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