Brief   Full   Jump  

Small
Medium
Large

Teal
High contrast
Bluish
Black

Sans-serif
Serif
Monospaced
Close
d
?
Styles

[Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)

100 messages.

[Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:54:38 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 13:54:51 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: swick@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Dear all A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): [[[ **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. ]]] There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. WDYT? Ivan [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM)
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:09:29 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 14:10:11 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. Leonard On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >Dear all > >A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. > >There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... > >I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? > >I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. > >The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): > >[[[ >**Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >]]] > >There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. > >WDYT? > >Ivan > >[1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >[3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >[4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >[5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > >To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) > >[...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) > >[...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) > >As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) > >[...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:29:34 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 14:29:50 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. > > Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… > > **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. > > Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. > > First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. Hm. That is of course true. > So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. > Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. > And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). > I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). What about: **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. Ivan > > The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. > > Leonard > > > > On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >> >> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >> >> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >> >> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >> >> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >> >> [[[ >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >> ]]] >> >> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Ivan >> >> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >> >> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >> >> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >> >> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >> >> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Peter Brantley   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:38:28 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 14:38:54 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Hello all - Thought experiment - assume the network is ubiquitous, in the nature of radio, and there is no barrier (technology, economic, social) to access. What is the utility, in that guise, of defining "portable" ? Is the goal to carve out space for a complex object that is capable of holistic reference? Is the issue not instead, in some way, that component resource access might be constrained by bandwidth, geographic restrictions (depending on where one is in the world), and potentially social considerations (the wrong video or even language in the wrong place will get one killed). Should not "portable" work both in the present world when there is uneven access, and one when (hopefully) inequality has been removed from essential connectivity? Too much focus on online/offline makes me think of a privileged world which sometimes travels on airplanes or rail with limited bandwidth, not a world in which cell towers, satellites, and balloons are beginning to cloud the skies. There are other issues here than just how fast the bytes go in the tubes. /pb On 9/4/15 7:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >> >> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >> >> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >> >> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >> >> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. > > Hm. That is of course true. > > >> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >> > > I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. > > I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). > > What about: > > **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. > > (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) > > Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. > > Ivan > > > >> >> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >> >> Leonard >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>> >>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>> >>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>> >>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>> >>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>> >>> [[[ >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>> ]]] >>> >>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>> >>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>> >>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>> >>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>> >>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>> >>> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 10:38:52 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 14:39:21 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Are we comfortable with how *general* this is as a definition for a document? What do we mean by a "set"? By this definition, my personal website is a document. And, depending on how you define "set", could also construed to mean, say, a collection of 32 unrelated pages on the MIT website. Does a set need to be editorial constructed to be a standalone type of object in order to be a document? On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. > > > > Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, > but I’d like to tweak it a bit… > > > > **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely > identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. > > > > Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. > > > > First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file > format. > > Hm. That is of course true. > > > > So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. > > Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit > better than “active server infrastructure”. > > And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least > not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they > taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). > > > > I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive > definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start > somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. > > I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that > your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online > or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case > while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). > > What about: > > **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that > can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough > information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user > even if offline. > > (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general > sense, it is probably o.k.) > > Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in > any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of > not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a > good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the > definition, namely that the document should also include enough information > to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' > device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility > issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. > > Ivan > > > > > > > The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on > other things we need to define and agree on. > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to > properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the > terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term > "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This > issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. > >> > >> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at > least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki > page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, > in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; > maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own > thoughts... > >> > >> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the > concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; > so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as > a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is > digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a > page up on the Web? > >> > >> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some > extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found > important at least for myself. > >> > >> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition > in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer > modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki > page[3], just as a placeholder!): > >> > >> [[[ > >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources > that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user > even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of > a portable document should themselves be portable. > >> ]]] > >> > >> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable > document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think > this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web > (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two > latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very > special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in > the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the > reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the > particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be > identified. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Ivan > >> > >> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy > >> [2] > http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig > >> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary > >> [4] > http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig > >> [5] > http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig > >> > >> > >> ---- > >> Ivan Herman, W3C > >> Digital Publishing Lead > >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > >> mobile: +31-641044153 > >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from > arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable > consumption experience without respect of any particular server > infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure > providing interactivity. (BillM) > >> > >> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if > those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a > given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed > offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) > >> > >> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or > something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would > agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be > considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be > "complete" without it. (BillK) > >> > >> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by > "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." > That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) > >> > >> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be > expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, > all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less > this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a > portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) > >> > >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:14:56 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:15:10 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:38 , Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > > Are we comfortable with how *general* this is as a definition for a document? What do we mean by a "set"? By this definition, my personal website is a document. And, depending on how you define "set", could also construed to mean, say, a collection of 32 unrelated pages on the MIT website. > > Does a set need to be editorial constructed to be a standalone type of object in order to be a document? Good point. What about adding "Interrelated"? I am not sure that referring to an editor is a right way… Ivan > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > > > On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > > > Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. > > > > Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… > > > > **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. > > > > Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. > > > > First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. > > Hm. That is of course true. > > > > So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. > > Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. > > And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). > > > > I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. > > I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). > > What about: > > **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. > > (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) > > Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. > > Ivan > > > > > > > The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. > > > > Leonard > > > > > > > > On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > > > >> Dear all > >> > >> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. > >> > >> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... > >> > >> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? > >> > >> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. > >> > >> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): > >> > >> [[[ > >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. > >> ]]] > >> > >> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. > >> > >> WDYT? > >> > >> Ivan > >> > >> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy <http://w3.org/brief/NDYy> > >> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig <http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig> > >> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > >> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig <http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig> > >> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig <http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig> > >> > >> > >> ---- > >> Ivan Herman, W3C > >> Digital Publishing Lead > >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > >> mobile: +31-641044153 > >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) > >> > >> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) > >> > >> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) > >> > >> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) > >> > >> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) > >> > >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:22:22 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:22:54 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

>**Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. > I can live with that. >but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. > No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. Leonard On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >> >> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >> >> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >> >> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >> >> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. > >Hm. That is of course true. > > >> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >> > >I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. > >I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). > >What about: > >**Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. > >(I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) > >Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. > >Ivan > > > >> >> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >> >> Leonard >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>> >>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>> >>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>> >>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>> >>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>> >>> [[[ >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>> ]]] >>> >>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>> >>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>> >>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>> >>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>> >>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>> >>> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:25:22 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:25:58 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to “package it up” and archive it away as such. “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the “editorial construct”. Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:38 AM To: Ivan Herman Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:39 AM Are we comfortable with how *general* this is as a definition for a document? What do we mean by a "set"? By this definition, my personal website is a document. And, depending on how you define "set", could also construed to mean, say, a collection of 32 unrelated pages on the MIT website. Does a set need to be editorial constructed to be a standalone type of object in order to be a document? On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:29 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. > > Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… > > **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. > > Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. > > First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. Hm. That is of course true. > So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. > Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. > And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). > I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). What about: **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. Ivan > > The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. > > Leonard > > > > On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > >> Dear all >> >> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >> >> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >> >> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >> >> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >> >> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >> >> [[[ >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >> ]]] >> >> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >> >> WDYT? >> >> Ivan >> >> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >> >> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >> >> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >> >> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >> >> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:37:12 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:37:24 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: peter@archive.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Thanks Peter, that is a good point. Maybe we have to separate things. We have a 'Web document', ie, the uniquely identifiable interrelated resources, etc. and the we have the Portable (Web) Document is the part on the online/offline and graceful degradation. The concept of Web Document is something that is really for eternity, the the concept of Portable document is only for the time until the network is ubiquitous, etc. (Putting another way, our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide that the concept of Portable documents have become obsolete:-) WDYT? Ivan > On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:38 , Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org> wrote: > > Hello all - > > Thought experiment - assume the network is ubiquitous, in the nature of > radio, and there is no barrier (technology, economic, social) to access. > > What is the utility, in that guise, of defining "portable" ? Is the goal > to carve out space for a complex object that is capable of holistic > reference? > > Is the issue not instead, in some way, that component resource access > might be constrained by bandwidth, geographic restrictions (depending on > where one is in the world), and potentially social considerations (the > wrong video or even language in the wrong place will get one killed). > > Should not "portable" work both in the present world when there is > uneven access, and one when (hopefully) inequality has been removed > from essential connectivity? > > Too much focus on online/offline makes me think of a privileged world > which sometimes travels on airplanes or rail with limited bandwidth, not > a world in which cell towers, satellites, and balloons are beginning to > cloud the skies. There are other issues here than just how fast the > bytes go in the tubes. > > /pb > > > > On 9/4/15 7:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >> >>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>> >>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>> >>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>> >>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >> >> Hm. That is of course true. >> >> >>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>> >> >> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >> >> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >> >> What about: >> >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >> >> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >> >> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >>> >>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>> >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>> >>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>> >>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>> >>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>> >>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>> >>>> [[[ >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>> ]]] >>>> >>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>> >>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>> >>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>> >>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>> >>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
AUDRAIN LUC   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:41:50 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:42:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, peter@archive.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Hi Ivan, Or not : our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide that in an ubiquitous network, they sometimes need for any good reason to be unplugged when reading or consuming any contentŠ Luc Le 04/09/2015 17:37, « Ivan Herman » <ivan@w3.org> a écrit : >Thanks Peter, that is a good point. > >Maybe we have to separate things. We have a 'Web document', ie, the >uniquely identifiable interrelated resources, etc. and the we have the >Portable (Web) Document is the part on the online/offline and graceful >degradation. The concept of Web Document is something that is really for >eternity, the the concept of Portable document is only for the time until >the network is ubiquitous, etc. > >(Putting another way, our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide >that the concept of Portable documents have become obsolete:-) > >WDYT? > >Ivan > > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:38 , Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org> wrote: >> >> Hello all - >> >> Thought experiment - assume the network is ubiquitous, in the nature of >> radio, and there is no barrier (technology, economic, social) to access. >> >> What is the utility, in that guise, of defining "portable" ? Is the goal >> to carve out space for a complex object that is capable of holistic >> reference? >> >> Is the issue not instead, in some way, that component resource access >> might be constrained by bandwidth, geographic restrictions (depending on >> where one is in the world), and potentially social considerations (the >> wrong video or even language in the wrong place will get one killed). >> >> Should not "portable" work both in the present world when there is >> uneven access, and one when (hopefully) inequality has been removed >> from essential connectivity? >> >> Too much focus on online/offline makes me think of a privileged world >> which sometimes travels on airplanes or rail with limited bandwidth, not >> a world in which cell towers, satellites, and balloons are beginning to >> cloud the skies. There are other issues here than just how fast the >> bytes go in the tubes. >> >> /pb >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15 7:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting >>>>tidbits, but I¹d like to tweak it a bitŠ >>>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely >>>>identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>> >>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>> >>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file >>>>format. >>> >>> Hm. That is of course true. >>> >>> >>>> So we can¹t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere >>>>fit better than ³active server infrastructure². >>>> And finally, since we don¹t define ³portable² anywhere else (at least >>>>not yet), we can¹t really use it in this definition. (remember what >>>>they taught you in school - you can¹t define a word with itself). >>>> >>> >>> I agree with thatŠ although, at least in mathematics, such recursive >>>definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start >>>somewhereŠ I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>> >>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that >>>your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether >>>online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be >>>the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for >>>example). >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources >>>that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough >>>information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user >>>even if offline. >>> >>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general >>>sense, it is probably o.k.) >>> >>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not >>>in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a >>>matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the >>>font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include >>>another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also >>>include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I >>>mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the >>>user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make >>>it part of the definition. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well >>>>on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to >>>>>properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of >>>>>the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the >>>>>term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more >>>>>general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>> >>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at >>>>>least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a >>>>>wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I >>>>>think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we >>>>>said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new >>>>>charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>> >>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the >>>>>concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB >>>>>paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all >>>>>live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental >>>>>question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, >>>>>different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>> >>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some >>>>>extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I >>>>>found important at least for myself. >>>>> >>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition >>>>>in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me >>>>>offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it >>>>>on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>> >>>>> [[[ >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of >>>>>resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented >>>>>to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. >>>>>All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>> ]]] >>>>> >>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable >>>>>document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I >>>>>think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the >>>>>Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice >>>>>between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font >>>>>for some very special character sets. The document should be >>>>>considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the >>>>>latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it >>>>>is very important that the particular collection of resources should >>>>>be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>> [2] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;l >>>>>ist=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>> [4] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57n >>>>>Efq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [5] >>>>>http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;l >>>>>ist=public-digipub-ig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from >>>>>arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a >>>>>reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular >>>>>server infrastructure and, especially, without such server >>>>>infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if >>>>>those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at >>>>>a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is >>>>>consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been >>>>>cached. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or >>>>>something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I >>>>>would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, >>>>>_should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication >>>>>not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by >>>>>"portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by >>>>>"complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what >>>>>"is" (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be >>>>>expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to >>>>>say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. >>>>>The less this is true the less we can consider the overall >>>>>publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website >>>>>(BillM) >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:42:40 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:42:54 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >> > I can live with that. > > >> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >> > No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. > Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… Ivan > > Leonard > > > > On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> >>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>> >>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>> >>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>> >>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >> >> Hm. That is of course true. >> >> >>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>> >> >> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >> >> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >> >> What about: >> >> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >> >> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >> >> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >>> >>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>> >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all >>>> >>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>> >>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>> >>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>> >>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>> >>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>> >>>> [[[ >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>> ]]] >>>> >>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>> >>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>> >>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>> >>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>> >>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:46:51 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:47:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, peter@archive.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

I have to disagree with you Peter, as you are putting a VERY narrow definition on Portability. It is about much more than network connectivity - it also addresses (or provides an architecture for) authenticity, reliability and more. Just because there is a network doesn’t mean that the same version of the specific resource is still at the same location. And while for some types of documents - that might be OK (and partially figured into the degradation discussion), there are others (such as “Documents of Records”) for which that is a non-option. Consider what would happen if you tried to show your passport to border control and the agency had moved your picture to a new location?? Leonard On 9/4/15, 11:37 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >Thanks Peter, that is a good point. > >Maybe we have to separate things. We have a 'Web document', ie, the uniquely identifiable interrelated resources, etc. and the we have the Portable (Web) Document is the part on the online/offline and graceful degradation. The concept of Web Document is something that is really for eternity, the the concept of Portable document is only for the time until the network is ubiquitous, etc. > >(Putting another way, our grandchildren or grand-grandchildren may decide that the concept of Portable documents have become obsolete:-) > >WDYT? > >Ivan > > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:38 , Peter Brantley <peter@archive.org> wrote: >> >> Hello all - >> >> Thought experiment - assume the network is ubiquitous, in the nature of >> radio, and there is no barrier (technology, economic, social) to access. >> >> What is the utility, in that guise, of defining "portable" ? Is the goal >> to carve out space for a complex object that is capable of holistic >> reference? >> >> Is the issue not instead, in some way, that component resource access >> might be constrained by bandwidth, geographic restrictions (depending on >> where one is in the world), and potentially social considerations (the >> wrong video or even language in the wrong place will get one killed). >> >> Should not "portable" work both in the present world when there is >> uneven access, and one when (hopefully) inequality has been removed >> from essential connectivity? >> >> Too much focus on online/offline makes me think of a privileged world >> which sometimes travels on airplanes or rail with limited bandwidth, not >> a world in which cell towers, satellites, and balloons are beginning to >> cloud the skies. There are other issues here than just how fast the >> bytes go in the tubes. >> >> /pb >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15 7:29 AM, Ivan Herman wrote: >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>> >>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>> >>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>> >>> Hm. That is of course true. >>> >>> >>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>> >>> >>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>> >>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>> >>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>> >>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>> >>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>> >>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>> >>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>> >>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>> >>>>> [[[ >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>> ]]] >>>>> >>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 15:52:03 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:52:33 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. Leonard On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>> >> I can live with that. >> >> >>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>> >> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >> > >Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… > >Ivan > > >> >> Leonard >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>> >>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>> >>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>> >>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>> >>> Hm. That is of course true. >>> >>> >>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>> >>> >>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>> >>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>> >>> What about: >>> >>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>> >>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>> >>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>> >>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>> >>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>> >>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>> >>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>> >>>>> [[[ >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>> ]]] >>>>> >>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>> >>>>> WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>> >>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 17:54:48 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 15:55:02 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:52 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. > > So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. > I agree the required vs. enabling; this is what I meant, actually. So re-phrasing what I wrote "the document should also include enough information to enable graceful adaptation to the user" Ivan > Leonard > > > > On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> >>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>> >>> I can live with that. >>> >>> >>>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>>> >>> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >>> >> >> Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>>> >>>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>>> >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>>> >>>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>>> >>>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>>> >>>> Hm. That is of course true. >>>> >>>> >>>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>>> >>>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>>> >>>> What about: >>>> >>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>> >>>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>>> >>>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>>> >>>>> Leonard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear all >>>>>> >>>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>>> >>>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>>> >>>>>> [[[ >>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>>> ]]] >>>>>> >>>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Ivan >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>>> >>>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>>> >>>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>>> >>>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:00:24 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 16:00:55 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Sorry, I don’t agree with the word adaptation in that context. On 9/4/15, 11:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:52 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. >> >> So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. >> > >I agree the required vs. enabling; this is what I meant, actually. So re-phrasing what I wrote > >"the document should also include enough information to enable graceful adaptation to the user" > >Ivan > > >> Leonard >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>> >>>> I can live with that. >>>> >>>> >>>>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>>>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>>>> >>>> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >>>> >>> >>> Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>>>> >>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>>>> >>>>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>>>> >>>>> Hm. That is of course true. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>>>> >>>>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>>>> >>>>> What about: >>>>> >>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>> >>>>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>>>> >>>>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Leonard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:05:49 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 16:06:05 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 04 Sep 2015, at 18:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > Sorry, I don’t agree with the word adaptation in that context. What word would you prefer? I think it is essential to express that a document has to have enough information to, eg, be displayed on, eg, different displays properly, ie, the display should adapt to its environment. This is a strength of the Web which we certainly want to preserve imho. Ivan P.S. I will have to call it a day now, so I may not answer to the thread for a while... > > > > > On 9/4/15, 11:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> >>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:52 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. >>> >>> So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. >>> >> >> I agree the required vs. enabling; this is what I meant, actually. So re-phrasing what I wrote >> >> "the document should also include enough information to enable graceful adaptation to the user" >> >> Ivan >> >> >>> Leonard >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>> >>>>> I can live with that. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>>>>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>>>>> >>>>> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Leonard >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hm. That is of course true. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>>>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>>>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>>>>> >>>>>> What about: >>>>>> >>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>> >>>>>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ivan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Leonard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ---- >>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:10:26 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 16:10:59 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

And this is where we disagree. There are a variety of W3C-based technologies - CSS (absolute placement), SVG, Canvas, WebGL, etc.- not mention other members of the OWP (eg. JPEG, PNG, Video) that do NOT have that specific feature set. And there is no requirement (in my mind) that every single Portable Web Document be able to adapt. Leonard On 9/4/15, 12:05 PM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 18:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I don’t agree with the word adaptation in that context. > >What word would you prefer? I think it is essential to express that a document has to have enough information to, eg, be displayed on, eg, different displays properly, ie, the display should adapt to its environment. This is a strength of the Web which we certainly want to preserve imho. > >Ivan > >P.S. I will have to call it a day now, so I may not answer to the thread for a while... > >> >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 11:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:52 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. >>>> >>>> So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. >>>> >>> >>> I agree the required vs. enabling; this is what I meant, actually. So re-phrasing what I wrote >>> >>> "the document should also include enough information to enable graceful adaptation to the user" >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I can live with that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>>>>>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Leonard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hm. That is of course true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>>>>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>>>>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Leonard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:18:16 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 16:18:49 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Alan pointed out to me that perhaps my message and position is coming across in the wrong way - so let me clarify. I agree that using technologies that enable adaptation is important - but requiring adaptation in the actual content is not. Same with accessibility - we need to ensure that content can be made accessibility but not require that it be used. Leonard On 9/4/15, 12:05 PM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> On 04 Sep 2015, at 18:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> Sorry, I don’t agree with the word adaptation in that context. > >What word would you prefer? I think it is essential to express that a document has to have enough information to, eg, be displayed on, eg, different displays properly, ie, the display should adapt to its environment. This is a strength of the Web which we certainly want to preserve imho. > >Ivan > >P.S. I will have to call it a day now, so I may not answer to the thread for a while... > >> >> >> >> >> On 9/4/15, 11:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> >>> >>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:52 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Accessibility is NOT the same as adaptability. Also, don’t confuse the ability to be to accessible with the actual accessibility. >>>> >>>> So I would agree that the format(s) used to represent a Portable Web Document should enable accessibility. But I don’t agree that all Portable Web Documents are required to be accessible. >>>> >>> >>> I agree the required vs. enabling; this is what I meant, actually. So re-phrasing what I wrote >>> >>> "the document should also include enough information to enable graceful adaptation to the user" >>> >>> Ivan >>> >>> >>>> Leonard >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/4/15, 11:42 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 17:22 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that >provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I can live with that. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, >>>>>>> namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. >>>>>>> >>>>>> No, I don’t think adapting to the user is a requirement of the format. It is certainly a “best practice” but it may not make sense in all cases. For example, consider a Fixed Layout EPUB - that doesn’t adapt to the user’s device, yet I would expect we would consider that one example of a Portable Web Document. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hm. I am not sure I agree. I believe the format has to provide the means to do that although with possible constraints. Accessibility issues should still be valid for Fixed Layout EPUB. HTML, CSS, etc, are formats, but they all have this requirement deeply built into the format (witness all the accessibility related features, the way CSS is defined to adapt itself on different screen sizes, etc). I believe this is an essential feature of Web documents… >>>>> >>>>> Ivan >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Leonard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 9/4/15, 10:29 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 04 Sep 2015, at 16:09 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for bringing this back up, Ivan. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your suggestion for Portable Web Document has some interesting tidbits, but I’d like to tweak it a bit… >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a specific collection of uniquely identifiable resources that can be accessed either online or offline. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, let me explain why I made the changes I did. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First, degradation is a feature of a reader/viewer and not of a file format. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hm. That is of course true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So we can’t talk about that in the definition of the format itself. >>>>>>>> Second, I thought online/offline, being terms that we use elsewhere fit better than “active server infrastructure”. >>>>>>>> And finally, since we don’t define “portable” anywhere else (at least not yet), we can’t really use it in this definition. (remember what they taught you in school - you can’t define a word with itself). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with that… although, at least in mathematics, such recursive definitions are not unusual. But even in those, I agree, we must start somewhere… I guess we can leave that transitivity part aside for now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the problem I have with the removal of the degradation is that your definition suggests the document is exactly identical whether online or offline, whereas we agreed on the thread that this may not be the case while still keeping the same document (the font case, for example). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that can be accessed either online or offline, and that provides enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if offline. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (I am not sure about the term "information" although, in the general sense, it is probably o.k.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Re-reading this I also miss another 'user facing' feature that is not in any of these definitions. I think the graceful degradation is a matter of not loosing things if something is not around (again, the font example is a good one), but I wonder whether we should not include another issue to the definition, namely that the document should also include enough information to gracefully *adapt* to the user. What I mean is: adapt to the users' device (format, resolution, etc), to the user's possible accessibility issues, etc. I think we should also make it part of the definition. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The other terms in the glossary page look like a good start as well on other things we need to define and agree on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Leonard >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/4/15, 9:54 AM, "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A few weeks ago Leonard started a long thread[1] on the necessity to properly define, ie, have some sort of a glossary entry, for some of the terms we use or will be using. (Leonard's mail[2] was only on the term "Portable Document" but his concerns are, I guess, more general.) This issue came up recently on one of our telcos, too. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are a number of terms that I believe we do have to define at least for our own work. I have put some (as agreed on the call) on a wiki page[2]; I am sure there are more. For each of those terms I think we had, in the past, a certain level of fuzziness in what we said and maybe wrote; maybe we should begin this new era of the new charter to clarify our own thoughts... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think the fundamental term we have to start with is indeed the concept Portable/Web Document that Leonard hit through the EPUB+WEB paper; so maybe we could decide first on a definition that we can all live with as a basis. Indeed, we also have to answer a fundamental question: why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have gone through the thread[1]. It have actually copy/pasted some extracts at the end of this mail (after my signature...) which I found important at least for myself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The thread almost concluded with BillM putting forward a definition in[4] but Leonard disagreed with it [5]. To move forward, let me offer modified version of Bill's definition as follows (I also put it on the wiki page[3], just as a placeholder!): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>>>> **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. >>>>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There was an agreement on the thread that the notion of portable document has some fuzziness; hence the term 'graceful degradation'. I think this reflects some of the arguments: e.g., a font being on the Web (Leonard's example) may not create a problem if it is a choice between two latin fonts, but may become one when it is a special font for some very special character sets. The document should be considered as 'portable' in the former case but shouldn't in the latter. I have also added the reference to the identity; I believe it is very important that the particular collection of resources should be have togetherness that can be identified. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ivan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] http://w3.org/brief/NDYy >>>>>>>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/C3B52A44-551D-428F-90BF-90E8F00682B9@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>>>>>>> [4] http://www.w3.org/mid/CADMjS0bNRY4=McXrKgB9rSaf%252BbpgF2-CfPswcLNo57nEfq1soA@mail.gmail.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> [5] http://www.w3.org/mid/CB60B578-959E-4D4C-9D77-A30085E26F6F@adobe.com;list=public-digipub-ig >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To me what fundamentally distinguishes portable documents from arbitrary websites is solely that portable documents "promise" a reliable consumption experience without respect of any particular server infrastructure and, especially, without such server infrastructure providing interactivity. (BillM) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...]it is reasonable to consider the publication complete[...] if those links/citations are present, even if they are not actionable at a given time (e.g., when the portable version of the publication is consumed offline), and whether or not the external content has been cached. (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] the portable publication may in fact go "fetch" the quiz, or something even simpler like a streaming video. So in those cases I would agree that the quiz or the video, though external resources, _should_ be considered part of the publication, and the publication not to be "complete" without it. (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As for the semantics, we should probably focus on what we mean by "portable," and not get quite so hung up on what we mean by "complete." That is verging very close to the argument about what "is" (BillK) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [...] I think that a fully portable document/publication should be expected to have the transitive property of portability. That is to say, all its components (like quizzes) should themselves be portable. The less this is true the less we can consider the overall publication to be a portable document and the more it is a website (BillM) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ---- >>>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> ---- >>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>> Digital Publishing Lead >>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > >---- >Ivan Herman, W3C >Digital Publishing Lead >Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >mobile: +31-641044153 >ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:28:10 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 17:28:39 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to > “package it up” and archive it away as such. > Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The > simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And > that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the > “editorial construct”. > The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated collection doesn't make something a document. For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as well. The others here who have a library, archives, or information science background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an object its documentary status." cf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, pragmatic definition is wanted.." I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices were a necessary part of that compilation. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 13:41:53 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 17:42:20 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

