status that is a good point
... What is the formal process? Will the IG formally bless the case?

Ivan: up to us how we organize ourselves

Markus: sounds like we should go through the use cases on each call
... List will also be part of the discussion
... but show that we are standing behind something as a group is a good thing
... So a status field

Thierry: what I tried to mention
... this use case we discussed enough; not reopen it
... but at some point you want to nail down an issue an move on to another one
... so status like discussed or agreed would be helpful

Markus: Something like status...under discussion; on-going; accepted

Ivan: accepted...Also a very practical thing
... not sure how many use cases we will have; but hopefully quite a lot
... anybody adding new use cases should keep information precise
... it's ok to write a separate wikipage with more details
... that's why it's there
... but this page here should be relatively concise
... or else page will become unmanageable

Markus: correct

<tzviya> raises hand

Markus: from the categories we would likely have sub-categories for use cases
... so all use cases pertaining to Internationalization

Ivan: that means what we say...and be clear
... If I open up a new page on the wiki
... we don't have a page with all the use cases
... but each use case should have its own separate page

Markus: collection of use cases on one page

Ivan: ok, if we have indexes

Tzviya: To what extend should we solicit use cases from larger groups
... working with the AAP...American Association of Publishers working on the ePub tree
... I have a large group at my disposal

Markus: yes, you know lots of stuff that the industry wants
... and to channel that through that in here is why we love having you here
... yes, go for it

Tzviya: I'll add it to my next meeting agenda

Markus: Final item is what to do next
... it's to start exercizing our set-up
... We'll need to distribute action items to someone who would like to start populating the wiki accordingly
... Either we ask the chairs to get us started
... but if anybody else
... would like to do a couple in a category of your choice, please raise your hand
... and we'll be happy to guide you

Tzviya: once I start gathering use cases I can add them in
... not sure I have access to edit wiki

Markus: alright
... we'll ask chairs to take new action to take real use cases to the wiki

Madi: yes

Markus: any other business?
... great, how do we close action?

<TomDN> have to go, bye

Ivan: which action?

<tmichel> ACTION: Madi to take real use cases to the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/13-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Take real use cases to the wiki [on Madi Solomon - due 2013-08-20].

Markus: actions 1 and 2

<fjh> ACTION-001?

<trackbot> ACTION-001 -- Madi Solomon to Create the strawman for the taxonomy -- due 2013-08-13 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/actions/1

Markus: you are free to depart call now; thank you

<fjh> close ACTION-001

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-001.

<ivan> close ACTION-002

<trackbot> Closed ACTION-002.

<tmichel> ACTION: Markus to take real use cases to the wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/08/13-dpub-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Take real use cases to the wiki [on Markus Gylling - due 2013-08-20].

<mgylling> karen_ yes, we will arrange a scribe, promise

- DRAFT -

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

13 Aug 2013

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output