Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 22 December 2014

<mgylling> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 22 December 2014

<HeatherF> And there's a newbie on the call.

<ivan> scribenick: bjdmeest

Markus: topics: metadata and a11y
... objections to last minutes?
... no? approved

next meeting

Markus: options: 5 or 12 january

<Karen> DBW is 13-15 Jan.

Markus: Will enough people be around at the fifth?

<pkra> I'll be aroud.

<pkra> around.

<HeatherF> I will be available for both.

<clapierre1> yes will be there

<ivan> I'll be around

\me I'm available

<Karen> Karen not available; at CES in LV

<Bill_Kasdorf> I'll be available

<TimCole> I'll be around on 5th

<AH_Miller> Good dates

Markus: allright, I will not be available, but everyone else seems to

tzviya: We have a new member

Heather: I work with publishing IETF and so on

Markus: [gives new member advice]

<Karen> Welcome, Heather!

<tzviya> +1

Metadata

<madi_> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-metadata/

Bill: everyone got a look at the draft of the notes
... We would move on with the publication, without section 2
... Section 2 is replaced by a glossary (appendix A)
... so section 2 is redundant, and section 3 will be renumbered
... We sensed that this TF would not uncover any serious issues in OWP
... while publishers have many metadata issues, the ground of these issues are not part of the OWP
... some things might be refined

<HeatherF> no dropouts for me

Bill: but the problems are :
... there are a gazillion vocabaries
... there are very specific vocabularies
... W3C is providing a universal framework
... to express those vocabularies

<HeatherF> ah. That's a good clarification for me; I was wondering if/how the archivist-themed metadata might fit in all this.

Bill: We found that there are many different groups working on similar issues
... we want them to express withing and between domains the issues they face
... they all need to talk to each other
... the second bullet point
... tools and manuals of how to use metadata
... there were 2 subprojects: how much expressions of ID as URIs are there, and how many works are there about RDF?
... Madi started with a gigantic list of Identifiers
... a majority of them _can_ be expressed as URIs, many of them _are_ expressed as URIs
... but tends to be siloed
... there are areas where certain IDs are not expressed at all as URIs

<HeatherF> same

<Karen> same

Bill: ISBN is currently possible to be expressed as a URI
... In both cases, the lists are not exhaustive
... Appendix C also shows a list of RDF-resources
... one of our criteria was: would an executive read this?
... this list is a starting point
... the issue is chicken-and-egg: no-one uses it because no-one uses it
... What is needed is an expanding of these resources
... last point is to associate rights metadata with publications
... e.g. ODRL
... personally, There should be an underlying framework to work with multiple vocabularies
... conclusion: the more W3C can disseminate specs and technologies to increase the interoperability, the better
... the note also includes the interviews (as mentioned before)

tzviya: question: who's the target audience?
... there is a lot of assumed knowledge of publishing _and_ OWP
... I think we need one perspective, and a little more targeted

<madi_> q

Ivan: for W3C the question is: is there any work to be done by W3C?
... that was the starting position

<tmichel> who is calling from france with +33.6.48.38.aabb ?

Madi: I think we should have this one doc, with extra deepening docs

Bill: This is more a progress reports, we don't want to replicate material that already existed

TimCole: there are some very usefull documents on the Web
... about URIs etc
... One of the things that came up: what are good example URIs?
... e.g., Google URI is not neutral
... the tradeoff: do we want to include useful URIs, even though they are tied to organizations?

<Karen> +1 include library communties

Ivan: [about not including google IDs]
... The google way examplifies an organization that does some work for itself, and adds some useable URIs for itself
... if we do that, we should add more than just Google URIs (e.g., Gutenberg, Europeana, etc)
... atm, the current URIs are standard or from a group of organizations

Bill: trade publishers will say: what about Amazon?

Ivan: indeed
... We can review the note in a year
... but now, we need to be consistent

TimCole: do we have text in the note about those IDs (Google, Amazon), that explains the rationale?

Bill: that should be good

tzviya: Explanation about only listing the non-proprietary IDs would be good

Bill: The note could be publishable with the changes mentioned? (leaving out section to and adding the URI explanation)

<ivan> PROPOSED: the metadata report should be published as a NOTE in January

<Karen> +1 add some context per Tzviya's suggestion

<HeatherF> I think those subsequent projects would be useful

Bill: question: do we want to alude to the point that we want to do subsequent projects?

Ivan: ATM, I am not sure that we have reasonable chances to do more projects properly

<ivan> +1

<mgylling> +1

+1

<HeatherF> +1

<laudrain> +1

<madi_> +1

<clapierre1> +1

<pkra> +1

<TimCole> +1

<tzviya> +1

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1

<dauwhe> +1 with edits suggested by Tzviya

<ivan> RESOLUTION: the metadata report should be published as a NOTE in January (modulo some editing)

A11Y

<AH_Miller> +1

<clapierre1> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-accessibility/wiki

clapierre: The wiki has three sections
... We are going to see which techniques are relevant for DPUB
... then, from that sublist, we go from the google sheets to the wiki
... as there are a lot of people working on these techniques list
... afterwards, we will dig into the relevant techniques
... and look for comments, provide examples
... our ultimate goal is to create an accessible note on a11y
... with comments of what publishers should be aware of, and what we might need
... I am not sure if we need to be concerned about ARIA, except for UAAG WCAG and ATAG

Bill_K: observation: what is your target audience?

clapierre: we want guidelines for publishers, not for W3C recommendation
... if there are gaps, we would escalate that to protocols and standards, for example

Ivan: question: whether the 3 docs (WCAG etc) cover what the publishers need
... that needs to be answered to the W3C groups
... this is easier than metadata, easier to separate
... 2nd question: what are the used techniques
... again, less of a problem then for metadata TF
... [about ARIA] that work is very different, this TF should focus on the current 3, and put ARIA aside for the moment

clapierre: we just got the google sheets done, and linked from our wiki, now it is a matter of filtering the content
... we will concentrate in the first quarter of 2015 if the status is good

tzviya: concern: It looks like an enormeous amount of work, do you have enough resources to move forward?

clapierre: I will link to the google sheets, then everybody can edit

Markus: [about whether this is the right approach] I certainly think they are not out of scope, this is very relevant work
... starting with the guideline trio is good to me
... covering DPUB needs in these documents using ARIA? No, ARIA covers very rudimentary html pages, not books or magazines
... we don't need to throw ourselves at that right now
... [about resources] what is your timeline for hitting a first readable version?

clapierre: we are with a dozen or less, we could be a lot bigger
... if anyone is interested, we need some extra help
... this TF has always had a difficulty to find people
... a lot of people, a lot of timezones (for organizing conf calls)
... I hope to get something by the end of the first quarter
... Once experts have determined what is relevant, we can go from the google sheets to the Wiki
... but no fixed timeline

Markus: So, once all google sheets are ready, they are all fed into the wiki?

clapierre: yes

Markus: There is a lot of work
... How can the IG stay connected to this?

clapierre: I don't have any ideas, tzviay is on our TF as well

tzviya: It would be good to have a (bi-)weekly telcon, maybe on alternating timezones
... to have, e.g., something finished by the end of january, and DPUB issues can be solved starting from february

Markus: that concludes today, and that concludes this year
... next telcon on january 5th 2015

<HeatherF> Thanks all!

<pkra> happy holidays!

<laudrain> happy new year

<tzviya> happy new year

<mgylling> +regrets Ayla