A certain amount of adaptation is necessary before you can call something "portable." If you create a webpage which is cyan font on a cyan background on every browser except for Internet Explorer 6, does it matter that the format *allows* adaptability? I would argue that is not portable document. Similarly, if you created a website where every aspect of content was offscreen, and therefore only available to screen reader users, that would also quite arguably not be portable, by any useful definition. In both of these cases the formats allow for adaptability, but in neither of these cases are the documents themselves actually useful if they are in any way ported. Given this constraint, "portability," actually has some rather wonderful implications for accessibility. If a website with all the text only available to screen reader users (a straw man example) isn't portable, then it is equally true that a website where all the text is images without alt (not a straw man at all, as examples exist all over the web) is not portable. Adaptability doesn't have to mean a complicated website looks great in ibooks; it means the essential components of the document are available when the document's context is changed. (The "graceful degradation" aspect Ivan and Leonard are discussing upthread. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 18:00:14 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 18:00:45 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

I realize that we are getting into some finer semantics, but given that the purpose of this discussion is a common definition of terms, it would seem reasonable to do so. Deborah – you seem to be mixing the abilities of the file format with the specific implementation choices of an author using that format. The format is portable, because it allows the content to be used in all of those environments in a common manner. The fact that a given author of content for that format chose to do something strange (be it colors or offscreen or whatever) has NOTHING to do with the formats ability to be portable. Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:41 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) A certain amount of adaptation is necessary before you can call something "portable." If you create a webpage which is cyan font on a cyan background on every browser except for Internet Explorer 6, does it matter that the format *allows* adaptability? I would argue that is not portable document. Similarly, if you created a website where every aspect of content was offscreen, and therefore only available to screen reader users, that would also quite arguably not be portable, by any useful definition. In both of these cases the formats allow for adaptability, but in neither of these cases are the documents themselves actually useful if they are in any way ported. Given this constraint, "portability," actually has some rather wonderful implications for accessibility. If a website with all the text only available to screen reader users (a straw man example) isn't portable, then it is equally true that a website where all the text is images without alt (not a straw man at all, as examples exist all over the web) is not portable. Adaptability doesn't have to mean a complicated website looks great in ibooks; it means the essential components of the document are available when the document's context is changed. (The "graceful degradation" aspect Ivan and Leonard are discussing upthread. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Jean Kaplansky   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:02:32 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Monday, 7 September 2015 12:33:32 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

I think the missing word here is some form of "curation." Humans curate. Machines do not curate without human instruction (or markup determined by a human). Other than this one exception, +1 to Deborah's comments. They're spot on. -Jean (Ivan!!! Please post for me? Thanks!) Jean Kaplansky Content Manager Safari email: jkaplansky@safaribooksonline.com twitter: @jeankaplansky On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Deborah Kaplan < dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote: > >> Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to >> “package it up” and archive it away as such. >> > > Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document > must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." > > That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to > the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the > concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the > distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: > > “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The >> simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And >> that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the >> “editorial construct”. >> > > The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially > constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- > by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that > something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the > site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which > portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would > like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to > generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated > collection doesn't make something a document. > > For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating > explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as > well. > > The others here who have a library, archives, or information science > background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make > something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it > (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and > everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those > who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be > treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an > organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an > object its documentary status." cf > http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html > > To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define > digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, > pragmatic definition is wanted.." > > I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire > fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's > vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of > electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are > constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. > > For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as > well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection > of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of > different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a > document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling > all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied > consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that > doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices > were a necessary part of that compilation. > > Deborah >
[Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:32:40 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 18:32:50 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

(I don't know why this mail didn't go through directly ...) > From: Jean Kaplansky <jkaplansky@safaribooksonline.com> > Date: 4 September 2015 20:02:32 CEST > To: Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> > Cc: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>, Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > I think the missing word here is some form of "curation." Humans curate. Machines do not curate without human instruction (or markup determined by a human). > > Other than this one exception, +1 to Deborah's comments. They're spot on. > > -Jean (Ivan!!! Please post for me? Thanks!) > > Jean Kaplansky > Content Manager > Safari > > email: jkaplansky@safaribooksonline.com > twitter: @jeankaplansky > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>> Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to “package it up” and archive it away as such. >> >> Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." >> >> That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: >> >>> “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the “editorial construct”. >> >> The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated collection doesn't make something a document. >> >> For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as well. >> >> The others here who have a library, archives, or information science background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an object its documentary status." cf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html >> >> To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, pragmatic definition is wanted.." >> >> I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. >> >> For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices were a necessary part of that compilation. >> >> Deborah >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:45:56 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 18:46:24 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com177 <lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > Deborah – you seem to be mixing the abilities of the file format with the > specific implementation choices of an author using that format. > Nope. ;) Quoting the beginning of the thread: Ivan began with "A **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. The question is, can a document be a Portable Web Document if it is not adaptable? The answer is no. It may be in a portable format, but it is not a portable document. We do not need to define portability for formats, here. That is the responsibility of the keepers of the various format standards. We need to define what are the functional requirrements of a thing we call a "portable web document." The format is portable, because it allows the content to be used in all of > those environments in a common manner. The fact that a given author of > content for that format chose to do something strange (be it colors or > offscreen or whatever) has NOTHING to do with the formats ability to be > portable. > That is true. And I am not making any assertions about the standards of the format. A "portable web document" is adaptable. This means it must be written in a format which allows adaptable encoding. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:02:10 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:02:49 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable.” > I quite disagree with you here, but as mentioned in the previous thread, I am concerned about the format itself. And the format MUST allow for ANY collection of resources to be bound together in a “portable fashion” or it’s not a “Portable Document Format” (in the generic sense, of course). >I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. > In general, I agree. UNLESS the purpose of the spider WAS to create a document from your site. And in that way, I agree with you when you wrote “I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it”. So we agree that as long as there is explicit intent to gather that collection, then it’s a document. Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to “package it up” and archive it away as such. Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the “editorial construct”. The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated collection doesn't make something a document. For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as well. The others here who have a library, archives, or information science background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an object its documentary status." cf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, pragmatic definition is wanted.." I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices were a necessary part of that compilation. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:10:47 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:11:19 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

OK – let’s take your position then…and use a commonly accepted choice for portable web content EPUB. Would you say that a Fixed Layout EPUB is a “Portable Web Document” (POW) under your definition? Would you say that an EPUB consisting of a collection of images, such as a comic book or manga, meets your definition for POW? What if there are no alternates specified for those images, making it completely inaccessible? Would you say that an EPUB containing a series of videos, without any captioning, is a POW? Personally, I would consider ALL of them valid POW’s because they are all using technologies from the Open Web Platform and are bundled together in a portable container. Now for fun – would you consider a PDF/UA-1 compliant file to be a POW? I would argue that it would be – perhaps more so than the examples above – because it 1. uses technology considered part of the Open Web Platform. (PDF is supported by all modern browsers natively and is referenced and exampled in the HTML spec) 2. It is adaptive and accessible due to it use of proper structure (according to the rules of PDF/UA) Your thoughts? Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com177<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Deborah – you seem to be mixing the abilities of the file format with the specific implementation choices of an author using that format. Nope. ;) Quoting the beginning of the thread: Ivan began with "A **Portable Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable document should themselves be portable. The question is, can a document be a Portable Web Document if it is not adaptable? The answer is no. It may be in a portable format, but it is not a portable document. We do not need to define portability for formats, here. That is the responsibility of the keepers of the various format standards. We need to define what are the functional requirrements of a thing we call a "portable web document." The format is portable, because it allows the content to be used in all of those environments in a common manner. The fact that a given author of content for that format chose to do something strange (be it colors or offscreen or whatever) has NOTHING to do with the formats ability to be portable. That is true. And I am not making any assertions about the standards of the format. A "portable web document" is adaptable. This means it must be written in a format which allows adaptable encoding. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Nick Ruffilo   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:11:39 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:12:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

I may be crazy and asking alot (I'm sick, and my head is fuzzy) but is it possible to get a summary of this? Is someone going to capture these seemingly awesome comments and put them on Ivan's great document? -Nick On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it > includes every collection of resources > > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable.” > > > I quite disagree with you here, but as mentioned in the previous thread, I > am concerned about the format itself. And the format MUST allow for ANY > collection of resources to be bound together in a “portable fashion” or > it’s not a “Portable Document Format” (in the generic sense, of course). > > >I would argue that something does not become a portable document because > a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. > > > In general, I agree. UNLESS the purpose of the spider WAS to create a > document from your site. And in that way, I agree with you when you wrote > “I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have > been made to create it”. So we agree that as long as there is explicit > intent to gather that collection, then it’s a document. > > Leonard > > From: Deborah Kaplan > Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, > Bill McCoy > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote: > >> Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to >> “package it up” and archive it away as such. >> > > Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document > must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." > > That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to > the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the > concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the > distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: > > “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The >> simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And >> that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the >> “editorial construct”. >> > > The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially > constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- > by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that > something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the > site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which > portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would > like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to > generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated > collection doesn't make something a document. > > For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating > explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as > well. > > The others here who have a library, archives, or information science > background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make > something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it > (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and > everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those > who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be > treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an > organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an > object its documentary status." cf > http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html > > To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define > digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, > pragmatic definition is wanted.." > > I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire > fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's > vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of > electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are > constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. > > For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as > well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection > of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of > different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a > document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling > all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied > consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that > doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices > were a necessary part of that compilation. > > Deborah > -- - Nick Ruffilo @NickRuffilo http://Aerbook.com http://ZenOfTechnology.com <http://zenoftechnology.com/>
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:12:30 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:12:58 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com143144 <lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > > The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it > includes every collection of resources > > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable.” > > > I quite disagree with you here, but as mentioned in the previous thread, I > am concerned about the format itself. And the format MUST allow for ANY > collection of resources to be bound together in a “portable fashion” or > it’s not a “Portable Document Format” (in the generic sense, of course). > We don't disagree, except that we're having sideways conversations. You're discussing formats which could contain a portable web document. I am discussing a definition of what is a "portable web document." And I reassert: a portable web document definition has to have specific constraints on the concept of "document." Not everything composed online is a document. If I was too information theory-heavy in my earlier post, let me move to the physical layer: If I spill ink on a piece of paper, it's not a document. Ink and paper are both permissable formats for encoding documents, but my use of permissable formats does not make it one. (We shall leave the trickier question of infinite typing monkeys and the works of Shakespeare for another philosophical discussion.) > > >I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a > spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. > > > In general, I agree. UNLESS the purpose of the spider WAS to create a > document from your site. And in that way, I agree with you when you wrote > “I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have > been made to create it”. So we agree that as long as there is explicit > intent to gather that collection, then it’s a document. > > Yes, precisely as I said in my email: "That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection." We agree completely on that point. And as I said, I think we are not disagreeing; your points address questions of formats, and mine address questions of documents. Deborah Leonard > > From: Deborah Kaplan > Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, > Bill McCoy > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com144 > 145 <lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > >> Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to >> “package it up” and archive it away as such. >> > > Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document > must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." > > That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to > the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the > concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the > distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: > > “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The >> simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And >> that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the >> “editorial construct”. >> > > The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially > constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- > by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that > something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the > site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which > portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would > like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to > generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated > collection doesn't make something a document. > > For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating > explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as > well. > > The others here who have a library, archives, or information science > background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make > something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it > (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and > everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those > who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be > treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an > organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an > object its documentary status." cf > http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html > > To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define > digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, > pragmatic definition is wanted.." > > I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire > fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's > vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of > electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are > constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. > > For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as > well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection > of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of > different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a > document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling > all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied > consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that > doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices > were a necessary part of that compilation. > > Deborah >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 20:18:32 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:19:04 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

>You're discussing formats which could contain a portable web document. I am discussing a definition of what is a "portable web document.” > AH – I see where you are coming from here. And I agree that it’s a valid distinction between the document and the format in which the document is distributed. With that in mind, then the definition of POW (and the associated wiki page about defining the requirements) shouldn’t talk at all about formats but about what makes up a “portable web document”. Perhaps starting with what is a ‘web document” and then what makes it “portable”… Glad we’re arriving to a common place. Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 4:12 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com143144<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources > that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable.” > I quite disagree with you here, but as mentioned in the previous thread, I am concerned about the format itself. And the format MUST allow for ANY collection of resources to be bound together in a “portable fashion” or it’s not a “Portable Document Format” (in the generic sense, of course). We don't disagree, except that we're having sideways conversations. You're discussing formats which could contain a portable web document. I am discussing a definition of what is a "portable web document." And I reassert: a portable web document definition has to have specific constraints on the concept of "document." Not everything composed online is a document. If I was too information theory-heavy in my earlier post, let me move to the physical layer: If I spill ink on a piece of paper, it's not a document. Ink and paper are both permissable formats for encoding documents, but my use of permissable formats does not make it one. (We shall leave the trickier question of infinite typing monkeys and the works of Shakespeare for another philosophical discussion.) >I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. > In general, I agree. UNLESS the purpose of the spider WAS to create a document from your site. And in that way, I agree with you when you wrote “I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it”. So we agree that as long as there is explicit intent to gather that collection, then it’s a document. Yes, precisely as I said in my email: "That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection." We agree completely on that point. And as I said, I think we are not disagreeing; your points address questions of formats, and mine address questions of documents. Deborah Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com144145<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Your personal website COULD be a document and in fact you might want to “package it up” and archive it away as such. Sure, it could be. But it isn't. The definition of a portable document must not to be so general that it includes every collection of resources that could theoretically exist in the format we define as "portable." That's why I used the term "editorial constructed." Ivan took exception to the word "editor," although in this case I am distinguishing between the concept of "editor" and the concept of "editorial." In fact, you make the distinction for me yourself, right here, Leonard: “unrelated” is only a current state in the mind of a single person. The simple act of making a collection of them has now made them related. And that act of collecting them together (by human or machine) is the “editorial construct”. The simple act of making a collection of them has made them " editorially constructed." However, when you say that active collecting them together -- by human or machine -- is the editorial construct. I would argue that something does not become a portable document because a spider crawled the site and generated a sitemap file. That can be *one* method by which portable documents are created (e.g., I can make the decision that I would like to create a document which is my entire site, so I build a spider to generate a collection). However, the mere act of having a machine generated collection doesn't make something a document. For what it's worth, I think this is an inherent danger in creating explicit definitions, although of course I see the value in doing so as well. The others here who have a library, archives, or information science background might recognize what I'm saying here, but I assert that to make something a document, a human choice needs to have been made to create it (even if the human choice was "I am going to run a web crawler and everything that it grabs will be a document"). Refencing Briet and those who followed: "There is intentionality: It is intended that the object be treated as evidence" and "the quality of having been placed in an organized, meaningful relationship with other evidence--that gives an object its documentary status." cf http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/digdoc.html To quote Buckland's conclusion in the link above: "Attempts to define digital documents are likely to remain elusive, if more than an ad hoc, pragmatic definition is wanted.." I know we are not going to pin down something which has eluded entire fields of information science. However, if we must define "document", it's vital to make it clear that a document is not a random collection of electronic files that happen to be something accessed together. They are constructed with intention, or compiled with intention. For what it's worth, compiled with intention can be a readerly choice, as well. Think about Pintrest as a (not at all portable) example. A collection of images of sofa cushions, curtains, and paint swatches from a variety of different company's websites and personal blogs does not itself construe a document. However, if a Pintrest user then puts together a board compiling all of those images, that is a constructed document. The only implied consumer of that document might also be the compiler of it, but that doesn't make it any less a document. Nonetheless, intellectual choices were a necessary part of that compilation. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 4 Sep 2015 16:27:06 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 4 September 2015 20:27:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Since this thread began as a conversation about the need to define the term "Portable Web Document" for precision when referring to it in our communication, and since it's the end of the day Friday at the beginning of a long weekend on the east coast of the US, where I live, I will decline to pick up the bottle of kerosene you just handed me by making this specifically about real world formats. ;) If we are ever having a conversation over which formats meet digital publishing's functional requirements, I will happily get into the weeds of that conversation, but that is not necessary for this conversation. How about this, though. Let's posit two OWP-compliant formats: * MonkeyTyping * InkSplatter 2.0 , Then you hand me two documents in each standard: an encoded graphic novel with no alternative text, and a beautifully marked up, completely accessible picturebook. You point out that my argument says the former two are not portable documents, even though both MonkeyTyping and Inksplatter 2.0 are OWP-compliant. I would have two answers to that: 1. Nothing in the OWP requires portability as we are defining it here, or we'd have no need to be defining all this temrinology around offline use and packaging. 2. Why, yes, I *did* just come up with a new definition of portability that makes accessibility of the content necessary? I'm quite smug about it, thank you! *takes a bow* More seriously, I'm sure that there are plenty of problems with that second point, but it's absolutely worth considering. Deborah On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > OK – let’s take your position then…and use a commonly accepted choice for > portable web content EPUB. > > Would you say that a Fixed Layout EPUB is a “Portable Web Document” (POW) > under your definition? > > Would you say that an EPUB consisting of a collection of images, such as a > comic book or manga, meets your definition for POW? What if there are no > alternates specified for those images, making it completely inaccessible? > > Would you say that an EPUB containing a series of videos, without any > captioning, is a POW? > > > Personally, I would consider ALL of them valid POW’s because they are all > using technologies from the Open Web Platform and are bundled together in a > portable container. > > > Now for fun – would you consider a PDF/UA-1 compliant file to be a POW? > I would argue that it would be – perhaps more so than the examples above – > because it > > 1. uses technology considered part of the Open Web Platform. (PDF is > supported by all modern browsers natively and is referenced and exampled in > the HTML spec) > 2. It is adaptive and accessible due to it use of proper structure > (according to the rules of PDF/UA) > > > Your thoughts? > > Leonard > > From: Deborah Kaplan > Date: Friday, September 4, 2015 at 2:45 PM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, > Bill McCoy > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com177 > <lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > >> Deborah – you seem to be mixing the abilities of the file format with the >> specific implementation choices of an author using that format. >> > > Nope. ;) > > Quoting the beginning of the thread: Ivan began with "A **Portable Web > Document** is a uniquely identifiable set of resources that together > provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even if an active > server infrastructure is not available. All components of a portable > document should themselves be portable. > > The question is, can a document be a Portable Web Document if it is not > adaptable? The answer is no. > > It may be in a portable format, but it is not a portable document. > > We do not need to define portability for formats, here. That is the > responsibility of the keepers of the various format standards. We need to > define what are the functional requirrements of a thing we call a "portable > web document." > > The format is portable, because it allows the content to be used in all of >> those environments in a common manner. The fact that a given author of >> content for that format chose to do something strange (be it colors or >> offscreen or whatever) has NOTHING to do with the formats ability to be >> portable. >> > > That is true. And I am not making any assertions about the standards of > the format. > > A "portable web document" is adaptable. This means it must be written in a > format which allows adaptable encoding. > > Deborah >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Mon, 7 Sep 2015 16:48:33 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Monday, 7 September 2015 14:48:49 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Hi everybody, I make use of the fact that some of you enjoy the Labor day long week-end in trying to find an equilibrium point in the (great) discussion. I did not want to answer individual mails; instead, here are some general comments that came up in the thread and that I find important to pin down: - We should remember *why* we need this definition: because we must be able to be clear what we are working on. Ie, the question we must be able to answer is: "why is digital publishing, portable documents, etc, different than just putting a page up on the Web?". This is not an imaginary question: I have faced this question already in the past few weeks. And a vague answer is not enough, we must justify our own work. - We should separate between what an *instance* of a document offers and what is made available, as possibilties, by the constituent formats. While we may be able to make restrictions on the latter, it is much more difficult to do so for the former. - As a followup to the previous point, we should avoid being overly strict and dismissing instances too strictly. Referring back to Buckland (as quoted by Deborah) we need to be pragmatic here. The choice I'd make, in a true W3C fashion:-), is to use 'SHOULD' in the definitions when needed, which is not the same as MUST. (Although I have the impression that Deborah would have required a MUST...) - It seems that the original definition of a "Portable (Web) Document" was lumping together two different notions, namely a "Web Document" and a "Portable (Web) Document". These are two different things, and it makes sense separating these. Leonard and Deborah did arrive to this conclusion but, from a different point of view, Peter raised something similar. So... as some sort of summary and a new starting point for further discussions (Nick, I hope this helps) here is my current proposal for the discussion: [[[ A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. ]]] Let the second chapter of the discussion begin... Ivan P.S. Deborah, I have added the emphasis on "Web" resource, because we are really talking about the Web. Sorry, this makes your monkey out of the picture:-) ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Olaf Drümmer   Mon, 7 Sep 2015 21:39:50 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Monday, 7 September 2015 19:40:17 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Would this discussion become easier if based on a starting point like: On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > [[[ > A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. > > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. > ]]] we distinguished between **Web Document** and **good Web Document** and also between **Portable (Web) Document** and **good Portable (Web) Document** Requirements like "graceful adaptation to the users' needs" are all fine, but some web documents might just not adapt gracefully and still would have to be called a web documents… Just my 2 cents… Olaf
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 06:22:51 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 04:23:06 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 07 Sep 2015, at 21:39 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > > Would this discussion become easier if based on a starting point like: > > On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > >> [[[ >> A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. >> >> A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. >> ]]] > > we distinguished between > **Web Document** and **good Web Document** > and also between > **Portable (Web) Document** and **good Portable (Web) Document** > > Requirements like "graceful adaptation to the users' needs" are all fine, but some web documents might just not adapt gracefully and still would have to be called a web documents… I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... Ivan > > > Just my 2 cents… > > > Olaf > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Olaf Drümmer   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:26:48 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 08:27:17 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com.

