<trackbot> Date: 10 March 2014

<ivan> karen, you can dial in now

<ivan> oops, wrong channel

<scribe> scribe: tzviya

markus: minutes http://www.w3.org/2013/dpub-IG-minutes/2014-03-03.html

approved

markus: ask generally about annotations publication status?

ivan: it should publish on thursday, would be good if one of chairs bloged about it

markus: yes, we will

Dauwhe: can write about latinreq as well

markus: potential for F2F in California in Oct 27 - 31
... it will not be the whole week, just beginning or end of week
... we must officially register with W3C whether we want to schedule time at TPAC

Thierry: perhaps open poll whether this is mon/tue or Thu/Fri

<scribe> ACTION: Thierry open poll [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-17 - Open poll [on Thierry Michel - due 2014-03-17].

markus: annotation and latinreq moving to first draft and in good state
... we missed out on talking about Math and STEM with Jean
... Jean has had to leave the group at least temporarily

<karen> http://www.w3.org/2014/11/TPAC/

markus: so, the group is without a lead for now
... We are now looking at the groups to see how we can move forward remaining TFs
... There are 2 problems with our groups
... not enough resources (yet)
... and the organization of TFs might not be very good
... what can we do to make sure we get moving with other groups?
... suggestion is to look at entries and assess how to move things forward

<ivan> list of task forces

markus: the opportunity we have to get digital pub working with OWP is a great one
... we owe it to ourselves and the community

karen: ivan and i have been working with many organizations and publishers. we are starting to see some renewed interest from software service providers
... not as much from trade publishers
... the education market wants to do more
... if anyone else on call has any resources for Karen to reach out to, please let her know
... if there is anyone non-tech to reach out to (tech gets it), then let karen know

dave: going back to organization of TFs - it might be helpful to have fewer, broader TFs

<liza> +1

dave: one set of principles revolves around appearance (layout and DOM), another revolves around communicating with system

liza: we set ourselves up to fail with topics like "metadata" which is too big. we might want to focus on specific aspects of metadata
... we might want to focus on requests from publishers (what they want to do now in publications)
... and also focus on requests from reading systems (what they want to do in reading systems dev)

markus: broader categories such as appearance, and then others are sub-categories
... but this might be counter productive, because we don't have a clear missive

liza: categorizing use cases makes sense, especially if fall into buckets that make sense to W3C world (presentation, markup, etc)

Bill_Kasdorf: liza's suggestion of just focusing on what there is demand for from OWP might help guide discussion, otherwise becomes unweildy

Luc: point of view of publishers is good, but my global feeling is that we need help from W3C for wider viewpoint, otherwise this is not different from IDPF

Bill_Kasdorf: How do we get the right people on these groups? There has been a reluctance for organizations to join W3C/commit time, but we can consult with them when we have drafts

azaroth: I don't think this is about differentiating from IDPF
... publishing notes first as drafts is a good way to bring in feedback. Not as daunting as joining a committee

markus: yes, good point. But, how do we get to drafts?

ivan: i don't see any problem with reaching out to others outside of W3C for feedback
... We are missing a clear goal for what each TF intends to do

+1

Ivan: We now have a goal for behavioral UI, so it is likely that we will end up with something specific
... for other TFs, we should formalize goals
... example - it could be a goal of a11y TF to review existing documentation and determine if they are fully compliant and what changes need to be made

markus: these should be short-term goals?

ivan: we need to define what we should produce

markus: i've gleaned 2 things
... 1st is a partial reorg of TFs, some stand by themselves, but others may need to be combined
... 2nd is to produce and document a short-term focus and goals

Gerardo: thinking about goals for a11y short-term goals
... not sure if reviewing documentation would be a fruitful goal for this TF based on history with browsers

markus: there may be other goals
... what are we delivering next?

Bill_Kasdorf: we can produce short-term goals for metadata, will talk to madi
... this group talks about book publishing exclusively, no magazines, no journals. are we in position to get info from other fields?

markus: we can only work with what we have.
... Regarding metadata, we had a concrete goal to describe current problems of publishers
... until we have that, I would hesitate to go further

Bill_Kasdorf: none of the people that I would talk to about publishers are in this group

markus: bring this list of people to W3C staff and start there

<madi> Graham Bell is the Exec. Director of EDitEUR

<Luc> I confirm

Ivan: it is perfectly acceptable to gather info from these people and then document within the group

markus: metadata goal = gathering issues from within publishing of what cannot be done today

Julie_BISG: a lot of TFs overlap with BISG committee work, so we can take work back to those committees
... we can even include an agenda item to check in on W3C TF

markus: BISG is a bona fide member of W3C member, so can assign members to W3C in interim

<liza> Okey-doke

<scribe> ACTION: markus, liza, tzviya produce new TF for content-related issues [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-dpub-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'markus,'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/users>.

<azaroth> Including latinreq and annotation?

<scribe> ACTION: all TF leads formulate goals of TF - keep it short [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-dpub-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Error finding 'all'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/users>.

<azaroth> okay :)

markus: ivan, please create additional column "current goal" on wiki
... page DOM is officially dormant because we are still looking for someone to take it on
... this could extend to APIs and scripting
... we will follow up on goals next week

Bill_Kasdorf: still focusing on metadata on 17 Mar?

markus: yes, but it will be about 10 minutes
... we will rename bahavioral UI this week

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Found Scribe: tzviya
Inferring ScribeNick: tzviya

WARNING: No "Topic:" lines found.


WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Bert Bill_Kasdorf Casey GVoice Gerardo IPcaller Ivan Julie_BISG Julie__BISG Karen_Myers Luc P10 P16 P24 Stearns Thierry Vlad aaaa aabb aacc aadd aaee aaff aagg aahh aaii astearns_ azaroth benjaminsko brady_duga dauwhe dauwhe__ dave dpub duga fjh gcapiel joined karen laura liam liza madi markus mgylling philm plinss tm trackbot tzviya
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Frederick_Hirsch

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 10 Mar 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/03/10-dpub-minutes.html
People with action items: all markus thierry

WARNING: No "Topic: ..." lines found!  
Resulting HTML may have an empty (invalid) <ol>...</ol>.

Explanation: "Topic: ..." lines are used to indicate the start of 
new discussion topics or agenda items, such as:
<dbooth> Topic: Review of Amy's report