Might be just my very personal point of view (though stemming from having been involved in committee work for about 20 years) but unless you clearly separate one (core definition of what something is) from the other (what would be required to make 'it' such that it has desirable characteristics …) you might have never ending fruitless discussions for not worthwhile reason. Anyway, I'll shut up now on this aspect… Olaf On 8 Sep 2015, at 06:22, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... > > Ivan >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:41:32 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 08:41:45 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:26 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > > Might be just my very personal point of view (though stemming from having been involved in committee work for about 20 years) but unless you clearly separate one (core definition of what something is) from the other (what would be required to make 'it' such that it has desirable characteristics …) you might have never ending fruitless discussions for not worthwhile reason. > > Anyway, I'll shut up now on this aspect… Let us see what other people say… Ivan > > Olaf > > On 8 Sep 2015, at 06:22, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > >> I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... >> >> Ivan >> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
RE: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
"Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken"   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:21:29 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 13:22:52 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

Hi Olaf, Is your distinction between "good" and unqualified similar to terms like "valid" or "well-formed"? If so, I think the qualification of what makes a (portable) (web) document "good" would be defined in detail in forthcoming specifications. We are attempting to create a quick-reference glossary to enable clearer communications. I think the use of [RFC2119] language clarifies intent. [RFC2119]. S. Bradner. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. March 1997. Best Current Practice. URL: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119 Tzviya Siegman Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 4:42 AM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG; Leonard Rosenthol; Deborah Kaplan; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf; Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 08 Sep 2015, at 10:26 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: Might be just my very personal point of view (though stemming from having been involved in committee work for about 20 years) but unless you clearly separate one (core definition of what something is) from the other (what would be required to make 'it' such that it has desirable characteristics ...) you might have never ending fruitless discussions for not worthwhile reason. Anyway, I'll shut up now on this aspect... Let us see what other people say... Ivan Olaf On 8 Sep 2015, at 06:22, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:31:56 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 13:32:26 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

While I agree with Olaf’s position, I don’t think the “good” terms would serve us well. Instead, I’d like to build on Ivan’s point in the use of SHOULD and make two small changes to the Portable (Web) Document definition: A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that should provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also be able to adapt to the user's needs. How’s that?? Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:22 AM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 07 Sep 2015, at 21:39 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: Would this discussion become easier if based on a starting point like: On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: [[[ A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. ]]] we distinguished between **Web Document** and **good Web Document** and also between **Portable (Web) Document** and **good Portable (Web) Document** Requirements like "graceful adaptation to the users' needs" are all fine, but some web documents might just not adapt gracefully and still would have to be called a web documents… I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... Ivan Just my 2 cents… Olaf ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 15:43:54 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 13:44:11 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

> On 08 Sep 2015, at 15:31 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > While I agree with Olaf’s position, I don’t think the “good” terms would serve us well. > > Instead, I’d like to build on Ivan’s point in the use of SHOULD and make two small changes to the Portable (Web) Document definition: > > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that should provide a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also be able to adapt to the user's needs. > I can live with that. Anybody else? Or should we declare victory? (There are some other terms to define:-) Ivan > > How’s that?? > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:22 AM > To: Olaf Drümmer > Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > >> On 07 Sep 2015, at 21:39 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com <mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: >> >> Would this discussion become easier if based on a starting point like: >> >> On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: >> >>> [[[ >>> A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. >>> >>> A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. >>> ]]] >> >> we distinguished between >> **Web Document** and **good Web Document** >> and also between >> **Portable (Web) Document** and **good Portable (Web) Document** >> >> Requirements like "graceful adaptation to the users' needs" are all fine, but some web documents might just not adapt gracefully and still would have to be called a web documents… > > I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic choice... > > Ivan > > >> >> >> Just my 2 cents… >> >> >> Olaf >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 11:10:22 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 18:10:50 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, olaf@druemmer.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com.

HI, to (belatedly) chime in on this: I am fine with the definitions proposed. I personally think it's a bit narrow to put (even as SHOULD) "adapt to the user's needs" in either the definition of Web Document or Portable Web Document, because there are many examples (comics for one) where adaptation may not be practical, and adaptability is to me only one of many useful properties. But it is a very very important property, one which we have always strived to enable with EPUB, so I can definitely live with it. I would also personally also prefer to define two more general terms, "Portable Document" (without relation to Web) and "Web Document" or "Web Content" (without relation to portability), and then define "Portable Web Document" as simply the intersection of these two concepts. That to me would be a more accurate depiction of the ecosystem, and would make it simple to diagram it, with PDF lying within the bubble of "Portable Document" but clearly well outside the intersection with "Web Document" and EPUB today (as most commonly used) perhaps lying just at the boundary of "Web Document" but definitely not yet fully realizing everything in the Venn diagram of the intersection. But this may just be my own way of looking at it, and I certainly have no objections if this (after all Web-centric) group prefers Ivan's decomposition (assuming we are all in agreement that Web != browser, i.e. that native apps consuming Web-based resources are fully in scope). I am just a bit nervous then that we wouldn't have explicitly defined what is e.g. PDF in our nomenclature which could lead to confusion later. --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 6:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > On 08 Sep 2015, at 15:31 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > While I agree with Olaf’s position, I don’t think the “good” terms would > serve us well. > > Instead, I’d like to build on Ivan’s point in the use of SHOULD and make > two small changes to the Portable (Web) Document definition: > > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that should provide a > graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A Portable > Web Document should also be able to adapt to the user's needs. > > > I can live with that. > > Anybody else? Or should we declare victory? (There are some other terms to > define:-) > > Ivan > > > How’s that?? > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:22 AM > To: Olaf Drümmer > Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, Ralph > Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Bill McCoy > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > > On 07 Sep 2015, at 21:39 , Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > > Would this discussion become easier if based on a starting point like: > > On 7 Sep 2015, at 16:48, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > > [[[ > A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of > interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of > resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other > resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' > needs. > > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that has enough > information to ensure a graceful degradation when presented to the user > even offline. A Portable Web Document should also include enough > information for a graceful adaptation to the user's needs. > ]]] > > > we distinguished between > **Web Document** and **good Web Document** > and also between > **Portable (Web) Document** and **good Portable (Web) Document** > > Requirements like "graceful adaptation to the users' needs" are all fine, > but some web documents might just not adapt gracefully and still would have > to be called a web documents… > > > I am a bit afraid of overcomplicating things by introducing too many > terms. This is why it says "should" and not a "must": this is a pragmatic > choice... > > Ivan > > > > > Just my 2 cents… > > > Olaf > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Liam Quin   Tue, 08 Sep 2015 14:52:29 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 18:52:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

On 2015-09-08 09:31, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that should provide a > graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A > Portable Web Document should also be able to adapt to the user's > needs. I haven't followed all of this thread, but maybe that's good since a definition should stand alone... How is that definition different from every other Web document? How do we test whether a document meets the definition? Examples that meet the definition: * a Web page that needs an android-only plugin but that works offline is portable by this definition, even though it's platform-specific * a Web page for an interactive scheduling system that degrades to an image of this month's calendar when used offline is portable * the project gutenberg electronic edition of encyclopaedia britannica in 11 volumes (maybe; see below)... although it might not fit on your portable device. Possible examples that don't meet the definition: * a wikipedia page has links that can't be followed * an ecommerce site such as ebay or amazon,where you can't buy things when offline (or is that graceful?) * a text file that doesn't translate itself if the user needs to read it and doesn't speak the original language (i.e. what exactly is meant by adapting to a user's needs?) Liam -- Liam Quin, W3C XML Activity Lead; Digital publishing; HTML Accessibility
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 12:28:40 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 19:29:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: liam@w3.org
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, ivan@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com.

Just to pile on Liam's message, I think it's very helpful to test our proposed definitions via specific examples (with good definitions it should be clear into which buckets particular examples fit). One case I'm wondering about is the distinction between Web apps that provide views of a document, and the document itself. For example consider http://development.readium.divshot.io/?epub=epub_content%2Faccessible_epub_3 Is this itself a "Portable Web Document" or even a "Web document"? Personally, I don't think so, I think of it as a Web app that presents a particular user experience for a document, the resources comprising the underlying document itself happen to exist at http://development.readium.divshot.io/epub_content/accessible_epub_3/EPUB but I'm not sure it can be considered a Web document if it's hidden away. Same case as a view of an EPUB or PDF file presented via a solution like Safari Books Online or Google Play Books, which in some cases the constituent resources (such as pre-rasterized images of the pages a PDF file) may not even exist at publicly accessible URLs but only as records in a back-end database. Or, to twist one of Liam's examples around, suppose you have a wiki system that does do automatic locale-based translation. If a user agent cached the French-language content of a Wikipedia entry, it would be usable offline, but would that cache be considered a "Portable Web Document"? Would the original page (which requires active server intelligence to decide what to serve the user) be considered a [Portable] Web Document? Personally I feel that the fundamental point about portable documents (whether "Web" or not) is that it is the content itself that we are concerned with being portable/archivable/redistributable, not about manifestations of that content being usable offline due to e.g. caching. --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:52 AM, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > On 2015-09-08 09:31, Leonard Rosenthol wrote: > > A **Portable (Web) Document** is a Web Document that should provide a >> graceful degradation when presented to the user even offline. A >> Portable Web Document should also be able to adapt to the user's >> needs. >> > > I haven't followed all of this thread, but maybe that's good since a > definition should stand alone... > > How is that definition different from every other Web document? > How do we test whether a document meets the definition? > > Examples that meet the definition: > * a Web page that needs an android-only plugin but that works offline is > portable by this definition, even though it's platform-specific > * a Web page for an interactive scheduling system that degrades to an > image of this month's calendar when used offline is portable > * the project gutenberg electronic edition of encyclopaedia britannica in > 11 volumes (maybe; see below)... although it might not fit on your portable > device. > > Possible examples that don't meet the definition: > * a wikipedia page has links that can't be followed > * an ecommerce site such as ebay or amazon,where you can't buy > things when offline (or is that graceful?) > * a text file that doesn't translate itself if the user needs to read it > and doesn't speak the original language (i.e. what exactly is meant by > adapting to a user's needs?) > > Liam > > -- > Liam Quin, W3C > XML Activity Lead; > Digital publishing; HTML Accessibility > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Olaf Drümmer   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:05:36 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:06:19 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: liam@w3.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, lrosenth@adobe.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, swick@w3.org, bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, bmccoy@idpf.org.

On 8 Sep 2015, at 20:52, Liam Quin <liam@w3.org> wrote: > How is that definition different from every other Web document? > How do we test whether a document meets the definition? I always tend to think of portable ABC [substitute ABC with something to your liking to get your own feel about it] in the way that I can carry it around, use it any place I want, possibly put in my cupboard for a day or a year and retrieve it again thereafter for using it again, give it to friends, … Portable music cassette player. Portable camera. Portable TV. Portable lamp. Portable PC. Portable oven. Portable phone. Portable fire extinguisher. Portable chair. Portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems. If you look at the first portable radios, well, given today's standards, they were actually not very portable - but still… - they were portable. Now thinking of documents, content, …: Isn't they main point about an 'intention'? An intention to craft them such that they are more likely than not useful from a portability point of view? So it isn't actually so much about whether one can prove a certain document or piece of content is "absolutely portable", but rather about having been crafted such that an intended audience would consider it to be portable [can be used anywhere, independent of stationary power supplies, not too heavy for carrying, not fixed to a building, …] in a suitable fashion? Grabbing an obvious example - PDF. PDF had been designed with portability in mind, Nonetheless, one can create well formed PDFs whose portability might be limited because a font was not embedded - and some audiences may have that font locally installed anyway (making it a non-issue), whereas others (or users 50 years from now) do not. So - if I may - I would propose a definition along the lines of Portable Web Document: an identifiable content resource intended for use independent of any specific infrastructure Olaf
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:14:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:15:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: liam@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Short version: 0. I agree with Liam's concerns about the definition of "portable" 1. I am happy with the definition of web document and the inclusion of "curated" 2. But it is not going to need caveats/footnotes/further explanation in a full glossary 3. At a minimum, for the purposes of digital publishing, we need to make it clear that we are not using document to mean the same thing as the technical term that the component of "Document Object Model" -- or any of the other technical definitions used in W3 projects! http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/alpha/D/80 Based on the above, and using the changes between the RDF 1999 glossary versus RDF 2013 glossary (which I go into more detail about below), I propose: A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources which is identified as a single document by the curator. - A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality. - A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies. - A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content and follow WCAG. ("Must," if I ran the world, but alas.) - A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g. it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. A **Portable Resource** is a set of digital resources which, taken in conjunction as a package, contain all of the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality without the presence of any other digital content. A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains within it all of the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality without the presence of any other digital content. Definition of essential, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: "Essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content." Definition of functionality, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: "Functionality: processes and outcomes achievable through user action" Long version below has my justifications for this definition: Liam's questions bring me back to the essential limitations we need to acknowledge when we are creating a legalistic glossary for a philosophical, abstract concept. I believe, Liam, that your question is with the fine tuning of "portable", but your examples also point out the problem with "document." The 1st part of Ivan's phrasing: A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. Liam asks: > How is that definition different from every other Web document? > How do we test whether a document meets the definition? > > Examples that meet the definition: [Snip] > * a Web page for an interactive scheduling system that degrades to an image > of this month's calendar when used offline is portable [Snip] You could argue that the webpage for an interactive scheduling system counts as curated. And under certain circumstances, that webpage might be something its curator constitutes as "a document." Certainly calendars are sometimes documents, and certainly documents are sometimes interactive. But a interactive calendar scheduling system is not necessarily going to be a document, and to a certain extent that has nothing to do with the technology, content, or presentation -- it has more to do with intent. I think the term "curated" that Ivan has added to the definition is enough, and I'm not proposing that we actually change the definition around this. But I know that a lot of W3 documents have glossaries which define terms which end up having a very specific legal or technical meaning, and I think it's going to be important for our glossary to identify that this is a case where you can't 100% pin down the definition of what a document is. I looked in the W3C Glossary and Dictionary to see if I could find anything else equally vague, and most of the equivalent terms are from very old documents which have in preempted: WCAG 1.0 has a similarly difficult-to-define usage for "equivalent", the ancient Web services glossary Had a vague definition for "attribute," the ancient RDF spec tries to describe "resource" kind of beautifully: "An abstract object that represents either a physical object such as a person or a book or a conceptual object such as a color or the class of things that have colors. Web pages are usually considered to be physical objects, but the distinction between physical and conceptual or abstract objects is not important to RDF. A resource can also be a component of a larger object; for example, a resource can represent a specific person's left hand or a specific paragraph out of a document. As used in this specification, the term resource refers to the whole of an object if the URI does not contain a fragment (anchor) id or to the specific subunit named by the fragment or anchor id." http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#glossary by contrast, the 2013 RDF glossary simply says: "In an RDF context, a resource can be anything that an RDF graph describes. A resource can be addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI). See also Resource Description Framework (RDF) 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax [RDF11-CONCEPTS] " http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-ld-glossary-20130627/#resource The details about the difference between abstract concept versus physical items are now in the mentioned Concept and Abstract Syntax guide: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements -Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 20:33:02 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:33:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

On 9/8/15, 4:14 PM, "Deborah Kaplan" <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: >A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources which is identified as a single document by the curator. >- A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality. >- A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies. >- A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content and follow WCAG. ("Must," if I ran the world, but alas.) >- A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g. it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. I think these are excellent. The only change that I would make is to remove “and follow WCAG”, as it puts a specific technology in play that may not be appropriate either now or in the future. >A **Portable Resource** is a set of digital resources which, taken in conjunction as a package, contain all of the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality without the presence of any other digital content. I think this is on the right track, but I have two practical problems with this. 1) You are using the term to define itself (portable resource vs. digital resource). So that needs a fix. 2) I don’t agree that portability requires “full self-contained-ness”. They are two very different aspects. Consider a "portable document” with the ability to play streaming video - that seems perfectly reasonable (and, even desirable, to many of the DigPub folks). >A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains within it all of the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality without the presence of any other digital content. As with the above, you have the same “self-contained-ness” problem that needs to be addressed. Leonard _________________ >Definition of essential, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: "Essential: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content." > >Definition of functionality, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: "Functionality: processes and outcomes achievable through user action" > >Long version below has my justifications for this definition: > >Liam's questions bring me back to the essential limitations we need to acknowledge when we are creating a legalistic glossary for a philosophical, abstract concept. > >I believe, Liam, that your question is with the fine tuning of "portable", but your examples also point out the problem with "document." > >The 1st part of Ivan's phrasing: > >A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' needs. > >Liam asks: > >> How is that definition different from every other Web document? >> How do we test whether a document meets the definition? >> >> Examples that meet the definition: > >[Snip] > >> * a Web page for an interactive scheduling system that degrades to an image >> of this month's calendar when used offline is portable > >[Snip] > >You could argue that the webpage for an interactive scheduling system counts as curated. And under certain circumstances, that webpage might be something its curator constitutes as "a document." Certainly calendars are sometimes documents, and certainly documents are sometimes interactive. But a interactive calendar scheduling system is not necessarily going to be a document, and to a certain extent that has nothing to do with the technology, content, or presentation -- it has more to do with intent. > >I think the term "curated" that Ivan has added to the definition is enough, and I'm not proposing that we actually change the definition around this. But I know that a lot of W3 documents have glossaries which define terms which end up having a very specific legal or technical meaning, and I think it's going to be important for our glossary to identify that this is a case where you can't 100% pin down the definition of what a document is. > >I looked in the W3C Glossary and Dictionary to see if I could find anything else equally vague, and most of the equivalent terms are from very old documents which have in preempted: WCAG 1.0 has a similarly difficult-to-define usage for "equivalent", the ancient Web services glossary Had a vague definition for "attribute," the ancient RDF spec tries to describe "resource" kind of beautifully: > > > "An abstract object that represents either a physical object such as a person or a book or a conceptual object such as a color or the class of things that have colors. Web pages are usually considered to be physical objects, but the distinction between physical and conceptual or abstract objects is not important to RDF. A resource can also be a component of a larger object; for example, a resource can represent a specific person's left hand or a specific paragraph out of a document. As used in this specification, the term resource refers to the whole of an object if the URI does not contain a fragment (anchor) id or to the specific subunit named by the fragment or anchor id." > > >http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#glossary > >by contrast, the 2013 RDF glossary simply says: > > "In an RDF context, a resource can be anything that an RDF graph describes. A resource can be addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI). See also Resource Description Framework (RDF) 1.1 Concepts and Abstract Syntax [RDF11-CONCEPTS] " > >http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-ld-glossary-20130627/#resource > >The details about the difference between abstract concept versus physical items are now in the mentioned Concept and Abstract Syntax guide: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements > > >-Deborah >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 13:41:12 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:41:41 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Deborah your examples and analysis were very helpful but also crystallized for me that I think "curated" (if implying any human involvement) is not really properly part of the definition. A computer program to me can validly produce anything we consider a "Portable Web Document". For example a realization of my monthly bank statement will be a document, but it is not curated by a human. If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable *web* document"). Similarly if you search on Google for "influenza" the results on the left (the search results) are in no way a "web document" (IMO), the sidebar on the right (with navigation via tabs) could be considered a "web document" but is not a "portable web document" - and whether it's truly a web document could be debated. The PDF that is generated is certainly a portable document (but not a portable "web" document, as I understand that term). But whether the content of the sidebar was in the first place human-curated or machine generated via semantic processing to me is not decisive as to whether it should be considered a "web document", and certainly not as to whether the PDF should be considered a "portable document". In fact I don't know the answer. So thus "document-ness", at least to me, has nothing directly to do with human curation. --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Deborah Kaplan < dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > Short version: > > 0. I agree with Liam's concerns about the definition of "portable" > 1. I am happy with the definition of web document and the inclusion of > "curated" > 2. But it is not going to need caveats/footnotes/further explanation in a > full glossary > 3. At a minimum, for the purposes of digital publishing, we need to make > it clear that we are not using document to mean the same thing as the > technical term that the component of "Document Object Model" -- or any of > the other technical definitions used in W3 projects! > http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/alpha/D/80 > > Based on the above, and using the changes between the RDF 1999 glossary > versus RDF 2013 glossary (which I go into more detail about below), I > propose: > > A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of > interrelated Web resources which is identified as a single document by the > curator. - A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose > formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the > same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality. > - A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when > delivered via a variety of technologies. > - A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content and follow > WCAG. ("Must," if I ran the world, but alas.) > - A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g. > it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. > > A **Portable Resource** is a set of digital resources which, taken in > conjunction as a package, contain all of the information necessary to > provide delivery of essential content and functionality without the > presence of any other digital content. > > A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains within it all > of the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and > functionality without the presence of any other digital content. > > Definition of essential, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: "Essential: if > removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the > content." > > Definition of functionality, stolen straight from WCAG 2.0: > "Functionality: processes and outcomes achievable through user action" > > Long version below has my justifications for this definition: > > Liam's questions bring me back to the essential limitations we need to > acknowledge when we are creating a legalistic glossary for a philosophical, > abstract concept. > > I believe, Liam, that your question is with the fine tuning of "portable", > but your examples also point out the problem with "document." > > The 1st part of Ivan's phrasing: > > A **Web Document** is a uniquely identifiable and curated set of > interrelated Web resources. A Web Document should be constructed of > resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other > resources in the same Web Document) a graceful adaptation to the users' > needs. > > Liam asks: > > How is that definition different from every other Web document? >> How do we test whether a document meets the definition? >> >> Examples that meet the definition: >> > > [Snip] > > * a Web page for an interactive scheduling system that degrades to an >> image of this month's calendar when used offline is portable >> > > [Snip] > > You could argue that the webpage for an interactive scheduling system > counts as curated. And under certain circumstances, that webpage might be > something its curator constitutes as "a document." Certainly calendars are > sometimes documents, and certainly documents are sometimes interactive. But > a interactive calendar scheduling system is not necessarily going to be a > document, and to a certain extent that has nothing to do with the > technology, content, or presentation -- it has more to do with intent. > > I think the term "curated" that Ivan has added to the definition is > enough, and I'm not proposing that we actually change the definition around > this. But I know that a lot of W3 documents have glossaries which define > terms which end up having a very specific legal or technical meaning, and I > think it's going to be important for our glossary to identify that this is > a case where you can't 100% pin down the definition of what a document is. > > I looked in the W3C Glossary and Dictionary to see if I could find > anything else equally vague, and most of the equivalent terms are from very > old documents which have in preempted: WCAG 1.0 has a similarly > difficult-to-define usage for "equivalent", the ancient Web services > glossary Had a vague definition for "attribute," the ancient RDF spec tries > to describe "resource" kind of beautifully: > > > "An abstract object that represents either a physical object such as a > person or a book or a conceptual object such as a color or the class of > things that have colors. Web pages are usually considered to be physical > objects, but the distinction between physical and conceptual or abstract > objects is not important to RDF. A resource can also be a component of a > larger object; for example, a resource can represent a specific person's > left hand or a specific paragraph out of a document. As used in this > specification, the term resource refers to the whole of an object if the > URI does not contain a fragment (anchor) id or to the specific subunit > named by the fragment or anchor id." > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-rdf-syntax-19990222/#glossary > > by contrast, the 2013 RDF glossary simply says: > > "In an RDF context, a resource can be anything that an RDF graph > describes. A resource can be addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier > (URI). See also Resource Description Framework (RDF) 1.1 Concepts and > Abstract Syntax [RDF11-CONCEPTS] " > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-ld-glossary-20130627/#resource > > The details about the difference between abstract concept versus physical > items are now in the mentioned Concept and Abstract Syntax guide: > http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#resources-and-statements > > > -Deborah > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Olaf Drümmer   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 22:52:51 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 20:53:40 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

On 8 Sep 2015, at 22:41, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > For example a realization of my monthly bank statement will be a document, but it is not curated by a human. I actually believe it is curated to a very high degree because a well defined process produces it, and expresses the curating intention of the organisation that is sending it to you. So it is not directly curated by a human, but indirectly. Nonetheless I would keep curation out of the text for the definitions, and condense it into 'intended'. Joseph Beuys (German artist) once put a pile of grease somewhere and intended it to be a work of art (not sure how much curation went on while he was doing it, at least it didn't turn into cheese). Some cleaning person did not get the message and… Anyway: that pile of grease would have to be considered a document, its portability only limited by climate/temperature ;-). If Beuys had incidentally dropped a same shaped and same sized pile of grease, it would not have been a document. Olaf
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:13:44 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 21:14:13 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

I agree with Olaf, although I would prefer even more "collated", "collected" or "assembled" rather than "intended" (which to me implies consciousness, which we should not... yet/quite... ascribe to a machine process nor even to an organization). the other terms imply action but not awareness (curated being worst of all since it implies both conscious action), unfortunately the other three I suggested are also a bit inappropriately skeumorphic when applied to distributed digital resources... Could an entire git repository a document (in the sense we mean for this activity)? I don't think so. Could a particular snapshot (e.g. current mainline or a named release) of a git repository be a document... yes, I think so. It is a specific instantiation of a set of interdependent related resources. But to me, it wouldn't have to be "curated" nor necessarily even "intended" to qualify as such. --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > On 8 Sep 2015, at 22:41, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > For example a realization of my monthly bank statement will be a document, > but it is not curated by a human. > > > I actually believe it is curated to a very high degree because a well > defined process produces it, and expresses the curating intention of the > organisation that is sending it to you. So it is not directly curated by a > human, but indirectly. > > Nonetheless I would keep curation out of the text for the definitions, and > condense it into 'intended'. Joseph Beuys (German artist) once put a pile > of grease somewhere and intended it to be a work of art (not sure how much > curation went on while he was doing it, at least it didn't turn into > cheese). Some cleaning person did not get the message and… Anyway: that > pile of grease would have to be considered a document, its portability only > limited by climate/temperature ;-). If Beuys had incidentally dropped a > same shaped and same sized pile of grease, it would not have been a > document. > > Olaf > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 21:38:09 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 21:38:41 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

I am not sure where I stand on your calendar, but let me give you another example. If I had a collection of data (say the results of a scientific experiment or even my organization’s sales number) stored in the “package” as a defined resource (say foo.csv) and the presentation of that information was done dynamically by some set of HTML/CSS/JS that itself represented a resource in the package. Is that a portable web document? (to you) Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM To: Deborah Kaplan Cc: Liam Quin, W3C Digital Publishing IG Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable web document").
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 14:50:59 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 21:51:27 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Hi Leonard, yes to me the key point is your restriction that the presentational content & interactivity (the "HTML/CSS/JS") is "itself represented [as] a resource in the package". With that constraint the result, in my book, should qualify as a "Portable Web Document" (PWD), as would also a bare naked CSV file on the Web. Your example would be a somewhat app-ish PWD but that's perfectly OK to me. Whereas if the presentational content & interactivity were consed up by server processes and not represented as resources that can travel along with the rest of the CSV content, then I would not consider that to be a PWD. Basically to me if everything in its original native form is available as Web resources (which BTW is what I'm taking you to mean by "in the package") it's a PWD. If either the data or its presentation-related content/interactivity are mediated by server programs and thus their original forms are hidden away in databases or CMS's of some kind, then it's not a PWD (to me), because all you can grab and archive is a particular manifestation, not the Real McCoy ;-). --Bill --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I am not sure where I stand on your calendar, but let me give you another > example. > > If I had a collection of data (say the results of a scientific experiment > or even my organization’s sales number) stored in the “package” as a > defined resource (say foo.csv) and the presentation of that information was > done dynamically by some set of HTML/CSS/JS that itself represented a > resource in the package. > > Is that a portable web document? (to you) > > Leonard > > From: Bill McCoy > Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM > To: Deborah Kaplan > Cc: Liam Quin, W3C Digital Publishing IG > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org> > Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM > > If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider > it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). > But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the > calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable *web* > document"). > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 18:12:35 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 22:13:04 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Olaf Drümmer wrote: > Nonetheless I would keep curation out of the text for the definitions, and condense it into 'intended'. Joseph Beuys (German artist) once put a pile of grease somewhere and intended it to be a > work of art (not sure how much curation went on while he was doing it, at least it didn't turn into cheese). Some cleaning person did not get the message and… Anyway: that pile of grease would > have to be considered a document, its portability only limited by climate/temperature ;-). If Beuys had incidentally dropped a same shaped and same sized pile of grease, it would not have been > a document. I am comfortable changing the term; "curated" has a jargon meaning in museums, libraries, and archives, and outside of that environment may have different connotations. >Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> said: > A computer program to me can validly produce anything we consider a "Portable Web Document". For example a realization of my monthly bank statement will be a document, but it is not curated by a human. Far up this now lengthy thread (mea culpa!) I discussed how curation by computer is very much a form of curation. Humans with intent created the tool which generated the monthly bank statement. The bank statement itself it simply a serialized view of some cells in your bank's data tables, but the choice to create that *specific* view of those cells -- and your choice to have your bank generate the PDF or paper, instead of quietly trusting Quicken to make some background transactions while it updates its own local database -- is what creates a document. (As Olaf has also said, much more succinctly.) Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> said: > If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable web document"). > > Similarly if you search on Google for "influenza" the results on the left (the search results) are in no way a "web document" (IMO), the sidebar on the right (with navigation via tabs) could be considered a "web document" but is not a "portable web document" - and whether it's truly a web document could be debated. The PDF that is generated is certainly a portable document (but not a portable "web" document, as I understand that term). But whether the content of the sidebar was in the first place human-curated or machine generated via semantic processing to me is not decisive as to whether it should be considered a "web document", and certainly not as to whether the PDF should be considered a "portable document". In fact I don't know the answer. So thus "document-ness", at least to me, has nothing directly to do with human curation. [and then in a second email] > Could an entire git repository a document (in the sense we mean for this activity)? I don't think so. Could a particular snapshot (e.g. current mainline or a named release) of a git repository >From an information science POV, an entire git repository -- or a calendar, or a collection of search results, or a search algorithm -- can absolutely be documents. The dependency is not whether they can be turned into a PDF or and HTML representation: digital paper, as it were -- just as a text with embedded video can be a document, or tablet-based interactive picturebooks. The dependency is whether the object as it stands is being treated as a document. Places where this has real digital publication ramifications in the academy include: - In digital theses and dissertations, when a student is required to deposit the documents of his doctoral work in an electronic thesis and dissertation database as a graduation requirement -- and the documents are composed of software products, chemical formulae, or datasets. - In an archives, when a scholar deposits her life's research, including her academic papers, her patented algorithm, several boxes of papers and ephemera, petabytes of data, the export of her Microsoft Outlook mailbox, and her award-winning website with interactive visualizations of her findings. The author writing about that scholar's life work interacts with each of these items in the archives, described and catalogued as a document, and analyzes each one critically as a complete document. - In a records management department, in an era where paper or even PDF rules and regulations have given way to micro-updates of websites, so the recordkeepers must record snapshots of entire web heirarchies as the documents recording the institution's history, later to be published in an online index for the board of directors. What makes each of these a "document" is that humans need to understand each as a concrete whole. It's not the technology of curation that matters -- indeed, in the third example, an automated spider run by the internet archive does the trick. It's the choice to view the parts as a "document" -- to view a dynamic website as a procedures manual, to view a running computer program as a dissertation. Suzanne Briet was the French scholar who came up with the lovely, evocative antelope example: "An antelope running wild on the plains of Africa should not be considered a document... But if it were to be captured, taken to a zoo and made an object of study, it has been made into a document. It has become physical evidence being used by those who study it. Indeed, scholarly articles written about the antelope are secondary documents, since the antelope itself is the primary document." Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Tue, 8 Sep 2015 16:30:52 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2015 23:31:21 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

Deborah I'm sorry I didn't note your point earlier in the thread (that's a mea culpa not a you-a culpa). I don't necessarily think all of us would agree on that definition of "curated" but since you also are OK with a different term I think it's a moot point. Re: my git example, you are absolutely right, under some circumstances a git repo could be considered a document as well, such as where the repo consists of a dataset of some kind, but in some ways that would be like a document consisting of all variations and revisions of every edition of Huckleberry Finn, including all errata etc., all combined into a unified whole... it can be imagined, but AFAIK has never existed. So it's a very special case, whereas the far more common case I was getting at is a single instantiation of a particular edition. To me that is all a git snapshot is - a particular instantiation, concretely and uniquely defined by a single set of SHA checksums. And if that snapshot is of software, and is considered a "release" it will be tested and verified to work in the whole. Or if the snapshot is a publication, it will similarly be verified as a unit. Whereas the git repo consists of all possible versions of all resources, many of which won't be intended or even able to work together. I.e. to me it's only a document if all its parts, in specific instantiations, work together, thus the document itself is a specific instantiation. If we said that a portable document had to be verifiable as a set of SHA checksums I would be happy (packaging into a single PDF or ZIP archive being a cheat to avoid needing the checksums). In Leonard's case of external video file, it still has a unique checksum (unless it's generated on the fly by a webcam in which case the referencing document has a ding against it's "portability" attribute). In Leonard's case of font referenced only by name, if there is no checksum for the specific instance of the font, then as well it's a ding on portability (one which, especially for non-Latin scripts, may have dire consequences for intelligibility of the contents). --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Deborah Kaplan < dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > Olaf Drümmer wrote: > > > Nonetheless I would keep curation out of the text for the definitions, > and condense it into 'intended'. Joseph Beuys (German artist) once put a > pile of grease somewhere and intended it to be a > > work of art (not sure how much curation went on while he was doing it, > at least it didn't turn into cheese). Some cleaning person did not get the > message and… Anyway: that pile of grease would > > have to be considered a document, its portability only limited by > climate/temperature ;-). If Beuys had incidentally dropped a same shaped > and same sized pile of grease, it would not have been > > a document. > > I am comfortable changing the term; "curated" has a jargon meaning in > museums, libraries, and archives, and outside of that environment may have > different connotations. > > >Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> said: > > > A computer program to me can validly produce anything we consider a > "Portable Web Document". For example a realization of my monthly bank > statement will be a document, but it is not curated by a human. > > Far up this now lengthy thread (mea culpa!) I discussed how curation by > computer is very much a form of curation. Humans with intent created the > tool which generated the monthly bank statement. The bank statement itself > it simply a serialized view of some cells in your bank's data tables, but > the choice to create that *specific* view of those cells -- and your choice > to have your bank generate the PDF or paper, instead of quietly trusting > Quicken to make some background transactions while it updates its own local > database -- is what creates a document. > > (As Olaf has also said, much more succinctly.) > > Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> said: > > > If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't > consider it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been > curated). But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of > the calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable web > document"). > > > > Similarly if you search on Google for "influenza" the results on the > left (the search results) are in no way a "web document" (IMO), the sidebar > on the right (with navigation via tabs) could be considered a "web > document" but is not a "portable web document" - and whether it's truly a > web document could be debated. The PDF that is generated is certainly a > portable document (but not a portable "web" document, as I understand that > term). But whether the content of the sidebar was in the first place > human-curated or machine generated via semantic processing to me is not > decisive as to whether it should be considered a "web document", and > certainly not as to whether the PDF should be considered a "portable > document". In fact I don't know the answer. So thus "document-ness", at > least to me, has nothing directly to do with human curation. > > [and then in a second email] > > > Could an entire git repository a document (in the sense we mean for this > activity)? I don't think so. Could a particular snapshot (e.g. current > mainline or a named release) of a git repository > > From an information science POV, an entire git repository -- or a > calendar, or a collection of search results, or a search algorithm -- can > absolutely be documents. The dependency is not whether they can be turned > into a PDF or and HTML representation: digital paper, as it were -- just as > a text with embedded video can be a document, or tablet-based interactive > picturebooks. The dependency is whether the object as it stands is being > treated as a document. Places where this has real digital publication > ramifications in the academy include: > > - In digital theses and dissertations, when a student is required to > deposit the documents of his doctoral work in an electronic thesis and > dissertation database as a graduation requirement -- and the documents are > composed of software products, chemical formulae, or datasets. > > - In an archives, when a scholar deposits her life's research, including > her academic papers, her patented algorithm, several boxes of papers and > ephemera, petabytes of data, the export of her Microsoft Outlook mailbox, > and her award-winning website with interactive visualizations of her > findings. The author writing about that scholar's life work interacts with > each of these items in the archives, described and catalogued as a > document, and analyzes each one critically as a complete document. > > - In a records management department, in an era where paper or even PDF > rules and regulations have given way to micro-updates of websites, so the > recordkeepers must record snapshots of entire web heirarchies as the > documents recording the institution's history, later to be published in an > online index for the board of directors. > > What makes each of these a "document" is that humans need to understand > each as a concrete whole. It's not the technology of curation that matters > -- indeed, in the third example, an automated spider run by the internet > archive does the trick. It's the choice to view the parts as a "document" > -- to view a dynamic website as a procedures manual, to view a running > computer program as a dissertation. > > Suzanne Briet was the French scholar who came up with the lovely, > evocative antelope example: > > "An antelope running wild on the plains of Africa should not be considered > a document... But if it were to be captured, taken to a zoo and made an > object of study, it has been made into a document. It has become physical > evidence being used by those who study it. Indeed, scholarly articles > written about the antelope are secondary documents, since the antelope > itself is the primary document." > > Deborah > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 00:22:44 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 00:23:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: liam@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org.

I would perfectly fine with the requirement (somewhere) about the “checksum on the data” - or basically finding a way to say that the document is referencing (by URI) a VERY SPECIFIC external resource. So the video, the font, etc. would be great examples of that Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:30 PM To: Deborah Kaplan Cc: Liam Quin, W3C Digital Publishing IG Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Resent-From: <public-digipub-ig@w3.org<mailto:public-digipub-ig@w3.org>> Resent-Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 7:31 PM Deborah I'm sorry I didn't note your point earlier in the thread (that's a mea culpa not a you-a culpa). I don't necessarily think all of us would agree on that definition of "curated" but since you also are OK with a different term I think it's a moot point. Re: my git example, you are absolutely right, under some circumstances a git repo could be considered a document as well, such as where the repo consists of a dataset of some kind, but in some ways that would be like a document consisting of all variations and revisions of every edition of Huckleberry Finn, including all errata etc., all combined into a unified whole... it can be imagined, but AFAIK has never existed. So it's a very special case, whereas the far more common case I was getting at is a single instantiation of a particular edition. To me that is all a git snapshot is - a particular instantiation, concretely and uniquely defined by a single set of SHA checksums. And if that snapshot is of software, and is considered a "release" it will be tested and verified to work in the whole. Or if the snapshot is a publication, it will similarly be verified as a unit. Whereas the git repo consists of all possible versions of all resources, many of which won't be intended or even able to work together. I.e. to me it's only a document if all its parts, in specific instantiations, work together, thus the document itself is a specific instantiation. If we said that a portable document had to be verifiable as a set of SHA checksums I would be happy (packaging into a single PDF or ZIP archive being a cheat to avoid needing the checksums). In Leonard's case of external video file, it still has a unique checksum (unless it's generated on the fly by a webcam in which case the referencing document has a ding against it's "portability" attribute). In Leonard's case of font referenced only by name, if there is no checksum for the specific instance of the font, then as well it's a ding on portability (one which, especially for non-Latin scripts, may have dire consequences for intelligibility of the contents). --Bill On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 3:12 PM, Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com<mailto:dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>> wrote: Olaf Drümmer wrote: > Nonetheless I would keep curation out of the text for the definitions, and condense it into 'intended'. Joseph Beuys (German artist) once put a pile of grease somewhere and intended it to be a > work of art (not sure how much curation went on while he was doing it, at least it didn't turn into cheese). Some cleaning person did not get the message and… Anyway: that pile of grease would > have to be considered a document, its portability only limited by climate/temperature ;-). If Beuys had incidentally dropped a same shaped and same sized pile of grease, it would not have been > a document. I am comfortable changing the term; "curated" has a jargon meaning in museums, libraries, and archives, and outside of that environment may have different connotations. >Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org>> said: > A computer program to me can validly produce anything we consider a "Portable Web Document". For example a realization of my monthly bank statement will be a document, but it is not curated by a human. Far up this now lengthy thread (mea culpa!) I discussed how curation by computer is very much a form of curation. Humans with intent created the tool which generated the monthly bank statement. The bank statement itself it simply a serialized view of some cells in your bank's data tables, but the choice to create that *specific* view of those cells -- and your choice to have your bank generate the PDF or paper, instead of quietly trusting Quicken to make some background transactions while it updates its own local database -- is what creates a document. (As Olaf has also said, much more succinctly.) Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org>> said: > If an online calendar is simply a UX over a database then I don't consider it a "document" (whether or not the calendar entries have been curated). But if the calendar system can produce a PDF representation of the calendar, that would be a portable document (but not a "portable web document"). > > Similarly if you search on Google for "influenza" the results on the left (the search results) are in no way a "web document" (IMO), the sidebar on the right (with navigation via tabs) could be considered a "web document" but is not a "portable web document" - and whether it's truly a web document could be debated. The PDF that is generated is certainly a portable document (but not a portable "web" document, as I understand that term). But whether the content of the sidebar was in the first place human-curated or machine generated via semantic processing to me is not decisive as to whether it should be considered a "web document", and certainly not as to whether the PDF should be considered a "portable document". In fact I don't know the answer. So thus "document-ness", at least to me, has nothing directly to do with human curation. [and then in a second email] > Could an entire git repository a document (in the sense we mean for this activity)? I don't think so. Could a particular snapshot (e.g. current mainline or a named release) of a git repository From an information science POV, an entire git repository -- or a calendar, or a collection of search results, or a search algorithm -- can absolutely be documents. The dependency is not whether they can be turned into a PDF or and HTML representation: digital paper, as it were -- just as a text with embedded video can be a document, or tablet-based interactive picturebooks. The dependency is whether the object as it stands is being treated as a document. Places where this has real digital publication ramifications in the academy include: - In digital theses and dissertations, when a student is required to deposit the documents of his doctoral work in an electronic thesis and dissertation database as a graduation requirement -- and the documents are composed of software products, chemical formulae, or datasets. - In an archives, when a scholar deposits her life's research, including her academic papers, her patented algorithm, several boxes of papers and ephemera, petabytes of data, the export of her Microsoft Outlook mailbox, and her award-winning website with interactive visualizations of her findings. The author writing about that scholar's life work interacts with each of these items in the archives, described and catalogued as a document, and analyzes each one critically as a complete document. - In a records management department, in an era where paper or even PDF rules and regulations have given way to micro-updates of websites, so the recordkeepers must record snapshots of entire web heirarchies as the documents recording the institution's history, later to be published in an online index for the board of directors. What makes each of these a "document" is that humans need to understand each as a concrete whole. It's not the technology of curation that matters -- indeed, in the third example, an automated spider run by the internet archive does the trick. It's the choice to view the parts as a "document" -- to view a dynamic website as a procedures manual, to view a running computer program as a dissertation. Suzanne Briet was the French scholar who came up with the lovely, evocative antelope example: "An antelope running wild on the plains of Africa should not be considered a document... But if it were to be captured, taken to a zoo and made an object of study, it has been made into a document. It has become physical evidence being used by those who study it. Indeed, scholarly articles written about the antelope are secondary documents, since the antelope itself is the primary document." Deborah -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:43:34 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 12:43:48 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Hi everybody, I again try to play the role providing summaries:-) The fact that I am on the other side of the pond compared to most of you means that I get a whole lot of emails in the morning, so I can do it... As before, I will try to come up with my synthesis for the next round of discussions. I started with Deborah's proposal[1] which seems to summarize many points up to that point. Let me give my slightly different version, and give my comments below. I am a little bit bothered that this definition becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is just the nature of the beast... Here it is: [[[ * A **Web Resource** is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. * **Essential content** of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. * **Functionality** related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource * A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. * A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. * A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content. * A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. * A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. ]]] And here are my comments on a number of points, a bit in an unorderly manner: * I agree with Leonard's comment on [1] that an explicit reference to WCAG is not appropriate in a definition. There may be resources that the WCAG does not address, it may be a moving target with different versions, and we try to keep away from specific technologies anyway. * I also agree with Leonard that the 'graceful degradation' aspect at delivery of a portable resource is essential and we should not remove it from the definitions. In fact, it may be considered to be in [1] (looking at the term of essential content and functionality) but it does not harm to make it explicit. * The reason why RDF1.1 (that Deborah referred to) has greatly reduced the complexity of its definition of a resource was, if I remember well, pure pragmatism. From an RDF point of view the fact that it has a unique identifier in terms of a URI is all that counts. Any attempt to give a more precise meaning may (ehem, does...) lead to an infinite amount of discussions. I think this pragmatism is a good idea here, too. Actually, I tried to restrict the terminology even further by referring to Web resources; in the RDF model, *anything* can be a resource (including natural persons like Ivan Herman), and we should not go there imho. On the other hand, having a definition for what we mean by a resource sounded like a good idea, so I added that. * There is a major discussion coming up later: a URI is not necessarily a URL. It may be a of course a URL, but can also be a URN, which then includes DOI-s, ISBN-s, etc. This will require a much finer set of definitions (or find them in the literature) because, obviously, DOI-s or ISBN should be usable to identify a Web Document. The list of terms on the initial glossary [3] includes the document identifier as a term to be defined. I would propose *not* to get into this particular discussion for now; it is on the list of the terms to define, but let us take one step at a time... (B.t.w., the checksum idea, raised by Bill & Leonard, may come back at that point.) * I was not sure about the choice among 'curate', 'collate', etc. I am sensitive to Bill's arguments, so I have taken 'collate'. * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition of a 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... * I added "delivery platforms"-s to the should-s, to make it clear that we also include, eg, different types of displays. I had the impression in the thread that we were too focussed on accessibility issues and we did not really consider other types of access problems. It may be unnecessary, though, I am sure someone will tell me:-) * The original text had: "identified as a single document by the curator." I was not sure about this formulation, and we also dropped 'curation'. I went back to one of Olaf's mail who emphasized the 'intention' of combining the resources into one Web Document instead. I think the intention is fairly similar, it just sounded better:-) * I hesitated between Deborah's proposal on "presence of any other digital content" and Olaf's "independent of any specific infrastructure". I stayed by the former because it seemed to be more generic... * I tried to use only the term "web resource' everywhere and not use the term digital content. Just to be consistent... Gonggg... Third round! :-) Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:36:10 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 13:37:35 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org.

I like this restatement. :) > I am a little bit bothered that this definition becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is just the nature of the beast... I admit that we have added a bunch of clarifications of SHOULD/ISN'T to the main definition, but also we have just made a series of small, granular definitions, which is a good way to go. > * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a > single Web Resource I am very happy with this definition. I assume we are all happy with the presumption that a set can have only one member, which is the primitive case of document. And I am very happy with using "intention" rather than "curation." "Collated," I think, is very good as well, because it gets at the idea that these resources are supposed to be discussed in aggregate, without using the loaded term I had chosen, namely, "packaging." For that matter, I would be equally happy with "aggregate," if anyone has a problem with collated. > * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition > of a 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... No problem. I was running off the suggestion someone (Olaf, maybe?) had made that we think of these as intersecting definitions of portable and document, but I like the way you have phrased it as well. Thank you so much, Ivan! Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:10:13 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:10:45 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Ivan, I support your revised definition. I think there is still something missing re: what Leonard and I were, it seems, agreeing on (!) wrt checksums ... that there is a very high degree of specificity of a particular Portable [Web] Document (which is implicitly provided for PDF and EPUB by the packaging enclosure). Basically from your latest definition I would only add to "Portable Web Document" definition that the "*format(s) of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable*" or something to that effect. Basically if the formats of resources are dynamic, then the result (to me) cannot be considered "portable" , because to me "delivery of essential content and functionality" is squishy, and too low a bar for archival and multi-channel distribution use cases. Portability to me is essentially *mechanical* - it means you can move stuff from place to place, server to server, server to client, client to server, archive it offline, etc. And this arguably supports Deborah's suggestion to separately define "Portable Web Resource" - but in my model, that would be any Web Resource whose format(s) are finite and enumerable. I.e. almost the same as "static" content (although the representations could be produced by a server-side program, for example retrieved from a CMS DB, since they are finite and enumerable that server-side program is by definition not essential). Then "Portable Web Document" is just a "Web Document" comprised of "Portable Web Resources", nothing else need be said (the graceful degradation part is just a logical consequence). I just don't see why a "Portable Web Document" should be less precisely specified than a "Portable Document" that is not Web-based, and clearly these (in both PDF and EPUB forms, really in any packaged format) offer that stronger guarantee. But maybe I'm in the minority on this, if so, again I support your revised definition as an improvement. If the group does want to bless a squishier definition of "Portable Web Document" then I perhaps we could also choose a term to define what I am talking about - something more precisely nailed down. I'm just not sure why we need both. --Bill On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I again try to play the role providing summaries:-) The fact that I am on > the other side of the pond compared to most of you means that I get a whole > lot of emails in the morning, so I can do it... > > As before, I will try to come up with my synthesis for the next round of > discussions. I started with Deborah's proposal[1] which seems to summarize > many points up to that point. Let me give my slightly different version, > and give my comments below. I am a little bit bothered that this definition > becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is > just the nature of the beast... > > Here it is: > > [[[ > * A **Web Resource** is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed > by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed > through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. > > * **Essential content** of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally > change the information or functionality of the content. > > * **Functionality** related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes > achievable through user action. > > * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of > interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web > Resource > * A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable > (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web > Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered > via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > * A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when > delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > * A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content. > * A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, > e.g., it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. > > * A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains, within its > constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential > content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the > presence of any other Web Resources. > ]]] > > And here are my comments on a number of points, a bit in an unorderly > manner: > > * I agree with Leonard's comment on [1] that an explicit reference to WCAG > is not appropriate in a definition. There may be resources that the WCAG > does not address, it may be a moving target with different versions, and we > try to keep away from specific technologies anyway. > > * I also agree with Leonard that the 'graceful degradation' aspect at > delivery of a portable resource is essential and we should not remove it > from the definitions. In fact, it may be considered to be in [1] (looking > at the term of essential content and functionality) but it does not harm to > make it explicit. > > * The reason why RDF1.1 (that Deborah referred to) has greatly reduced the > complexity of its definition of a resource was, if I remember well, pure > pragmatism. From an RDF point of view the fact that it has a unique > identifier in terms of a URI is all that counts. Any attempt to give a more > precise meaning may (ehem, does...) lead to an infinite amount of > discussions. I think this pragmatism is a good idea here, too. Actually, I > tried to restrict the terminology even further by referring to Web > resources; in the RDF model, *anything* can be a resource (including > natural persons like Ivan Herman), and we should not go there imho. On the > other hand, having a definition for what we mean by a resource sounded like > a good idea, so I added that. > > * There is a major discussion coming up later: a URI is not necessarily a > URL. It may be a of course a URL, but can also be a URN, which then > includes DOI-s, ISBN-s, etc. This will require a much finer set of > definitions (or find them in the literature) because, obviously, DOI-s or > ISBN should be usable to identify a Web Document. The list of terms on the > initial glossary [3] includes the document identifier as a term to be > defined. I would propose *not* to get into this particular discussion for > now; it is on the list of the terms to define, but let us take one step at > a time... (B.t.w., the checksum idea, raised by Bill & Leonard, may come > back at that point.) > > * I was not sure about the choice among 'curate', 'collate', etc. I am > sensitive to Bill's arguments, so I have taken 'collate'. > > * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was > not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition of a > 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... > > * I added "delivery platforms"-s to the should-s, to make it clear that we > also include, eg, different types of displays. I had the impression in the > thread that we were too focussed on accessibility issues and we did not > really consider other types of access problems. It may be unnecessary, > though, I am sure someone will tell me:-) > > * The original text had: "identified as a single document by the curator." > I was not sure about this formulation, and we also dropped 'curation'. I > went back to one of Olaf's mail who emphasized the 'intention' of combining > the resources into one Web Document instead. I think the intention is > fairly similar, it just sounded better:-) > > * I hesitated between Deborah's proposal on "presence of any other digital > content" and Olaf's "independent of any specific infrastructure". I stayed > by the former because it seemed to be more generic... > > * I tried to use only the term "web resource' everywhere and not use the > term digital content. Just to be consistent... > > Gonggg... Third round! :-) > > Ivan > > > [1] > http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com > [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org > [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 18:24:35 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:24:50 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Bill, just a quick note before I call it a day… The reason I did not include checksums is because it seems very technology specific, and we avoided that until now. I hear you vs. the "format(s) of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable" thing, and I would be happy to extend the Portable Web Document definition to include something except… I am not sure what, because I am not sure that this formulation is the right one. I guess we should try to come up with a better terminology to express this "semi-static" nature without compromising the usage of, say, a javascript that, for example, generate a visual display of fibonacci series that are, potentially, infinite:-). Maybe somebody will come up with a good terminology while I am sleeping:-) But we are getting there. If this is nailed down and we can consider these definitions fine, we have still other things to properly nail down, like what it means to be in a portable or cached state, or how do I identify a Portable Web Document with a URI using the FRBR model (or something else:-) Cheers Ivan > On 09 Sep 2015, at 18:10 , Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > Ivan, > > I support your revised definition. > > I think there is still something missing re: what Leonard and I were, it seems, agreeing on (!) wrt checksums ... that there is a very high degree of specificity of a particular Portable [Web] Document (which is implicitly provided for PDF and EPUB by the packaging enclosure). > > Basically from your latest definition I would only add to "Portable Web Document" definition that the "format(s) of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable" or something to that effect. Basically if the formats of resources are dynamic, then the result (to me) cannot be considered "portable" , because to me "delivery of essential content and functionality" is squishy, and too low a bar for archival and multi-channel distribution use cases. Portability to me is essentially mechanical - it means you can move stuff from place to place, server to server, server to client, client to server, archive it offline, etc. > > And this arguably supports Deborah's suggestion to separately define "Portable Web Resource" - but in my model, that would be any Web Resource whose format(s) are finite and enumerable. I.e. almost the same as "static" content (although the representations could be produced by a server-side program, for example retrieved from a CMS DB, since they are finite and enumerable that server-side program is by definition not essential). Then "Portable Web Document" is just a "Web Document" comprised of "Portable Web Resources", nothing else need be said (the graceful degradation part is just a logical consequence). > > I just don't see why a "Portable Web Document" should be less precisely specified than a "Portable Document" that is not Web-based, and clearly these (in both PDF and EPUB forms, really in any packaged format) offer that stronger guarantee. > > But maybe I'm in the minority on this, if so, again I support your revised definition as an improvement. If the group does want to bless a squishier definition of "Portable Web Document" then I perhaps we could also choose a term to define what I am talking about - something more precisely nailed down. I'm just not sure why we need both. > > --Bill > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote: > Hi everybody, > > I again try to play the role providing summaries:-) The fact that I am on the other side of the pond compared to most of you means that I get a whole lot of emails in the morning, so I can do it... > > As before, I will try to come up with my synthesis for the next round of discussions. I started with Deborah's proposal[1] which seems to summarize many points up to that point. Let me give my slightly different version, and give my comments below. I am a little bit bothered that this definition becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is just the nature of the beast... > > Here it is: > > [[[ > * A **Web Resource** is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. > > * **Essential content** of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. > > * **Functionality** related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. > > * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource > * A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > * A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > * A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content. > * A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. > > * A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. > ]]] > > And here are my comments on a number of points, a bit in an unorderly manner: > > * I agree with Leonard's comment on [1] that an explicit reference to WCAG is not appropriate in a definition. There may be resources that the WCAG does not address, it may be a moving target with different versions, and we try to keep away from specific technologies anyway. > > * I also agree with Leonard that the 'graceful degradation' aspect at delivery of a portable resource is essential and we should not remove it from the definitions. In fact, it may be considered to be in [1] (looking at the term of essential content and functionality) but it does not harm to make it explicit. > > * The reason why RDF1.1 (that Deborah referred to) has greatly reduced the complexity of its definition of a resource was, if I remember well, pure pragmatism. From an RDF point of view the fact that it has a unique identifier in terms of a URI is all that counts. Any attempt to give a more precise meaning may (ehem, does...) lead to an infinite amount of discussions. I think this pragmatism is a good idea here, too. Actually, I tried to restrict the terminology even further by referring to Web resources; in the RDF model, *anything* can be a resource (including natural persons like Ivan Herman), and we should not go there imho. On the other hand, having a definition for what we mean by a resource sounded like a good idea, so I added that. > > * There is a major discussion coming up later: a URI is not necessarily a URL. It may be a of course a URL, but can also be a URN, which then includes DOI-s, ISBN-s, etc. This will require a much finer set of definitions (or find them in the literature) because, obviously, DOI-s or ISBN should be usable to identify a Web Document. The list of terms on the initial glossary [3] includes the document identifier as a term to be defined. I would propose *not* to get into this particular discussion for now; it is on the list of the terms to define, but let us take one step at a time... (B.t.w., the checksum idea, raised by Bill & Leonard, may come back at that point.) > > * I was not sure about the choice among 'curate', 'collate', etc. I am sensitive to Bill's arguments, so I have taken 'collate'. > > * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition of a 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... > > * I added "delivery platforms"-s to the should-s, to make it clear that we also include, eg, different types of displays. I had the impression in the thread that we were too focussed on accessibility issues and we did not really consider other types of access problems. It may be unnecessary, though, I am sure someone will tell me:-) > > * The original text had: "identified as a single document by the curator." I was not sure about this formulation, and we also dropped 'curation'. I went back to one of Olaf's mail who emphasized the 'intention' of combining the resources into one Web Document instead. I think the intention is fairly similar, it just sounded better:-) > > * I hesitated between Deborah's proposal on "presence of any other digital content" and Olaf's "independent of any specific infrastructure". I stayed by the former because it seemed to be more generic... > > * I tried to use only the term "web resource' everywhere and not use the term digital content. Just to be consistent... > > Gonggg... Third round! :-) > > Ivan > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com <http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com> > [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org <http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org> > [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 <tel:%2B31-641044153> > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > > > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org <mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 09:35:59 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:36:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Yes I did not actually propose to use checksums in the definition, that was a motivating thought experiment only. And I am not particularly attached to my "formats are finite and enumerable" language either and would welcome something better (I also thought of the term "knowable" but decided against it lest we delve too far into epistemology). But to be clear on what I meant I want to drill down on your example. If said JavaScript program is to be run on the receiving system, aka user agent aka reading system, then in REST architectural style terms, this what Roy Fielding defined as "code-on-demand". In this case the *format* of the resource is the JS code itself not the side-effects of its execution - so sure it can be portable per my definition and usually would be (unless the code itself were dynamically generated by another program, or referenced in a loose way by URI that is not specific as to version etc.). That there are infinite potential results of executing that code on the user agent doesn't impair portability and in fact to me it is precisely this that makes a portable web document special with respect to interactivity vs. an arbitrary Web app - a portable web document can be highly interactive, but all the interactive elements must itself be portable. OTOH if that JavaScript code in your example was designed to run only on the server via e.g. Node.js, then no the resulting Web document would not (in my view) be portable at all (well, since portability is not binary, the dependency on such server-side logic would be a ding to that document's portability rating, which might be more or less determinative depending on how important that dynamic Fibonacci display is to the document as a whole). --Bill On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Bill, > > just a quick note before I call it a day… > > The reason I did not include checksums is because it seems very technology > specific, and we avoided that until now. I hear you vs. the "*format(s) > of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable"* > thing, and I would be happy to extend the Portable Web Document definition > to include something except… I am not sure what, because I am not sure that > this formulation is the right one. I guess we should try to come up with a > better terminology to express this "semi-static" nature without > compromising the usage of, say, a javascript that, for example, generate a > visual display of fibonacci series that are, potentially, infinite:-). > > Maybe somebody will come up with a good terminology while I am sleeping:-) > > But we are getting there. If this is nailed down and we can consider these > definitions fine, we have still other things to properly nail down, like > what it means to be in a portable or cached state, or how do I identify a > Portable Web Document with a URI using the FRBR model (or something else:-) > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > > On 09 Sep 2015, at 18:10 , Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > Ivan, > > I support your revised definition. > > I think there is still something missing re: what Leonard and I were, it > seems, agreeing on (!) wrt checksums ... that there is a very high degree > of specificity of a particular Portable [Web] Document (which is implicitly > provided for PDF and EPUB by the packaging enclosure). > > Basically from your latest definition I would only add to "Portable Web > Document" definition that the "*format(s) of all of its constituent Web > Resources are finite and enumerable*" or something to that effect. > Basically if the formats of resources are dynamic, then the result (to me) > cannot be considered "portable" , because to me "delivery of essential > content and functionality" is squishy, and too low a bar for archival and > multi-channel distribution use cases. Portability to me is essentially > *mechanical* - it means you can move stuff from place to place, server to > server, server to client, client to server, archive it offline, etc. > > And this arguably supports Deborah's suggestion to separately define > "Portable Web Resource" - but in my model, that would be any Web Resource > whose format(s) are finite and enumerable. I.e. almost the same as > "static" content (although the representations could be produced by a > server-side program, for example retrieved from a CMS DB, since they are > finite and enumerable that server-side program is by definition not > essential). Then "Portable Web Document" is just a "Web Document" comprised > of "Portable Web Resources", nothing else need be said (the graceful > degradation part is just a logical consequence). > > I just don't see why a "Portable Web Document" should be less precisely > specified than a "Portable Document" that is not Web-based, and clearly > these (in both PDF and EPUB forms, really in any packaged format) offer > that stronger guarantee. > > But maybe I'm in the minority on this, if so, again I support your revised > definition as an improvement. If the group does want to bless a squishier > definition of "Portable Web Document" then I perhaps we could also choose a > term to define what I am talking about - something more precisely nailed > down. I'm just not sure why we need both. > > --Bill > > > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > >> Hi everybody, >> >> I again try to play the role providing summaries:-) The fact that I am on >> the other side of the pond compared to most of you means that I get a whole >> lot of emails in the morning, so I can do it... >> >> As before, I will try to come up with my synthesis for the next round of >> discussions. I started with Deborah's proposal[1] which seems to summarize >> many points up to that point. Let me give my slightly different version, >> and give my comments below. I am a little bit bothered that this definition >> becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is >> just the nature of the beast... >> >> Here it is: >> >> [[[ >> * A **Web Resource** is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed >> by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed >> through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. >> >> * **Essential content** of a Web Resource: if removed, would >> fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. >> >> * **Functionality** related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes >> achievable through user action. >> >> * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of >> interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web >> Resource >> * A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats >> enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web >> Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered >> via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. >> * A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when >> delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. >> * A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content. >> * A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, >> e.g., it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. >> >> * A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains, within >> its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of >> essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, >> without the presence of any other Web Resources. >> ]]] >> >> And here are my comments on a number of points, a bit in an unorderly >> manner: >> >> * I agree with Leonard's comment on [1] that an explicit reference to >> WCAG is not appropriate in a definition. There may be resources that the >> WCAG does not address, it may be a moving target with different versions, >> and we try to keep away from specific technologies anyway. >> >> * I also agree with Leonard that the 'graceful degradation' aspect at >> delivery of a portable resource is essential and we should not remove it >> from the definitions. In fact, it may be considered to be in [1] (looking >> at the term of essential content and functionality) but it does not harm to >> make it explicit. >> >> * The reason why RDF1.1 (that Deborah referred to) has greatly reduced >> the complexity of its definition of a resource was, if I remember well, >> pure pragmatism. From an RDF point of view the fact that it has a unique >> identifier in terms of a URI is all that counts. Any attempt to give a more >> precise meaning may (ehem, does...) lead to an infinite amount of >> discussions. I think this pragmatism is a good idea here, too. Actually, I >> tried to restrict the terminology even further by referring to Web >> resources; in the RDF model, *anything* can be a resource (including >> natural persons like Ivan Herman), and we should not go there imho. On the >> other hand, having a definition for what we mean by a resource sounded like >> a good idea, so I added that. >> >> * There is a major discussion coming up later: a URI is not necessarily a >> URL. It may be a of course a URL, but can also be a URN, which then >> includes DOI-s, ISBN-s, etc. This will require a much finer set of >> definitions (or find them in the literature) because, obviously, DOI-s or >> ISBN should be usable to identify a Web Document. The list of terms on the >> initial glossary [3] includes the document identifier as a term to be >> defined. I would propose *not* to get into this particular discussion for >> now; it is on the list of the terms to define, but let us take one step at >> a time... (B.t.w., the checksum idea, raised by Bill & Leonard, may come >> back at that point.) >> >> * I was not sure about the choice among 'curate', 'collate', etc. I am >> sensitive to Bill's arguments, so I have taken 'collate'. >> >> * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was >> not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition of a >> 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... >> >> * I added "delivery platforms"-s to the should-s, to make it clear that >> we also include, eg, different types of displays. I had the impression in >> the thread that we were too focussed on accessibility issues and we did not >> really consider other types of access problems. It may be unnecessary, >> though, I am sure someone will tell me:-) >> >> * The original text had: "identified as a single document by the >> curator." I was not sure about this formulation, and we also dropped >> 'curation'. I went back to one of Olaf's mail who emphasized the >> 'intention' of combining the resources into one Web Document instead. I >> think the intention is fairly similar, it just sounded better:-) >> >> * I hesitated between Deborah's proposal on "presence of any other >> digital content" and Olaf's "independent of any specific infrastructure". I >> stayed by the former because it seemed to be more generic... >> >> * I tried to use only the term "web resource' everywhere and not use the >> term digital content. Just to be consistent... >> >> Gonggg... Third round! :-) >> >> Ivan >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com >> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org >> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Wed, 9 Sep 2015 20:47:45 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 9 September 2015 18:48:03 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

This is just the idea under the shower;-) Maybe, instead of trying to find a concise term as part of the definition we should add 1-2 bullet item like Deborah did for the concept of Web Documents... Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > On 9 Sep 2015, at 18:35, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > Yes I did not actually propose to use checksums in the definition, that was a motivating thought experiment only. And I am not particularly attached to my "formats are finite and enumerable" language either and would welcome something better (I also thought of the term "knowable" but decided against it lest we delve too far into epistemology). > > But to be clear on what I meant I want to drill down on your example. > > If said JavaScript program is to be run on the receiving system, aka user agent aka reading system, then in REST architectural style terms, this what Roy Fielding defined as "code-on-demand". In this case the format of the resource is the JS code itself not the side-effects of its execution - so sure it can be portable per my definition and usually would be (unless the code itself were dynamically generated by another program, or referenced in a loose way by URI that is not specific as to version etc.). That there are infinite potential results of executing that code on the user agent doesn't impair portability and in fact to me it is precisely this that makes a portable web document special with respect to interactivity vs. an arbitrary Web app - a portable web document can be highly interactive, but all the interactive elements must itself be portable. OTOH if that JavaScript code in your example was designed to run only on the server via e.g. Node.js, then no the resulting Web document would not (in my view) be portable at all (well, since portability is not binary, the dependency on such server-side logic would be a ding to that document's portability rating, which might be more or less determinative depending on how important that dynamic Fibonacci display is to the document as a whole). > > --Bill > > > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >> Bill, >> >> just a quick note before I call it a day… >> >> The reason I did not include checksums is because it seems very technology specific, and we avoided that until now. I hear you vs. the "format(s) of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable" thing, and I would be happy to extend the Portable Web Document definition to include something except… I am not sure what, because I am not sure that this formulation is the right one. I guess we should try to come up with a better terminology to express this "semi-static" nature without compromising the usage of, say, a javascript that, for example, generate a visual display of fibonacci series that are, potentially, infinite:-). >> >> Maybe somebody will come up with a good terminology while I am sleeping:-) >> >> But we are getting there. If this is nailed down and we can consider these definitions fine, we have still other things to properly nail down, like what it means to be in a portable or cached state, or how do I identify a Portable Web Document with a URI using the FRBR model (or something else:-) >> >> Cheers >> >> Ivan >> >> >> >>> On 09 Sep 2015, at 18:10 , Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: >>> >>> Ivan, >>> >>> I support your revised definition. >>> >>> I think there is still something missing re: what Leonard and I were, it seems, agreeing on (!) wrt checksums ... that there is a very high degree of specificity of a particular Portable [Web] Document (which is implicitly provided for PDF and EPUB by the packaging enclosure). >>> >>> Basically from your latest definition I would only add to "Portable Web Document" definition that the "format(s) of all of its constituent Web Resources are finite and enumerable" or something to that effect. Basically if the formats of resources are dynamic, then the result (to me) cannot be considered "portable" , because to me "delivery of essential content and functionality" is squishy, and too low a bar for archival and multi-channel distribution use cases. Portability to me is essentially mechanical - it means you can move stuff from place to place, server to server, server to client, client to server, archive it offline, etc. >>> >>> And this arguably supports Deborah's suggestion to separately define "Portable Web Resource" - but in my model, that would be any Web Resource whose format(s) are finite and enumerable. I.e. almost the same as "static" content (although the representations could be produced by a server-side program, for example retrieved from a CMS DB, since they are finite and enumerable that server-side program is by definition not essential). Then "Portable Web Document" is just a "Web Document" comprised of "Portable Web Resources", nothing else need be said (the graceful degradation part is just a logical consequence). >>> >>> I just don't see why a "Portable Web Document" should be less precisely specified than a "Portable Document" that is not Web-based, and clearly these (in both PDF and EPUB forms, really in any packaged format) offer that stronger guarantee. >>> >>> But maybe I'm in the minority on this, if so, again I support your revised definition as an improvement. If the group does want to bless a squishier definition of "Portable Web Document" then I perhaps we could also choose a term to define what I am talking about - something more precisely nailed down. I'm just not sure why we need both. >>> >>> --Bill >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: >>>> Hi everybody, >>>> >>>> I again try to play the role providing summaries:-) The fact that I am on the other side of the pond compared to most of you means that I get a whole lot of emails in the morning, so I can do it... >>>> >>>> As before, I will try to come up with my synthesis for the next round of discussions. I started with Deborah's proposal[1] which seems to summarize many points up to that point. Let me give my slightly different version, and give my comments below. I am a little bit bothered that this definition becomes way longer than what I summarized last time[2], but maybe this is just the nature of the beast... >>>> >>>> Here it is: >>>> >>>> [[[ >>>> * A **Web Resource** is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. >>>> >>>> * **Essential content** of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. >>>> >>>> * **Functionality** related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. >>>> >>>> * A **Web Document** is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource >>>> * A Web Document *should* be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Web Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. >>>> * A Web Document *should* provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. >>>> * A Web Document *should* provide accessible access to content. >>>> * A Web Document is *not* an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not equivalent to an HTML Document. >>>> >>>> * A **Portable Web Document** is a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. >>>> ]]] >>>> >>>> And here are my comments on a number of points, a bit in an unorderly manner: >>>> >>>> * I agree with Leonard's comment on [1] that an explicit reference to WCAG is not appropriate in a definition. There may be resources that the WCAG does not address, it may be a moving target with different versions, and we try to keep away from specific technologies anyway. >>>> >>>> * I also agree with Leonard that the 'graceful degradation' aspect at delivery of a portable resource is essential and we should not remove it from the definitions. In fact, it may be considered to be in [1] (looking at the term of essential content and functionality) but it does not harm to make it explicit. >>>> >>>> * The reason why RDF1.1 (that Deborah referred to) has greatly reduced the complexity of its definition of a resource was, if I remember well, pure pragmatism. From an RDF point of view the fact that it has a unique identifier in terms of a URI is all that counts. Any attempt to give a more precise meaning may (ehem, does...) lead to an infinite amount of discussions. I think this pragmatism is a good idea here, too. Actually, I tried to restrict the terminology even further by referring to Web resources; in the RDF model, *anything* can be a resource (including natural persons like Ivan Herman), and we should not go there imho. On the other hand, having a definition for what we mean by a resource sounded like a good idea, so I added that. >>>> >>>> * There is a major discussion coming up later: a URI is not necessarily a URL. It may be a of course a URL, but can also be a URN, which then includes DOI-s, ISBN-s, etc. This will require a much finer set of definitions (or find them in the literature) because, obviously, DOI-s or ISBN should be usable to identify a Web Document. The list of terms on the initial glossary [3] includes the document identifier as a term to be defined. I would propose *not* to get into this particular discussion for now; it is on the list of the terms to define, but let us take one step at a time... (B.t.w., the checksum idea, raised by Bill & Leonard, may come back at that point.) >>>> >>>> * I was not sure about the choice among 'curate', 'collate', etc. I am sensitive to Bill's arguments, so I have taken 'collate'. >>>> >>>> * Maybe the biggest departure of Deborah's definition: I must admit I was not convinced by the necessity of having a separate definition of a 'Portable Resource'. I did not see what it brings us... >>>> >>>> * I added "delivery platforms"-s to the should-s, to make it clear that we also include, eg, different types of displays. I had the impression in the thread that we were too focussed on accessibility issues and we did not really consider other types of access problems. It may be unnecessary, though, I am sure someone will tell me:-) >>>> >>>> * The original text had: "identified as a single document by the curator." I was not sure about this formulation, and we also dropped 'curation'. I went back to one of Olaf's mail who emphasized the 'intention' of combining the resources into one Web Document instead. I think the intention is fairly similar, it just sounded better:-) >>>> >>>> * I hesitated between Deborah's proposal on "presence of any other digital content" and Olaf's "independent of any specific infrastructure". I stayed by the former because it seemed to be more generic... >>>> >>>> * I tried to use only the term "web resource' everywhere and not use the term digital content. Just to be consistent... >>>> >>>> Gonggg... Third round! :-) >>>> >>>> Ivan >>>> >>>> >>>> [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/alpine.WNT.2.00.1509081456590.5472@DKaplan.safarijv.com >>>> [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/E51A8C8A-FD5B-4BB3-B7EA-38B94AC4736F@w3.org >>>> [3] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ---- >>>> Ivan Herman, W3C >>>> Digital Publishing Lead >>>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >>>> mobile: +31-641044153 >>>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Bill McCoy >>> Executive Director >>> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) >>> email: bmccoy@idpf.org >>> mobile: +1 206 353 0233 >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 13:24:09 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 11:24:21 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Bill, just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: [[[ • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. ]]] I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! Ivan [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:24:19 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 14:24:49 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

I think we are almost there… However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM To: Bill McCoy Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Bill, just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: [[[ • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. ]]] I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! Ivan [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:48:40 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 14:48:54 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

> On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:24 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > I think we are almost there… > > However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). Which are those use cases? To be very specific in an example. Say we have a Web Document which includes scripting, and this scripting relies on jQuery. And this scripting is essential because, e.g., it implements the user interaction for an interactive textbook. There are two ways to do that: either the author relies on some of the standard places to access the jQuery library (say, from the google developers' site) or a copy of the jQuery library is installed alongside the core files, ie, as part of the constituent set of a Web Document. Let us call then WDe and WDl I would not call the WDe 'Portable', because the book dies if is off line, whereas WDl works just fine off line, so it *is* a Portable Web Document. This is the situation I would like grasp with the MUST. The caching is an interesting situation indeed. If the cache works well then, WDe would be cached *after at least one run*, including the jQuery library, and then things could work. Ie, it is somewhere in between. Does it mean that we are just shifting to the next set of terminology, in fact? We had (based on the wiki page on packaging) three 'states', namely the online, cashed, and portable; are we saying that the Portable Web Document is, in fact, a *state* of a Web Document, rather than some sort of a category? Just musing… Ivan > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM > To: Bill McCoy > Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > Bill, > > just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) > > We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: > > • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. > > Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: > > [[[ > • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). > > • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. > ]]] > > I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) > > Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? > > I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! > > Ivan > > [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:16:47 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 16:17:20 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. And on the jQuery example – I agree completely that the version that ONLY uses the remote/external is NOT portable. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:48 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Bill McCoy, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:24 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: I think we are almost there… However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). Which are those use cases? To be very specific in an example. Say we have a Web Document which includes scripting, and this scripting relies on jQuery. And this scripting is essential because, e.g., it implements the user interaction for an interactive textbook. There are two ways to do that: either the author relies on some of the standard places to access the jQuery library (say, from the google developers' site) or a copy of the jQuery library is installed alongside the core files, ie, as part of the constituent set of a Web Document. Let us call then WDe and WDl I would not call the WDe 'Portable', because the book dies if is off line, whereas WDl works just fine off line, so it *is* a Portable Web Document. This is the situation I would like grasp with the MUST. The caching is an interesting situation indeed. If the cache works well then, WDe would be cached *after at least one run*, including the jQuery library, and then things could work. Ie, it is somewhere in between. Does it mean that we are just shifting to the next set of terminology, in fact? We had (based on the wiki page on packaging) three 'states', namely the online, cashed, and portable; are we saying that the Portable Web Document is, in fact, a *state* of a Web Document, rather than some sort of a category? Just musing… Ivan Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM To: Bill McCoy Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Bill, just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: [[[ • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. ]]] I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! Ivan [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:04:04 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 17:04:33 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Actually the second bullet as presently worded is too vague to capture my notion of a portable document, even with the "MUST". If a "Portable Web Document" depends on active processes running on servers, then it is not portable, whether or not these scripts depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. If my Web Document incorporates a Python program running on the server that manipulates every image based on the phase of the moon, I cant pickle that Python program up and transmit it along with the rest of the Web Resources. So by my criteria it is not portable, at all. But it seems to meet the definition, since the processing only relies on the images, not on external resources. Ivan, you seem to be implicitly rejecting (by not adopting it) my suggestion that we nail down specifically that to qualify as portable, the set of representations (formats) for all of resources must be finite. I would love to see an example from you of a Web Document that should qualify as "portable" where that is not true. Maybe we just have a different meaning about "portability" - if you (and perhaps this group) want to define "portability" in a way that does not guarantee the ability to support archival or multi-channel distribution, I guess I don't object. I just don't think it matches how we have historically used "portable" when applied to "documents", so it may create confusion. Another way to state my issue is that I believe "portable" should NOT be defined in a way that is human-centric. "portability" is an important attribute as much for machine-machine communication (distributing content to aggregators, semantic analysis, etc.) as for human consumption. The current definition therefore seems to me to be way too anthropocentric with "present the essential content" and "graceful degradation". Also I'm not sure what "*it* is offline" means - we are talking about a collection of Web Resources here so what does it mean for them to be offline? It seems we are trying extra hard in this definition to tiptoe around what I see as a very basic and simple property that requires, for Portable Web Documents, a restriction on the REST architecture's general flexibility (that resources aren't bound to specific representations), and by consequence implies that interactivity (other than concierge-level interactivity, such as fetching resources from DBs and perhaps choosing which of a set of resources to fulfill) may only be enabled through "code-on-demand", i.e. code that is is itself a resource of the document. So I would much prefer a crisper, simpler, and more objectively ascertainable definition of "Portable Web Document" which explicitly rules out necessary server-side interactivity by pinning down that the formats for all resources are predefined ("finite and enumerable" or some better wording), rather than all this vague stuff about "essential" and "graceful". But, maybe that's just me... ;-) --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I think we are almost there… > > However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD > (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on > which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this > comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where > it would normally get something online but when not connected it > could/would use something local (but not part of the document). > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM > To: Bill McCoy > Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard > Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > Bill, > > just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) > > We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web > Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of > the portable part. At present, we have: > > • A *Portable Web Document*: a Web Document which contains, within its > constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential > content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without > the presence of any other Web Resources. > > Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's > approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the > following two items: > > [[[ > • It * must* be possible to present the essential content of a Portable > Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, > e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote > video). > > • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when > responsible for an essential functionality, *must not* depend on Web > Resources external to the Portable Web Document. > ]]] > > I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards > defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and > standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much > details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) > > Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? > > I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the > first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! > > Ivan > > [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Olaf Drümmer   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:58:55 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 17:59:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@ADOBE.COM
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, ivan@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it itself anymore. Olaf On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM> wrote: > One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. > > You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). > > So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:03:32 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:03:50 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Leonard, We agree that WDe is not portable. Your dashboard example is indeed borderline, but I *think* it can not be really qualified as portable, because it cannot do anything offline... On the other hand, if the dashboard is part of a larger Web document that teaches information visualization where the dashboard is an example then it is Portable. The borderline is fuzzy. But I think that, as far as I am concerned, a Portable Web Document is defined by a MUST in the definition below. I think the question is what the subject of discourse is for digital publishing (and EPUB+Web). It is perfectly ok to have Web documents that are not portable but that, may be, can be transformed into a portable Web document. But I believe that it may be perfectly all right to decide that we concentrate on Portable Web Documents in such a strict sense. Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. > > You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). > > So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. > > > And on the jQuery example – I agree completely that the version that ONLY uses the remote/external is NOT portable. > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:48 AM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Bill McCoy, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:24 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> >> I think we are almost there… >> >> However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). > > Which are those use cases? > > To be very specific in an example. Say we have a Web Document which includes scripting, and this scripting relies on jQuery. And this scripting is essential because, e.g., it implements the user interaction for an interactive textbook. > > There are two ways to do that: either the author relies on some of the standard places to access the jQuery library (say, from the google developers' site) or a copy of the jQuery library is installed alongside the core files, ie, as part of the constituent set of a Web Document. Let us call then WDe and WDl > > I would not call the WDe 'Portable', because the book dies if is off line, whereas WDl works just fine off line, so it *is* a Portable Web Document. This is the situation I would like grasp with the MUST. > > The caching is an interesting situation indeed. If the cache works well then, WDe would be cached *after at least one run*, including the jQuery library, and then things could work. Ie, it is somewhere in between. > > Does it mean that we are just shifting to the next set of terminology, in fact? We had (based on the wiki page on packaging) three 'states', namely the online, cashed, and portable; are we saying that the Portable Web Document is, in fact, a *state* of a Web Document, rather than some sort of a category? > > Just musing… > > Ivan > > > >> >> Leonard >> >> From: Ivan Herman >> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM >> To: Bill McCoy >> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer >> Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) >> >> Bill, >> >> just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) >> >> We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: >> >> • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. >> >> Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: >> >> [[[ >> • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). >> >> • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. >> ]]] >> >> I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) >> >> Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? >> >> I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! >> >> Ivan >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:07:29 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:07:58 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more clear. I think that the ability to reliably *capture a snapshot and use it offline* is a righteous *feature* for a Web Document to offer. And, the results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable [Web] Document". But to me that does *not* make the original Web Document itself a "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a true representation of the original document. Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a "Portable Web Document". I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot > (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able > to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure > whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable > document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be > written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it > itself anymore. > > Olaf > > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM> wrote: > > One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a > “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. > > You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both > online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to > get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka > caching, but explicit instead of implicit). > > So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It > is portable but can be in different states. > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 20:15:49 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:16:03 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Bill, sorry if I am terse, writing a longer mail on an iPad mini is a challenge... - we agree that if there is a dependency on a server process it is not portable. I do not think I said otherwise... - I did not "reject" your finiteness notion it is just that... I do not really understand it. Neither do I understand the enumeration notion in this sense. Hence my approach of describing in somewhat more operational terms what portability means in this case; it seems that this did not work with you:-( I would really appreciate if you could provide an alternative definition... - I am not sure we can define things without a level of anthropomorphism. The decision on portability has a level of fuzziness that we cannot avoid, like Leonard's dashboard example... More tomorrow... Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > On 10 Sep 2015, at 19:04, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > Actually the second bullet as presently worded is too vague to capture my notion of a portable document, even with the "MUST". > > If a "Portable Web Document" depends on active processes running on servers, then it is not portable, whether or not these scripts depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. If my Web Document incorporates a Python program running on the server that manipulates every image based on the phase of the moon, I cant pickle that Python program up and transmit it along with the rest of the Web Resources. So by my criteria it is not portable, at all. But it seems to meet the definition, since the processing only relies on the images, not on external resources. > > Ivan, you seem to be implicitly rejecting (by not adopting it) my suggestion that we nail down specifically that to qualify as portable, the set of representations (formats) for all of resources must be finite. I would love to see an example from you of a Web Document that should qualify as "portable" where that is not true. Maybe we just have a different meaning about "portability" - if you (and perhaps this group) want to define "portability" in a way that does not guarantee the ability to support archival or multi-channel distribution, I guess I don't object. I just don't think it matches how we have historically used "portable" when applied to "documents", so it may create confusion. > > Another way to state my issue is that I believe "portable" should NOT be defined in a way that is human-centric. "portability" is an important attribute as much for machine-machine communication (distributing content to aggregators, semantic analysis, etc.) as for human consumption. The current definition therefore seems to me to be way too anthropocentric with "present the essential content" and "graceful degradation". Also I'm not sure what "it is offline" means - we are talking about a collection of Web Resources here so what does it mean for them to be offline? It seems we are trying extra hard in this definition to tiptoe around what I see as a very basic and simple property that requires, for Portable Web Documents, a restriction on the REST architecture's general flexibility (that resources aren't bound to specific representations), and by consequence implies that interactivity (other than concierge-level interactivity, such as fetching resources from DBs and perhaps choosing which of a set of resources to fulfill) may only be enabled through "code-on-demand", i.e. code that is is itself a resource of the document. > > So I would much prefer a crisper, simpler, and more objectively ascertainable definition of "Portable Web Document" which explicitly rules out necessary server-side interactivity by pinning down that the formats for all resources are predefined ("finite and enumerable" or some better wording), rather than all this vague stuff about "essential" and "graceful". > > But, maybe that's just me... ;-) > > --Bill > > > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >> I think we are almost there… >> >> However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). >> >> Leonard >> >> From: Ivan Herman >> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM >> To: Bill McCoy >> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer >> Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) >> >> Bill, >> >> just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) >> >> We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: >> >> • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. >> >> Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: >> >> [[[ >> • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). >> >> • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. >> ]]] >> >> I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) >> >> Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? >> >> I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! >> >> Ivan >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:29:50 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:30:20 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Hi Ivan, Well since you and I agree that "if there is a dependency on a server process it is not portable", then we are in agreement on what I consider fundamental, the rest is only word-smithing. Regarding finiteness, I'm not sure what is hard to understand about "finite" or "enumerable". The normal case is that a resource of a portable document has only one representation, i.e. it is "static" content. The fancier cases might be if there were say French, German, and English versions of a text resource, or different resolutions of an image resource, but all were predefined. So my attempt was to use "formats are finite and enumerable" to encompass these fancier cases, and also encompass the case of concierge server processes that simply fetch resources from e.g. a DB, in place of just saying "static content". But to me "static content" is really the notion. Again if a resource is code, e.g. JavaScript, I consider the format to be the code itself not the side-effects of its execution. So if the dashboard was, in your elaboration of earlier example "part of a larger Web document that teaches information visualization where the dashboard is an example" then as long as that dashboard's embodiment is JavaScript code intended to execute on the client, then it can be portable. If that dashboard's embodiment was a Python script designed to run on a server, it is not since that would be a dependency on a server process. I guess my problem with describing this in operational terms is that I believe that portability should be determinable through static analysis... otherwise how can we say whether something is portable or not? Again in case of PDF and EPUB we have a very objective definition of portability, because of the package containment (with a few leaks / gray areas as previously discussed, such as fonts in the case of PDF and external video files in the case of EPUB). I don't believe that for Portable Web Documents we have any reason to back off from aspiring to a similar level of objectivity. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:15 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote: > Bill, > > sorry if I am terse, writing a longer mail on an iPad mini is a > challenge... > > - we agree that if there is a dependency on a server process it is not > portable. I do not think I said otherwise... > > - I did not "reject" your finiteness notion it is just that... I do not > really understand it. Neither do I understand the enumeration notion in > this sense. Hence my approach of describing in somewhat more operational > terms what portability means in this case; it seems that this did not work > with you:-( I would really appreciate if you could provide an alternative > definition... > > - I am not sure we can define things without a level of anthropomorphism. > The decision on portability has a level of fuzziness that we cannot avoid, > like Leonard's dashboard example... > > More tomorrow... > > Ivan > > --- > Ivan Herman > Tel:+31 641044153 > http://www.ivan-herman.net > > (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) > > > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 19:04, Bill McCoy <bmccoy@idpf.org> wrote: > > Actually the second bullet as presently worded is too vague to capture my > notion of a portable document, even with the "MUST". > > If a "Portable Web Document" depends on active processes running on > servers, then it is not portable, whether or not these scripts depend on > Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. If my Web Document > incorporates a Python program running on the server that manipulates every > image based on the phase of the moon, I cant pickle that Python program up > and transmit it along with the rest of the Web Resources. So by my criteria > it is not portable, at all. But it seems to meet the definition, since the > processing only relies on the images, not on external resources. > > Ivan, you seem to be implicitly rejecting (by not adopting it) my > suggestion that we nail down specifically that to qualify as portable, the > set of representations (formats) for all of resources must be finite. I > would love to see an example from you of a Web Document that should qualify > as "portable" where that is not true. Maybe we just have a different > meaning about "portability" - if you (and perhaps this group) want to > define "portability" in a way that does not guarantee the ability to > support archival or multi-channel distribution, I guess I don't object. I > just don't think it matches how we have historically used "portable" when > applied to "documents", so it may create confusion. > > Another way to state my issue is that I believe "portable" should NOT be > defined in a way that is human-centric. "portability" is an important > attribute as much for machine-machine communication (distributing content > to aggregators, semantic analysis, etc.) as for human consumption. The > current definition therefore seems to me to be way too anthropocentric with > "present the essential content" and "graceful degradation". Also I'm not > sure what "*it* is offline" means - we are talking about a collection of > Web Resources here so what does it mean for them to be offline? It seems we > are trying extra hard in this definition to tiptoe around what I see as a > very basic and simple property that requires, for Portable Web Documents, a > restriction on the REST architecture's general flexibility (that resources > aren't bound to specific representations), and by consequence implies that > interactivity (other than concierge-level interactivity, such as fetching > resources from DBs and perhaps choosing which of a set of resources to > fulfill) may only be enabled through "code-on-demand", i.e. code that is is > itself a resource of the document. > > So I would much prefer a crisper, simpler, and more objectively > ascertainable definition of "Portable Web Document" which explicitly rules > out necessary server-side interactivity by pinning down that the formats > for all resources are predefined ("finite and enumerable" or some better > wording), rather than all this vague stuff about "essential" and "graceful". > > But, maybe that's just me... ;-) > > --Bill > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote: > >> I think we are almost there… >> >> However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD >> (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on >> which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this >> comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where >> it would normally get something online but when not connected it >> could/would use something local (but not part of the document). >> >> Leonard >> >> From: Ivan Herman >> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM >> To: Bill McCoy >> Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard >> Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer >> Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other >> things...) >> >> Bill, >> >> just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) >> >> We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web >> Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of >> the portable part. At present, we have: >> >> • A *Portable Web Document*: a Web Document which contains, within its >> constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential >> content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without >> the presence of any other Web Resources. >> >> Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's >> approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the >> following two items: >> >> [[[ >> • It * must* be possible to present the essential content of a Portable >> Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, >> e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote >> video). >> >> • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when >> responsible for an essential functionality, *must not* depend on Web >> Resources external to the Portable Web Document. >> ]]] >> >> I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the >> standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming >> environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might >> become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) >> >> Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? >> >> I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the >> first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! >> >> Ivan >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C >> Digital Publishing Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > >
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 14:51:05 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 18:51:33 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: whmccoy@gmail.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

This is an attempt to simplify the conversation, moving away from specific examples and technical terminology. If it just adds complexity, let's pretend I didn't say anything. My basic summary as I think that Ivan's earlier definition of "portable" is just fine. ;) A Web Document consists of: 1. Content, that is 2. Encoded in some format "Content" might mean text, captions, a video, a visualization, data, math, musical notation, the smell of cloves in a mug of cider on a winter morning. "Encoding format" might mean PDF, plaintext, HTML5, Epub, SubRip, AVIs, OGGs, Flash, WMV, MathML, LaTeX, Sibelius, FragrenceML, etc. Certain elements of a web document sit on a wobbly line between "content" and "encoding format," such as fonts. When a web document is *portable*, that means that the object being described as portable: * Given a toolset which can render all the encoding formats, * But in the absence of any other web resources * Can display its all of its essential content. This is still wobbly, to be sure. For example, as Leonard has been pointing out, caching is a thing. But I think -- staying away from the discussions of specific technological caching solutions, which are relevant to defining "portability," -- a web document which contains enough of its remote content cached to be displayed in the absence of other web resources is portable *only with that cache*. That is to say, the "portable web document" is the web document + cache. A web document that has the potential to be cached but has *not* been is not portable; it has non-portable dependencies. But I think that this should resolve the questions of leaving it to open-ended or too specific. Because we are not addressing specific technologies, we can just say that any aggregate whose content is portable is itself portable. (Again, if this adds more confusion, let's pretend I didn't say anything. I'm trying to synthesize, not add more chaos. I did enough of that in the other thread.) Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:59:51 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:00:22 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: whmccoy@gmail.com, ivan@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Deborah, I like your definition, it is not only simpler but also uses logical composition (that "any aggregate whose content is portable is itself portable") . I don't like "display" but that's a fine point. To try to make this yet even simpler, it's been said that "you can't take it with you!". To me the essence of portability is that "you *can* take it with you!". And the "it" means the content that we are calling portable... if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a snapshot of one particular state of that content then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Deborah Kaplan < dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > This is an attempt to simplify the conversation, moving away from specific > examples and technical terminology. If it just adds complexity, let's > pretend I didn't say anything. My basic summary as I think that Ivan's > earlier definition of "portable" is just fine. ;) > > A Web Document consists of: > > 1. Content, that is > 2. Encoded in some format > > "Content" might mean text, captions, a video, a visualization, data, > math, musical notation, the smell of cloves in a mug of cider on a winter > morning. > > "Encoding format" might mean PDF, plaintext, HTML5, Epub, SubRip, AVIs, > OGGs, Flash, WMV, MathML, LaTeX, Sibelius, FragrenceML, etc. > > Certain elements of a web document sit on a wobbly line between "content" > and "encoding format," such as fonts. > > When a web document is *portable*, that means that the object being > described as portable: > > * Given a toolset which can render all the encoding formats, > * But in the absence of any other web resources > * Can display its all of its essential content. > > This is still wobbly, to be sure. For example, as Leonard has been > pointing out, caching is a thing. But I think -- staying away from the > discussions of specific technological caching solutions, which are relevant > to defining "portability," -- a web document which contains enough of its > remote content cached to be displayed in the absence of other web resources > is portable *only with that cache*. That is to say, the "portable web > document" is the web document + cache. A web document that has the > potential to be cached but has *not* been is not portable; it has > non-portable dependencies. > > But I think that this should resolve the questions of leaving it to > open-ended or too specific. Because we are not addressing specific > technologies, we can just say that any aggregate whose content is portable > is itself portable. > > (Again, if this adds more confusion, let's pretend I didn't say anything. > I'm trying to synthesize, not add more chaos. I did enough of that in the > other thread.) > > Deborah > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:08:28 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:09:05 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: whmccoy@gmail.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

> if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a snapshot of one particular state of that content >then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable > And here is where we disagree, Bill. The ability to capture/snapshot one particular state is what people do with PDF today (and have been doing for 20+ years). Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:59 PM To: Deborah Kaplan Cc: Bill McCoy, Ivan Herman, Leonard Rosenthol, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Deborah, I like your definition, it is not only simpler but also uses logical composition (that "any aggregate whose content is portable is itself portable") . I don't like "display" but that's a fine point. To try to make this yet even simpler, it's been said that "you can't take it with you!". To me the essence of portability is that "you can take it with you!". And the "it" means the content that we are calling portable... if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a snapshot of one particular state of that content then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com<mailto:dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com>> wrote: This is an attempt to simplify the conversation, moving away from specific examples and technical terminology. If it just adds complexity, let's pretend I didn't say anything. My basic summary as I think that Ivan's earlier definition of "portable" is just fine. ;) A Web Document consists of: 1. Content, that is 2. Encoded in some format "Content" might mean text, captions, a video, a visualization, data, math, musical notation, the smell of cloves in a mug of cider on a winter morning. "Encoding format" might mean PDF, plaintext, HTML5, Epub, SubRip, AVIs, OGGs, Flash, WMV, MathML, LaTeX, Sibelius, FragrenceML, etc. Certain elements of a web document sit on a wobbly line between "content" and "encoding format," such as fonts. When a web document is *portable*, that means that the object being described as portable: * Given a toolset which can render all the encoding formats, * But in the absence of any other web resources * Can display its all of its essential content. This is still wobbly, to be sure. For example, as Leonard has been pointing out, caching is a thing. But I think -- staying away from the discussions of specific technological caching solutions, which are relevant to defining "portability," -- a web document which contains enough of its remote content cached to be displayed in the absence of other web resources is portable *only with that cache*. That is to say, the "portable web document" is the web document + cache. A web document that has the potential to be cached but has *not* been is not portable; it has non-portable dependencies. But I think that this should resolve the questions of leaving it to open-ended or too specific. Because we are not addressing specific technologies, we can just say that any aggregate whose content is portable is itself portable. (Again, if this adds more confusion, let's pretend I didn't say anything. I'm trying to synthesize, not add more chaos. I did enough of that in the other thread.) Deborah -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:15:25 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:15:55 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

I would agree that your example from amazon is one that you probably wouldn’t want portable… But consider what you see when you log into a place like eTrade, with all the charts and graphs about your stock portfolio. Or consider the reports from Adobe or Google Analytics. Those are all examples of things that users currently take away with them but they are static snapshots. What if they could be interactive versions (using the same web technologies) of that snapshot BUT could also be updated with the latest data simply by reconnecting? We’ve talked to MANY corporate users who want something like this… Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF for close to 20 years now) Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more clear. I think that the ability to reliably capture a snapshot and use it offline is a righteous feature for a Web Document to offer. And, the results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable [Web] Document". But to me that does not make the original Web Document itself a "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a true representation of the original document. Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a "Portable Web Document". I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it itself anymore. Olaf On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM<mailto:lrosenth@ADOBE.COM>> wrote: One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:17:24 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:17:55 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Of course it can do things offline, Ivan! It has a cache of the last set of data that it was able to retrieve, so it is fully functional offline and therefore meets your criteria as such. But here again we get into the states of a Portable Document. So it appears that the state is relevant to the definition. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:03 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Bill McCoy, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Leonard, We agree that WDe is not portable. Your dashboard example is indeed borderline, but I *think* it can not be really qualified as portable, because it cannot do anything offline... On the other hand, if the dashboard is part of a larger Web document that teaches information visualization where the dashboard is an example then it is Portable. The borderline is fuzzy. But I think that, as far as I am concerned, a Portable Web Document is defined by a MUST in the definition below. I think the question is what the subject of discourse is for digital publishing (and EPUB+Web). It is perfectly ok to have Web documents that are not portable but that, may be, can be transformed into a portable Web document. But I believe that it may be perfectly all right to decide that we concentrate on Portable Web Documents in such a strict sense. Ivan --- Ivan Herman Tel:+31 641044153 http://www.ivan-herman.net (Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...) On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. And on the jQuery example – I agree completely that the version that ONLY uses the remote/external is NOT portable. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 10:48 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Bill McCoy, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 10 Sep 2015, at 16:24 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: I think we are almost there… However, I would prefer to the MUST in the second bullet as a SHOULD (strong recommendation, not requirement). I know this is the one point on which Bill and I disagree, but we have some actual use cases where this comes up. Also, in my mind, this is the “cached” state for the PWD – where it would normally get something online but when not connected it could/would use something local (but not part of the document). Which are those use cases? To be very specific in an example. Say we have a Web Document which includes scripting, and this scripting relies on jQuery. And this scripting is essential because, e.g., it implements the user interaction for an interactive textbook. There are two ways to do that: either the author relies on some of the standard places to access the jQuery library (say, from the google developers' site) or a copy of the jQuery library is installed alongside the core files, ie, as part of the constituent set of a Web Document. Let us call then WDe and WDl I would not call the WDe 'Portable', because the book dies if is off line, whereas WDl works just fine off line, so it *is* a Portable Web Document. This is the situation I would like grasp with the MUST. The caching is an interesting situation indeed. If the cache works well then, WDe would be cached *after at least one run*, including the jQuery library, and then things could work. Ie, it is somewhere in between. Does it mean that we are just shifting to the next set of terminology, in fact? We had (based on the wiki page on packaging) three 'states', namely the online, cashed, and portable; are we saying that the Portable Web Document is, in fact, a *state* of a Web Document, rather than some sort of a category? Just musing… Ivan Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 7:24 AM To: Bill McCoy Cc: W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Leonard Rosenthol, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Bill, just picking up where we were yesterday, to settle the last few meters:-) We seem to be in agreement in the definition of Web Resources, and Web Documents[1]; let us not repeat them here. What we want is a refinement of the portable part. At present, we have: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. Following the idea I had yesterday evening, and also following Deborah's approach on adding some 'explanation' to the terms, what about adding the following two items: [[[ • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. ]]] I was wondering about adding to the second post: "apart from the standards defined for Portable Web Documents, i.e., programming environments and standard API-s available in User Agents", but that might become to much details. This is not mathematics, after all:-) Any more such "qualifying" notes? Are those fine? I think that if we find a consensus on this part, we are done with the first round of glossary definitions… But there are more! Ivan [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:18:11 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:18:40 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, whmccoy@gmail.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Leonard, no, we don't disagree! Really, I insist! :-) Seriously though, the PDF of say a Word document is a portable document, and you and I agree it is a snapshot of a state of that document. But no one would say that because such a snapshot can be created, therefore the Word document itself is already a portable document, in fact the raison d'etre for PDF was and is to enable the portability ("view and print anywhere" in original Acrobat-ese) that native application files did not afford. What I am getting at here is that we may be able to capture a snapshot of a Web Document - and the result may be a Portable Web Document or just a plain old Portable Document - but that ability does not itself make the Web Document merit the "Portable" designation any more than native app files should be considered "Portable" --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a > snapshot of one particular state of that content > >then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable > > > And here is where we disagree, Bill. The ability to capture/snapshot > one particular state is what people do with PDF today (and have been doing > for 20+ years). > > Leonard > > From: Bill McCoy > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:59 PM > To: Deborah Kaplan > Cc: Bill McCoy, Ivan Herman, Leonard Rosenthol, W3C Digital Publishing > IG, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Olaf Drümmer > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > Deborah, I like your definition, it is not only simpler but also uses > logical composition (that "any aggregate whose content is portable is > itself portable") . I don't like "display" but that's a fine point. > > To try to make this yet even simpler, it's been said that "you can't take > it with you!". To me the essence of portability is that "you *can* take > it with you!". And the "it" means the content that we are calling > portable... if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is > only a snapshot of one particular state of that content then the content > itself cannot thereby be considered portable. > > --Bill > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Deborah Kaplan < > dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > >> This is an attempt to simplify the conversation, moving away from >> specific examples and technical terminology. If it just adds complexity, >> let's pretend I didn't say anything. My basic summary as I think that >> Ivan's earlier definition of "portable" is just fine. ;) >> >> A Web Document consists of: >> >> 1. Content, that is >> 2. Encoded in some format >> >> "Content" might mean text, captions, a video, a visualization, data, >> math, musical notation, the smell of cloves in a mug of cider on a winter >> morning. >> >> "Encoding format" might mean PDF, plaintext, HTML5, Epub, SubRip, AVIs, >> OGGs, Flash, WMV, MathML, LaTeX, Sibelius, FragrenceML, etc. >> >> Certain elements of a web document sit on a wobbly line between "content" >> and "encoding format," such as fonts. >> >> When a web document is *portable*, that means that the object being >> described as portable: >> >> * Given a toolset which can render all the encoding formats, >> * But in the absence of any other web resources >> * Can display its all of its essential content. >> >> This is still wobbly, to be sure. For example, as Leonard has been >> pointing out, caching is a thing. But I think -- staying away from the >> discussions of specific technological caching solutions, which are relevant >> to defining "portability," -- a web document which contains enough of its >> remote content cached to be displayed in the absence of other web resources >> is portable *only with that cache*. That is to say, the "portable web >> document" is the web document + cache. A web document that has the >> potential to be cached but has *not* been is not portable; it has >> non-portable dependencies. >> >> But I think that this should resolve the questions of leaving it to >> open-ended or too specific. Because we are not addressing specific >> technologies, we can just say that any aggregate whose content is portable >> is itself portable. >> >> (Again, if this adds more confusion, let's pretend I didn't say anything. >> I'm trying to synthesize, not add more chaos. I did enough of that in the >> other thread.) >> >> Deborah >> > > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 15:33:09 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:33:38 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, whmccoy@gmail.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

Leonard: > Bill: > > > if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a > snapshot of one particular state of that content > >then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable > > > And here is where we disagree, Bill. The ability to capture/snapshot > one particular state is what people do with PDF today (and have been doing > for 20+ years). > And that snapshot is a portable document. But just the snapshot; not the larger pool. My PDF bank statement is a portable document, but my data in my bank's database is not -- though if they gave me a mysqldump file of the data, it would be portable. Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the end > of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can be > updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF for > close to 20 years now) > Customers can get a document they can carry with them that can be updated, and that might be "portable" by some definitions (eg. you can put it on a USB stick in your pocket). But it's not portable by the defintion we are using here. We are specifically defining "portable" to mean "all of the essential material is accessible offline". This is a hugely necessary concept in publishing; I'd give examples from our business, but I think we all have reams of examples of this in our pocket. Much as "document" has myriad meanings all over tech and indeed all over the W3C, this is a case where "portable" needs to have different meanings. 'Portable" to a user might mean "I can stick it in a USB stick in my pocket." To the PDF team it might mean "shows the same document on a smart phone as on a web tv as on a TRS-80 model III." (Forgive me if I'm wrong; that's my understanding of the "portable" in PDF, but you're the expert!) And to Dpub, I believe the meaning we're looking for is "if you give it to astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti and she puts it on her e-reader, she can enjoy a good novel while aboard the Soyuz spacecraft taking her to the ISS." Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:35:48 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:36:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

Leonard, of course dynamic updating of information when online is a desirable feature... the banking app on my mobile phone, among others, already works this way and I suspect you use apps that do likewise. I think we all agree on pushing for OWP to enable doing more of this without resorting to native apps. But to me, content that changes on the fly based on new data is not what I would call a portable document, since it depends on a server process to realize the true current state of the content, and that server process cannot be archived etc. This group may certainly want to taking on helping to facilitate this feature in Web Documents but I don't think we should conflate "portable documents" with "offline-usable Web applications", even if a cached state of the Web application may be portable. Maybe we just need additional terms rather than trying to load everything on to "portable". --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > I would agree that your example from amazon is one that you probably > wouldn’t want portable… > > But consider what you see when you log into a place like eTrade, with all > the charts and graphs about your stock portfolio. > Or consider the reports from Adobe or Google Analytics. > > Those are all examples of things that users currently take away with them > but they are static snapshots. What if they could be interactive versions > (using the same web technologies) of that snapshot BUT could also be > updated with the latest data simply by reconnecting? > > We’ve talked to MANY corporate users who want something like this… > > Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the > end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can > be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF > for close to 20 years now) > > Leonard > > From: Bill McCoy > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM > To: Olaf Drümmer > Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah > Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more > clear. > > I think that the ability to reliably *capture a snapshot and use it > offline* is a righteous *feature* for a Web Document to offer. And, the > results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable > [Web] Document". > > But to me that does *not* make the original Web Document itself a > "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a > true representation of the original document. > > Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard > like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a > "Portable Web Document". > > I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what > is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same > thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the > latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. > > --Bill > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: > >> But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot >> (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able >> to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure >> whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable >> document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be >> written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it >> itself anymore. >> >> Olaf >> >> >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM> wrote: >> >> One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a >> “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. >> >> You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used >> both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be >> able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use >> (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). >> >> So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It >> is portable but can be in different states. >> >> >> > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:39:21 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:39:52 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

Then if this is the case – then why do we need the states of “online, offline and cached” for a portable web document? Maybe we only need those then for a web document, where offline == portable? From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Olaf Drümmer, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Leonard, of course dynamic updating of information when online is a desirable feature... the banking app on my mobile phone, among others, already works this way and I suspect you use apps that do likewise. I think we all agree on pushing for OWP to enable doing more of this without resorting to native apps. But to me, content that changes on the fly based on new data is not what I would call a portable document, since it depends on a server process to realize the true current state of the content, and that server process cannot be archived etc. This group may certainly want to taking on helping to facilitate this feature in Web Documents but I don't think we should conflate "portable documents" with "offline-usable Web applications", even if a cached state of the Web application may be portable. Maybe we just need additional terms rather than trying to load everything on to "portable". --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: I would agree that your example from amazon is one that you probably wouldn’t want portable… But consider what you see when you log into a place like eTrade, with all the charts and graphs about your stock portfolio. Or consider the reports from Adobe or Google Analytics. Those are all examples of things that users currently take away with them but they are static snapshots. What if they could be interactive versions (using the same web technologies) of that snapshot BUT could also be updated with the latest data simply by reconnecting? We’ve talked to MANY corporate users who want something like this… Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF for close to 20 years now) Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more clear. I think that the ability to reliably capture a snapshot and use it offline is a righteous feature for a Web Document to offer. And, the results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable [Web] Document". But to me that does not make the original Web Document itself a "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a true representation of the original document. Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a "Portable Web Document". I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it itself anymore. Olaf On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM<mailto:lrosenth@ADOBE.COM>> wrote: One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233<tel:%2B1%20206%20353%200233> -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 12:50:53 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:51:23 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

Leonard, I think you may have a point, but yet a "Portable Web Document" by definition is comprised of Web Resources, and I think its offline state can have two manifestations, a "Portable Document" (omitting "Web", so this might be e.g. a .epub file) or a cache of its Web Resources. By definition (at least the one I'm seeking) these states would be equivalent in content but they might not be equivalent in other ways. For example in the online state, access may require authenticated https access, in the offline cached state its resources may not be directly accessible at all, in the .epub state clearly all the resources are directly accessible. This can have implications re: copyright protection. For a "Web Document" that is not a "*Portable* Web Document" then offline must necessarily imply a representation only of a particular state of the Web Document. That again could be either a cache or else a "Portable Document" (most likely not a "Portable *Web* Document" since offline). --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > Then if this is the case – then why do we need the states of “online, > offline and cached” for a portable web document? Maybe we only need those > then for a web document, where offline == portable? > > From: Bill McCoy > Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Olaf Drümmer, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, > Liam Quin, Ralph Swick > > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > Leonard, of course dynamic updating of information when online is a > desirable feature... the banking app on my mobile phone, among others, > already works this way and I suspect you use apps that do likewise. I think > we all agree on pushing for OWP to enable doing more of this without > resorting to native apps. > > But to me, content that changes on the fly based on new data is not what I > would call a portable document, since it depends on a server process to > realize the true current state of the content, and that server process > cannot be archived etc. > > This group may certainly want to taking on helping to facilitate this > feature in Web Documents but I don't think we should conflate "portable > documents" with "offline-usable Web applications", even if a cached state > of the Web application may be portable. Maybe we just need additional > terms rather than trying to load everything on to "portable". > > --Bill > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> > wrote: > >> I would agree that your example from amazon is one that you probably >> wouldn’t want portable… >> >> But consider what you see when you log into a place like eTrade, with all >> the charts and graphs about your stock portfolio. >> Or consider the reports from Adobe or Google Analytics. >> >> Those are all examples of things that users currently take away with them >> but they are static snapshots. What if they could be interactive versions >> (using the same web technologies) of that snapshot BUT could also be >> updated with the latest data simply by reconnecting? >> >> We’ve talked to MANY corporate users who want something like this… >> >> Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the >> end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can >> be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF >> for close to 20 years now) >> >> Leonard >> >> From: Bill McCoy >> Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM >> To: Olaf Drümmer >> Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah >> Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick >> Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other >> things...) >> >> Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more >> clear. >> >> I think that the ability to reliably *capture a snapshot and use it >> offline* is a righteous *feature* for a Web Document to offer. And, the >> results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable >> [Web] Document". >> >> But to me that does *not* make the original Web Document itself a >> "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a >> true representation of the original document. >> >> Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard >> like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a >> "Portable Web Document". >> >> I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what >> is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same >> thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the >> latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. >> >> --Bill >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com> wrote: >> >>> But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot >>> (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able >>> to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure >>> whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable >>> document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be >>> written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it >>> itself anymore. >>> >>> Olaf >>> >>> >>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM> wrote: >>> >>> One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a >>> “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. >>> >>> You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used >>> both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be >>> able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use >>> (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). >>> >>> So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. >>> It is portable but can be in different states. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Bill McCoy >> Executive Director >> International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) >> email: bmccoy@idpf.org >> mobile: +1 206 353 0233 >> >> > > > -- > > Bill McCoy > Executive Director > International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) > email: bmccoy@idpf.org > mobile: +1 206 353 0233 > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
RE: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
"Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken"   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 19:58:01 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 19:58:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, whmccoy@gmail.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com.

I think Deborah’s definitions are very clear. The “snapshot” example is also a portable document. It just happens to be a specific version of the content. I don’t think it changes anything. Since we have the terms online/cached/offline as separate entries in our glossary, I recommend: 1. Defining them 2. Discussing them in a separate thread Tzviya Siegman Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> From: Deborah Kaplan [mailto:dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 3:33 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Bill McCoy; Bill McCoy; Ivan Herman; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Liam Quin; Ralph Swick; Olaf Drümmer Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Leonard: Bill: > if what you can take with you (inc. cache and use later) is only a snapshot of one particular state of that content >then the content itself cannot thereby be considered portable > And here is where we disagree, Bill. The ability to capture/snapshot one particular state is what people do with PDF today (and have been doing for 20+ years). And that snapshot is a portable document. But just the snapshot; not the larger pool. My PDF bank statement is a portable document, but my data in my bank's database is not -- though if they gave me a mysqldump file of the data, it would be portable. Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF for close to 20 years now) Customers can get a document they can carry with them that can be updated, and that might be "portable" by some definitions (eg. you can put it on a USB stick in your pocket). But it's not portable by the defintion we are using here. We are specifically defining "portable" to mean "all of the essential material is accessible offline". This is a hugely necessary concept in publishing; I'd give examples from our business, but I think we all have reams of examples of this in our pocket. Much as "document" has myriad meanings all over tech and indeed all over the W3C, this is a case where "portable" needs to have different meanings. 'Portable" to a user might mean "I can stick it in a USB stick in my pocket." To the PDF team it might mean "shows the same document on a smart phone as on a web tv as on a TRS-80 model III." (Forgive me if I'm wrong; that's my understanding of the "portable" in PDF, but you're the expert!) And to Dpub, I believe the meaning we're looking for is "if you give it to astronaut Samantha Cristoforetti and she puts it on her e-reader, she can enjoy a good novel while aboard the Soyuz spacecraft taking her to the ISS." Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 10 Sep 2015 21:10:28 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 10 September 2015 21:11:00 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: olaf@druemmer.com, ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

And I am looking for a completely different definition where the same document may differ in content, as well as other possible things. It’s also unclear to me why a “web resources” to have to online. To me, that’s a resource that is in one of the many OWP formats – regardless of its state. If you want to talk about it being online, then use the term online. But the same image online and offline is still the same “web resource” - to me. So it looks like you are trying to use WEB to refer to the online state – where I am using it to refer to the content type(s) used. That’s a BIG gap… Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:50 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Olaf Drümmer, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Leonard, I think you may have a point, but yet a "Portable Web Document" by definition is comprised of Web Resources, and I think its offline state can have two manifestations, a "Portable Document" (omitting "Web", so this might be e.g. a .epub file) or a cache of its Web Resources. By definition (at least the one I'm seeking) these states would be equivalent in content but they might not be equivalent in other ways. For example in the online state, access may require authenticated https access, in the offline cached state its resources may not be directly accessible at all, in the .epub state clearly all the resources are directly accessible. This can have implications re: copyright protection. For a "Web Document" that is not a "Portable Web Document" then offline must necessarily imply a representation only of a particular state of the Web Document. That again could be either a cache or else a "Portable Document" (most likely not a "Portable Web Document" since offline). --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Then if this is the case – then why do we need the states of “online, offline and cached” for a portable web document? Maybe we only need those then for a web document, where offline == portable? From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Olaf Drümmer, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Leonard, of course dynamic updating of information when online is a desirable feature... the banking app on my mobile phone, among others, already works this way and I suspect you use apps that do likewise. I think we all agree on pushing for OWP to enable doing more of this without resorting to native apps. But to me, content that changes on the fly based on new data is not what I would call a portable document, since it depends on a server process to realize the true current state of the content, and that server process cannot be archived etc. This group may certainly want to taking on helping to facilitate this feature in Web Documents but I don't think we should conflate "portable documents" with "offline-usable Web applications", even if a cached state of the Web application may be portable. Maybe we just need additional terms rather than trying to load everything on to "portable". --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: I would agree that your example from amazon is one that you probably wouldn’t want portable… But consider what you see when you log into a place like eTrade, with all the charts and graphs about your stock portfolio. Or consider the reports from Adobe or Google Analytics. Those are all examples of things that users currently take away with them but they are static snapshots. What if they could be interactive versions (using the same web technologies) of that snapshot BUT could also be updated with the latest data simply by reconnecting? We’ve talked to MANY corporate users who want something like this… Now you could argue semantics and terminology all you want – but at the end of the day, there is a customer demand for a portable document that can be updated…(and this isn’t new, we’ve been hearing this request around PDF for close to 20 years now) Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Thursday, September 10, 2015 at 2:07 PM To: Olaf Drümmer Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Yes, and let me piggyback on this to try to make my point (to Ivan) more clear. I think that the ability to reliably capture a snapshot and use it offline is a righteous feature for a Web Document to offer. And, the results of that snapshot might be itself a (new instance of a) "Portable [Web] Document". But to me that does not make the original Web Document itself a "Portable Web Document" because what is captured with the snapshot is not a true representation of the original document. Leonard's dashboard example is a perfect illustration. Take a dashboard like http://status.aws.amazon.com/ . I can't imagine calling that a "Portable Web Document". I think we are here confusing offline features of Web Documents with what is a Portable [Web] Document. I don't believe they are at all the same thing. And I am still convinced we can come up with a definition for the latter that is neither anthropocentric nor fundamentally subjective. --Bill On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaf@druemmer.com<mailto:olaf@druemmer.com>> wrote: But we may want to keep in mind that being able to capture a snapshot (kind of a 'frozen state') could be a valid feature, as much as being able to update when (after having been offline) being online again. Not sure whether a 'deep freeze' switch would be a metadata item in the portable document (== do not update me), or whether the document would have to be written into a portable document such that it simply doesn't update it itself anymore. Olaf On 10 Sep 2015, at 18:16, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@ADOBE.COM<mailto:lrosenth@ADOBE.COM>> wrote: One of the best examples/use cases that we have in this area is a “Dashboard”, as you might get to visualize any sort of data. You would like this dashboard to be portable – so that it can be used both online and offline. But in the online case, the document should be able to get the latest set of data and then store that away for offline use (aka caching, but explicit instead of implicit). So yes – I think we are now getting into the “state” of the document. It is portable but can be in different states. -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233<tel:%2B1%20206%20353%200233> -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233<tel:%2B1%20206%20353%200233> -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 14:40:00 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 12:40:18 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, lrosenth@adobe.com, tsiegman@wiley.com.

Good morning/afternoon here is your friendly daily summary:-) to start the next round. Maybe the last? (That would be a good way to close the week-end:-) As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the last round is the recognition that we may mix the definition of the various documents and their states. I fully agree with Tzviya that we should separate the details of that discussion for a separate thread; just to build the bridge to that thread I believe that: - We (will:-) have the notion of a Portable Web Document - A Portable Web Document may be in an online, cached, or offline state It is of course true that a (not necessarily portable) Web Documents may also be in a cashed state, for example. Also, as was discussed on the thread, a general Web Document may be transformed into a Portable Web Document (e.g., dumping its snapshot into a PDF file), but I would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, "just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web, ie, EPUB+WEB. We should limit ourselves in our discussion… With that… getting back to the issue at hand, ie, the definitions. As a reminder, I reproduced the previous definition below (after my signature). Well, the remaining issue, of course, was to define what exactly the portability is. After looking at Bill's and Deborah's formulations, I was more inspired by the latter (sorry Bill…) but, I believe and as Bill said, we are really at the word-smithing stage here. So here it goes: [[[ • A Web Resource is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • Web Document is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. • A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. ]]] I have refreshed [1] to reflect the whole definition. How does that sound? Is this an acceptable consensus? Ivan P.S. Once we have the discussion closed it is probably useful to provide some explanatory text and, especially, to collect and document the various examples we had in the discussion. They will be very useful in explaining the terms. I am happy to do that once we are done… P.S.2. This terminological discussion may also influence the way we formulate the next release of the EPUB+WEB document. Actually, this was one of the issues that triggered me to start this thread... [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 Here is the previous version: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document.
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 13:49:26 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 13:50:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org
Copied to: bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

Ivan – I don’t believe you correct reflected the discussions of yesterday. My understanding of the discussion between myself and Bill M was that a “Web Document” can be in different states, but that a “Portable Web Document” can only exist in an offline state. That’s a significant difference from what you are proposing below. > would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, >"just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web > While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. >• A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document. >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > EPUB+WEB document > Can we PLEASE rename that document? That was how I started this conversation, in that it has already picked a specific technology to solve a problem. Instead, that should be the “Portable Web Document” document… Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM To: W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Leonard Rosenthol, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Good morning/afternoon here is your friendly daily summary:-) to start the next round. Maybe the last? (That would be a good way to close the week-end:-) As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the last round is the recognition that we may mix the definition of the various documents and their states. I fully agree with Tzviya that we should separate the details of that discussion for a separate thread; just to build the bridge to that thread I believe that: - We (will:-) have the notion of a Portable Web Document - A Portable Web Document may be in an online, cached, or offline state It is of course true that a (not necessarily portable) Web Documents may also be in a cashed state, for example. Also, as was discussed on the thread, a general Web Document may be transformed into a Portable Web Document (e.g., dumping its snapshot into a PDF file), but I would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, "just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web, ie, EPUB+WEB. We should limit ourselves in our discussion… With that… getting back to the issue at hand, ie, the definitions. As a reminder, I reproduced the previous definition below (after my signature). Well, the remaining issue, of course, was to define what exactly the portability is. After looking at Bill's and Deborah's formulations, I was more inspired by the latter (sorry Bill…) but, I believe and as Bill said, we are really at the word-smithing stage here. So here it goes: [[[ • A Web Resource is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • Web Document is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. • A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. ]]] I have refreshed [1] to reflect the whole definition. How does that sound? Is this an acceptable consensus? Ivan P.S. Once we have the discussion closed it is probably useful to provide some explanatory text and, especially, to collect and document the various examples we had in the discussion. They will be very useful in explaining the terms. I am happy to do that once we are done… P.S.2. This terminological discussion may also influence the way we formulate the next release of the EPUB+WEB document. Actually, this was one of the issues that triggered me to start this thread... [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 Here is the previous version: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document.
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:26:35 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 14:27:07 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

+1 to Ivan's definition. Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that *can only exist *in an off-line state, it is a web document which *must be able to* exist in an off-line state. Ivan's definition: A* Portable Web Document* is a Web Document whose all constituent Web > Resources are Portable. Encapsulates this perfectly. While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular > needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining > globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), > then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we > should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. > We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions *on the W3C alone*, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used *in our documentats and communications*. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. > >• A *Portable Web Document* is a Web Document whose all constituent Web > Resources are Portable. > > > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as > soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me > give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web > Document): > - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not > qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user > agent can render its *essential *content by relying exclusively on the > Web Resources within the same Web Document. > (Emphasis mine.) Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:29:07 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 14:29:21 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

> On 11 Sep 2015, at 15:49 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > Ivan – I don’t believe you correct reflected the discussions of yesterday. > > My understanding of the discussion between myself and Bill M was that a “Web Document” can be in different states, but that a “Portable Web Document” can only exist in an offline state. That’s a significant difference from what you are proposing below. > Well… I let Bill react on this; it may well be that my reaction was tainted by my own opinion. But I believe that it is important to differentiate that Portable Web Documents may be in different states, too. That may become important when we look at the role and way of handling identifiers (absolute and relative URI-s, etc) with regard to the documents. As for Web Documents: of course they can also be in different states. I did not say they cannot; what I believe is (see below) that we should not try to define everything, only the part that is relevant for Digital Publishing. > > would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, > >"just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web > > > While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. > General purpose: yes. But getting into all the details of how they behave outside the realm of Digital Publishing (whose focus, I believe, should be Portable Web Documents only): I do not think we can and we should. > >• A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document. > >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > > > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): > - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font that all user agents have. That being said, if the EPUB is such that a particular font usage is essential for the content then the font file should be in the EPUB file, otherwise it is not really portable. I recognize that the 'essential content' is a little bit fuzzy, but I do not think we can avoid this. > > > EPUB+WEB document > > > Can we PLEASE rename that document? That was how I started this conversation, in that it has already picked a specific technology to solve a problem. Instead, that should be the “Portable Web Document” document… > I would prefer not to touch to that document now. But, as I said, that is why this conversation is important. Cheers Ivan > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM > To: W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Leonard Rosenthol, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > Good morning/afternoon > > here is your friendly daily summary:-) to start the next round. Maybe the last? (That would be a good way to close the week-end:-) > > As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the last round is the recognition that we may mix the definition of the various documents and their states. I fully agree with Tzviya that we should separate the details of that discussion for a separate thread; just to build the bridge to that thread I believe that: > > - We (will:-) have the notion of a Portable Web Document > - A Portable Web Document may be in an online, cached, or offline state > > It is of course true that a (not necessarily portable) Web Documents may also be in a cashed state, for example. Also, as was discussed on the thread, a general Web Document may be transformed into a Portable Web Document (e.g., dumping its snapshot into a PDF file), but I would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, "just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web, ie, EPUB+WEB. We should limit ourselves in our discussion… > > With that… getting back to the issue at hand, ie, the definitions. As a reminder, I reproduced the previous definition below (after my signature). Well, the remaining issue, of course, was to define what exactly the portability is. After looking at Bill's and Deborah's formulations, I was more inspired by the latter (sorry Bill…) but, I believe and as Bill said, we are really at the word-smithing stage here. So here it goes: > > [[[ > • A Web Resource is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) > > • Web Document is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) > > • A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. > > • A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > ]]] > > I have refreshed [1] to reflect the whole definition. > > How does that sound? Is this an acceptable consensus? > > Ivan > > P.S. Once we have the discussion closed it is probably useful to provide some explanatory text and, especially, to collect and document the various examples we had in the discussion. They will be very useful in explaining the terms. I am happy to do that once we are done… > > P.S.2. This terminological discussion may also influence the way we formulate the next release of the EPUB+WEB document. Actually, this was one of the issues that triggered me to start this thread... > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > Here is the previous version: > > • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. > > • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). > > • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 16:30:53 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 14:31:08 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

> On 11 Sep 2015, at 16:26 , Deborah Kaplan <dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com> wrote: > > +1 to Ivan's definition. > > Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that can only exist in an off-line state, it is a web document which must be able to exist in an off-line state. > > Ivan's definition: > > A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > > Encapsulates this perfectly. > > > While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. > > We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. > > Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. Yep... > > >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > > > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): > - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > > This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: > > A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. > > (Emphasis mine.) > > Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. > Heh. Our mails crossed, but our minds did melt in virtual space nevertheless:-) Ivan > Deborah ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 15:00:26 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 15:00:57 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

[Combined response to both Deborah and Ivan] >General purpose: yes. But getting into all the details of how they behave outside the realm of Digital Publishing >(whose focus, I believe, should be Portable Web Documents only): I do not think we can and we should. > I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions. If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”. This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about. >A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > It’s not a great definition, but I can live with that. However, it now takes us into the definition of portable. >>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font > Then perhaps we have a language problem. The word exclusively (<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>) has a very clear and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means “fallbacks” are not included. It is that word in that sentence which is the problem. If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word (predominantly? Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK. >We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. > Then they should be specific terms, not general ones. >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. > Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same term is defined in a contradictory manner. Sure, the same term may be defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what you are implying we should do). >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. > For terms that already exist, I agree. However, we are creating NEW TERMS and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem. >I would prefer not to touch to that document now. But, as I said, that is why this conversation is important. > Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort. I’ve already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet. Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) +1 to Ivan's definition. Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that can only exist in an off-line state, it is a web document which must be able to exist in an off-line state. Ivan's definition: A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. Encapsulates this perfectly. While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. (Emphasis mine.) Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill McCoy   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 08:10:43 -0700

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 15:11:13 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

Hi just to chime in and respond to a couple of points of Leonard's - First, it is not correct that I was suggesting or agreed with Leonard that "a 'Portable Web Document' can only exist in an offline state". In fact I think that the native state of a "Portable *Web* Document" should be considered to be online (given the name). What I do hold to is a pretty strong notion of equivalence between a 'Portable Web Document' in its native state and in a cached or transportable offline states (in the transportable offline state I consider it to be, at least temporarily, identical to a plain old "Portable Document"). Secondly, I think we are sometimes using "resource" in a loose way. In the context of "Web Resources", I took Ivan's intended definition as to be consistent with the REST architectural style, where a resource is an agent that responds to requests with representations of itself. In the case of HTTP URLs these requests are of course GET requests. We can speak of formats only when we talk about the representations of a resource. So when Leonard writes "the same image online and offline is still the same 'web resource'" I don't agree, because "http://foo.com/bar.jpg" may be a Python program that generates that image on the fly (rather than say an Apache server that grabs a JPG from a filesystem directory and returns is)... the web resource is either way, to me, the the http:// URL and the agent triggered by requests thereto, not the JPEG image data that the agent returns in response to requests. The key point for me is that, when used in something that we would consider to be a "Portable Web Document", the agent must not be dynamically generating different JPEG images It may seem over-complicated to sustain this "resource" vs. "representation" dichotomy, but I think in the end it will help us be clear on what is going on through all these state transitions. And, it is part of the Web's fundamental architecture, not just per an influential PhD thesis but as subsequently blessed in a W3C standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/ ). Maybe we thus need another term when we want to refer to representations (e.g. the actual JPEG data), I like the term "content", but I am OK with Ivan's use of "formats". EPUB specs presently use the term "Publication Resource". Or if we want to use the term "resource" to refer to representations then I think we should be clear that we are so doing to avoid confusion wrt resource/representation in Web Architecture terms (esp. when we are talking about Web Resources). Lastly I don't 100% agree with Leonard that the content/formats/representations/resources we are here talking about must always be in OWP native formats to qualify the result as a "Portable Web Document". For example a JavaScript program operating on data like CSV or some even more proprietary data format could be just as portable (according to my idea of portability anyway) as content that was wholly in HTML and CSS. But yet I do think this is kind of a exception case, and that in the normal case yes we should expect that the content must be in OWP native formats, and where that is not the case then it must be fodder for document-resident interactivity. --Bill On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > Ivan – I don’t believe you correct reflected the discussions of yesterday. > > My understanding of the discussion between myself and Bill M was that a > “Web Document” can be in different states, but that a “Portable Web > Document” can only exist in an offline state. That’s a significant > difference from what you are proposing below. > > > would think that this is not the subject of discourse *for this > Interest Group* which, after all, > >"just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web > > > While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular > needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining > globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), > then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we > should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. > > >• A Web Resource in a Web Document is *Portable* if an OWP compliant > user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the > Web >Resources within the same Web Document. > >• A *Portable Web Document* is a Web Document whose all constituent Web > Resources are Portable. > > > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as > soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me > give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web > Document): > - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not > qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > > > EPUB+WEB document > > > Can we PLEASE rename that document? That was how I started this > conversation, in that it has already picked a specific technology to solve > a problem. Instead, that should be the “Portable Web Document” document… > > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM > To: W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, > Leonard Rosenthol, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other > things...) > > Good morning/afternoon > > here is your friendly daily summary:-) to start the next round. Maybe the > last? (That would be a good way to close the week-end:-) > > As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the last round is > the recognition that we may mix the definition of the various documents and > their states. I fully agree with Tzviya that we should separate the details > of that discussion for a separate thread; just to build the bridge to that > thread I believe that: > > - We (will:-) have the notion of a Portable Web Document > - A Portable Web Document may be in an online, cached, or offline state > > It is of course true that a (not necessarily portable) Web Documents may > also be in a cashed state, for example. Also, as was discussed on the > thread, a general Web Document may be transformed into a Portable Web > Document (e.g., dumping its snapshot into a PDF file), but I would think > that this is not the subject of discourse * for this Interest Group* > which, after all, "just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing > and the Web, ie, EPUB+WEB. We should limit ourselves in our discussion… > > With that… getting back to the issue at hand, ie, the definitions. As a > reminder, I reproduced the previous definition below (after my signature). > Well, the remaining issue, of course, was to define what exactly the > portability is. After looking at Bill's and Deborah's formulations, I was > more inspired by the latter (sorry Bill…) but, I believe and as Bill said, > we are really at the word-smithing stage here. So here it goes: > > [[[ > • A *Web Resource* is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) > > • *Web Document* is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) > > • A Web Resource in a Web Document is *Portable* if an OWP compliant user > agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web > Resources within the same Web Document. > > • A *Portable Web Document* is a Web Document whose all constituent Web > Resources are Portable. > ]]] > > I have refreshed [1] to reflect the whole definition. > > How does that sound? Is this an acceptable consensus? > > Ivan > > P.S. Once we have the discussion closed it is probably useful to provide > some explanatory text and, especially, to collect and document the various > examples we had in the discussion. They will be very useful in explaining > the terms. I am happy to do that once we are done… > > P.S.2. This terminological discussion may also influence the way we > formulate the next release of the EPUB+WEB document. Actually, this was one > of the issues that triggered me to start this thread... > > > [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > Here is the previous version: > > • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its > constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential > content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the > presence of any other Web Resources. > > • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web > Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., > using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). > > • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when > responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web > Resources external to the Portable Web Document. > > > > -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Deborah Kaplan   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:45:01 -0400

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 15:45:30 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: >>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is *Portable* if an OWP compliant user > agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively > >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document > >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not > qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the > essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font > > > Then perhaps we have a language problem. The word exclusively (< > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>) has a very clear > and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means > “fallbacks” are not included. It is that word in that sentence which is > the problem. If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word > (predominantly? Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK. > The adverb "exclusively" is not a problem because of the presence of the modifier "essential." Your example does not qualify as "essential" by the definition that Ivan has added to the glossary. Because it is not essential content, the "exclusively" never comes into play. Restructuring the sentence: IF content in essential content: THEN content is exclusively in same_document Since the IF fails for the font example, the THEN never comes in to play. Ivan's definition is a standard English way of formally framing the logical conditional above. > >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions *on > the W3C alone*, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways > >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different > specifications and guidelines. > > > Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same > term is defined in a contradictory manner. Sure, the same term may be > defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind > but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what > you are implying we should do). > "Document," as I mentioned upstream, is a great example. These are all elderly examples, because the W3 compiled glossary is no longer updated, but they're all formal W3 definitions. document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From XHTML 1.0: The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition) >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1> (2000-01-26 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801>) | Glossary for this >> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/xhtml1.rdf/> >> A document is a stream of data that, after being combined with any other >> streams it references, is structured such that it holds information >> contained within elements that are organized as defined in the associated >> DTD. See Document Conformance for more information. >> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and >> Vocabularies 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-struct-vocab/> (2004-01-15 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-CCPP-struct-vocab-20040115/>) | Glossary >> for this source >> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/CCPP-struct-vocab.rdf/> >> For the purpose of this specification, "document" refers to content >> supplied in response to a request. Using this definition, a "document" may >> be a collection of smaller "documents", which in turn is a part of a >> greater "document". >> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From XQuery 1.0 and XPath 2.0 Data Model (XDM) >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-datamodel/> (2007-01-23 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-xpath-datamodel-20070123/>) | Glossary >> for this source >> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/xpath-datamodel/> >> A tree whose root node is a Document Node is referred to as a document. >> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG10> (2000-02-03 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203>) | Glossary for this >> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/ATAG10.rdf/> >> A "document" is a series of elements that are defined by a markup >> language (e.g., HTML 4 or an XML application). >> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From Web Services Glossary <http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-gloss/> (2004-02-11 >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/>) | Glossary for this >> source <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/ws-gloss.rdf/> >> >> Any data that can be represented in a digital form. [UeB Glossary] >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-ws-gloss-20040211/#ueb> >> document <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/keyword/All/?keywords=document> >> >> From Hypertext Terms <http://www.w3.org/Terms> (1995-04-15 >> <http://www.w3.org/Terms>) | Glossary for this source >> <http://www.w3.org/2003/glossary/subglossary/hypertext-terms.rdf/> >> A term for a node <http://www.w3.org/Terms#node> on some systems (eg >> Intermedia). Sometimes used by others as a term for a collection of nodes >> on related topics, possible stored or distributed as one. The prefered term >> in W3 documentation. >> >> >> >> In all of these cases the general English word "document," which means different things to different people, is accepted for the purposes of that context to have a technical and specific definition, which is often very different from the other technical and specific definitions. > > >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on > digital publishing; > >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used *in our > documentats and communications*. > > > For terms that already exist, I agree. However, we are creating NEW TERMS > and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem. > > > >I would prefer not to touch to that document *now*. But, as I said, that > is why this conversation is important. > > > Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part > of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that > more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort. I’ve > already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet. > > Actually, that document is not part of the work of this committee at all. We are giving input into it, because our input is welcome. But it is not a product of the digital publishing interest group. Deborah
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:09:50 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 16:10:10 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

> On 11 Sep 2015, at 17:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > [Combined response to both Deborah and Ivan] > > >General purpose: yes. But getting into all the details of how they behave outside the realm of Digital Publishing > >(whose focus, I believe, should be Portable Web Documents only): I do not think we can and we should. > > > I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions. If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”. This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about. > Well… to be honest, I am not too much hung on the name. But I do feel strongly that we should not get outside our boundaries, ie, DigPub. I just do not know whether the term 'digital' is too broad or not, because, to be very precise, we are working on the intersection areas of digital publishing and the Web. I want to avoid being led to areas that are not Web related. But again, if we change Web Document to Digital Document, and Portable Web Document to Portable Digital Document: I do not really mind. > > >A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > > > It’s not a great definition, but I can live with that. However, it now takes us into the definition of portable. > > >>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively > >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document > >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font > > > Then perhaps we have a language problem. The word exclusively (<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>>) has a very clear and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means “fallbacks” are not included. It is that word in that sentence which is the problem. If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word (predominantly? Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK. > I certainly do not mean NOTHING ELSE. Deborah's approach (in her other mail) is that the inclusion of the 'essential content' terminology mitigates this and, I must admit, this is the same for me, so I do not feel like being forced by this 'exclusively' term. Again, if people are fine with 'predominantly' or 'primarily': I am fine with that. > > >We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. > > > Then they should be specific terms, not general ones. > > >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. > > > Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same term is defined in a contradictory manner. Sure, the same term may be defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what you are implying we should do). > > >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; > >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. > > > For terms that already exist, I agree. However, we are creating NEW TERMS and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem. > > > >I would prefer not to touch to that document now. But, as I said, that is why this conversation is important. > > > Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort. I’ve already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet. I do not see where you feel there is a 'serious disagreement'. While I understand your issues with that document, what I claim is that we should not change that document's title (and relevant content) until we have our terminology right (and, probably, some of the results of this discussion should find its way into the document, too). I do not see where the problem is… (There may be other issues with the naming of the document that we must be careful about, namely the perception we give to an established industry, but we should discuss that at another time when this current discussion has got to an equilibrium point.) Ivan > > Leonard > > From: Deborah Kaplan > Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > +1 to Ivan's definition. > > Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that can only exist in an off-line state, it is a web document which must be able to exist in an off-line state. > > Ivan's definition: > >> A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > > Encapsulates this perfectly. > > >> While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. > > We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. > > Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. > >> >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. >> > >> On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): >> - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > > This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: > >> A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. > > (Emphasis mine.) > > Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. > > Deborah ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 18:12:41 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 16:12:53 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

Hi Deb, it seems that there is one tiny bit where our mind-melt did not work:-) <snip> > > > Actually, that document is not part of the work of this committee at all. We are giving input into it, because our input is welcome. But it is not a product of the digital publishing interest group. > The document was not part of this Interest Group. However, we are in the new era of the new charter[1] which includes a final version of this document as its deliverables (somewhere down the line, of course, not right away). In other words, starting from now, it is part of this group's work… But that is just a tiny detail. Cheers Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/09/digpubig <http://www.w3.org/2015/09/digpubig> > Deborah ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:37:39 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 17:38:11 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bmccoy@idpf.org
Copied to: ivan@w3.org, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, olaf@druemmer.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

so that’s interesting, Bill. To me, as noted in my previous messages and that you’ve copied below, the word “Web” refers to the technologies involved and says nothing about the state of the document. I guess that’s why I was previously using OWP, so that it was clear that it’s related to the technology choices. And I DO think that it is important that the distinction be made that these things (currently being discussed as (Portable) Web Documents) consist entirely of OWP technologies, so that they can be properly rendered by standard OWP UA’s. Because what happens to your definition of “portable” if a document contains some unique format that one (or more) UA’s can’t fathom!?! (yes, Polyfill’s could potentially apply here, but that opens up another can of worms) I can see your distinction between resource and representation – and I am fine with that. I still agree that there are some complexities to work out but we can get through those, I believe. Leonard From: Bill McCoy Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:10 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Olaf Drümmer, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Hi just to chime in and respond to a couple of points of Leonard's - First, it is not correct that I was suggesting or agreed with Leonard that "a 'Portable Web Document' can only exist in an offline state". In fact I think that the native state of a "Portable Web Document" should be considered to be online (given the name). What I do hold to is a pretty strong notion of equivalence between a 'Portable Web Document' in its native state and in a cached or transportable offline states (in the transportable offline state I consider it to be, at least temporarily, identical to a plain old "Portable Document"). Secondly, I think we are sometimes using "resource" in a loose way. In the context of "Web Resources", I took Ivan's intended definition as to be consistent with the REST architectural style, where a resource is an agent that responds to requests with representations of itself. In the case of HTTP URLs these requests are of course GET requests. We can speak of formats only when we talk about the representations of a resource. So when Leonard writes "the same image online and offline is still the same 'web resource'" I don't agree, because "http://foo.com/bar.jpg" may be a Python program that generates that image on the fly (rather than say an Apache server that grabs a JPG from a filesystem directory and returns is)... the web resource is either way, to me, the the http:// URL and the agent triggered by requests thereto, not the JPEG image data that the agent returns in response to requests. The key point for me is that, when used in something that we would consider to be a "Portable Web Document", the agent must not be dynamically generating different JPEG images It may seem over-complicated to sustain this "resource" vs. "representation" dichotomy, but I think in the end it will help us be clear on what is going on through all these state transitions. And, it is part of the Web's fundamental architecture, not just per an influential PhD thesis but as subsequently blessed in a W3C standard (http://www.w3.org/TR/webarch/). Maybe we thus need another term when we want to refer to representations (e.g. the actual JPEG data), I like the term "content", but I am OK with Ivan's use of "formats". EPUB specs presently use the term "Publication Resource". Or if we want to use the term "resource" to refer to representations then I think we should be clear that we are so doing to avoid confusion wrt resource/representation in Web Architecture terms (esp. when we are talking about Web Resources). Lastly I don't 100% agree with Leonard that the content/formats/representations/resources we are here talking about must always be in OWP native formats to qualify the result as a "Portable Web Document". For example a JavaScript program operating on data like CSV or some even more proprietary data format could be just as portable (according to my idea of portability anyway) as content that was wholly in HTML and CSS. But yet I do think this is kind of a exception case, and that in the normal case yes we should expect that the content must be in OWP native formats, and where that is not the case then it must be fodder for document-resident interactivity. --Bill On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Ivan – I don’t believe you correct reflected the discussions of yesterday. My understanding of the discussion between myself and Bill M was that a “Web Document” can be in different states, but that a “Portable Web Document” can only exist in an offline state. That’s a significant difference from what you are proposing below. > would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, >"just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web > While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. >• A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document. >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. > EPUB+WEB document > Can we PLEASE rename that document? That was how I started this conversation, in that it has already picked a specific technology to solve a problem. Instead, that should be the “Portable Web Document” document… Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 8:40 AM To: W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Deborah Kaplan, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Leonard Rosenthol, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Good morning/afternoon here is your friendly daily summary:-) to start the next round. Maybe the last? (That would be a good way to close the week-end:-) As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the last round is the recognition that we may mix the definition of the various documents and their states. I fully agree with Tzviya that we should separate the details of that discussion for a separate thread; just to build the bridge to that thread I believe that: - We (will:-) have the notion of a Portable Web Document - A Portable Web Document may be in an online, cached, or offline state It is of course true that a (not necessarily portable) Web Documents may also be in a cashed state, for example. Also, as was discussed on the thread, a general Web Document may be transformed into a Portable Web Document (e.g., dumping its snapshot into a PDF file), but I would think that this is not the subject of discourse for this Interest Group which, after all, "just" wants to set up a framework for Digital Publishing and the Web, ie, EPUB+WEB. We should limit ourselves in our discussion… With that… getting back to the issue at hand, ie, the definitions. As a reminder, I reproduced the previous definition below (after my signature). Well, the remaining issue, of course, was to define what exactly the portability is. After looking at Bill's and Deborah's formulations, I was more inspired by the latter (sorry Bill…) but, I believe and as Bill said, we are really at the word-smithing stage here. So here it goes: [[[ • A Web Resource is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • Web Document is a ... (see the current glossary [1]) • A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. • A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. ]]] I have refreshed [1] to reflect the whole definition. How does that sound? Is this an acceptable consensus? Ivan P.S. Once we have the discussion closed it is probably useful to provide some explanatory text and, especially, to collect and document the various examples we had in the discussion. They will be very useful in explaining the terms. I am happy to do that once we are done… P.S.2. This terminological discussion may also influence the way we formulate the next release of the EPUB+WEB document. Actually, this was one of the issues that triggered me to start this thread... [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153<tel:%2B31-641044153> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 Here is the previous version: • A Portable Web Document: a Web Document which contains, within its constituent set, the information necessary to provide delivery of essential content and functionality, or a graceful degradation thereof, without the presence of any other Web Resources. • It must be possible to present the essential content of a Portable Web Document even if it is offline (though possibly with a lower quality, e.g., using suboptimal, but local fonts, or images instead of a remote video). • Active processes (e.g., scripts) of a Portable Web Document, when responsible for an essential functionality, must not depend on Web Resources external to the Portable Web Document. -- Bill McCoy Executive Director International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF) email: bmccoy@idpf.org<mailto:bmccoy@idpf.org> mobile: +1 206 353 0233
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 17:42:16 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 17:42:48 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com.

I like the term Portable Web Document – but it needs to be general purpose to apply to any type of content and not only those for which digital publications apply. Ivan, you and Deborah, are considering the font (in my example) to be content while I consider it to be a resource. If it were content, then I would agree with you. However, I am pretty sure that most folks would agree with me that it is a resource. And because it’s a resource, it falls into the second part of the sentence where exclusively applies. I am fully in agreement that we wait to make any changes to that the document until we resolve the terminology. That also means we don’t update it or re-publish it, as I thought I read that you were planning. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:09 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Deborah Kaplan, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 11 Sep 2015, at 17:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: [Combined response to both Deborah and Ivan] >General purpose: yes. But getting into all the details of how they behave outside the realm of Digital Publishing >(whose focus, I believe, should be Portable Web Documents only): I do not think we can and we should. > I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions. If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”. This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about. Well… to be honest, I am not too much hung on the name. But I do feel strongly that we should not get outside our boundaries, ie, DigPub. I just do not know whether the term 'digital' is too broad or not, because, to be very precise, we are working on the intersection areas of digital publishing and the Web. I want to avoid being led to areas that are not Web related. But again, if we change Web Document to Digital Document, and Portable Web Document to Portable Digital Document: I do not really mind. >A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > It’s not a great definition, but I can live with that. However, it now takes us into the definition of portable. >>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font > Then perhaps we have a language problem. The word exclusively (<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>) has a very clear and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means “fallbacks” are not included. It is that word in that sentence which is the problem. If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word (predominantly? Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK. I certainly do not mean NOTHING ELSE. Deborah's approach (in her other mail) is that the inclusion of the 'essential content' terminology mitigates this and, I must admit, this is the same for me, so I do not feel like being forced by this 'exclusively' term. Again, if people are fine with 'predominantly' or 'primarily': I am fine with that. >We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. > Then they should be specific terms, not general ones. >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. > Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same term is defined in a contradictory manner. Sure, the same term may be defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what you are implying we should do). >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. > For terms that already exist, I agree. However, we are creating NEW TERMS and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem. >I would prefer not to touch to that document now. But, as I said, that is why this conversation is important. > Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort. I’ve already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet. I do not see where you feel there is a 'serious disagreement'. While I understand your issues with that document, what I claim is that we should not change that document's title (and relevant content) until we have our terminology right (and, probably, some of the results of this discussion should find its way into the document, too). I do not see where the problem is… (There may be other issues with the naming of the document that we must be careful about, namely the perception we give to an established industry, but we should discuss that at another time when this current discussion has got to an equilibrium point.) Ivan Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) +1 to Ivan's definition. Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that can only exist in an off-line state, it is a web document which must be able to exist in an off-line state. Ivan's definition: A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. Encapsulates this perfectly. While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. (Emphasis mine.) Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. Deborah ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
RE: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
"Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken"   Fri, 11 Sep 2015 19:01:07 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 11 September 2015 19:01:46 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com, ivan@w3.org
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

A morning of meetings, a pile of emails. I am going to attempt to make some sense of this and set a goal for this group to a decision by the time I return to my desk on Wednesday morning: Ivan has provided revised definitions [1] of “Web Resources”, “Web Document”, and “Portable Web Document” based on the extensive feedback from this group. It seems to me that some of the conversation has gotten to the point of reminding ourselves what our task is. 1. We are defining terms that we (DPUB IG) use so that we communicate clearly with one another as well as with other W3C groups (and anyone else). This may mean saying “Bagel is a bread product originating in Poland, traditionally shaped by hand into the form of a ring from yeasted wheat dough, roughly hand-sized, which is first boiled for a short time in water and then baked.” [2]. This definition clearly indicates that we are not talking about “The Montreal bagel, a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York-style bagel the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.” [3] 2. We are NOT detailing information about formats in the glossary. This is not a specification. It may seem that information about formats is implied, but that is not the discussion we are having now. 3. We are NOT providing information about the process by which one achieves any of the terms identified. Unlike the bagels, the cooking is not part of the definition. This too may be part of a future (or not – TBD). 4. We are NOT attempting to redefine terms like “Web”. Those terms have widely-known and accepted meaning and we do not wish to usurp them, and we do not need to explain them here. As Ivan mentioned [4], our current charter includes working on EPUB+WEB (or whatever name you would like to recommend for this white paper). Although there has been much discussion today, the only recommendation I see for a change is to remove the word “exclusively”. I think this term clarifies the intent of “portable”, which we have addressed at greater length in our packaging document [5]. If anyone takes issue with a definition or a piece of definition, can I request a proposed change of text? Thank you and have a good weekend. Shana tova to those for whom it is relevant, Tzviya [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html [5] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging Tzviya Siegman Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 1:42 PM To: Ivan Herman Cc: Deborah Kaplan; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Bill McCoy; Olaf Drümmer; Liam Quin; Ralph Swick; Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) I like the term Portable Web Document – but it needs to be general purpose to apply to any type of content and not only those for which digital publications apply. Ivan, you and Deborah, are considering the font (in my example) to be content while I consider it to be a resource. If it were content, then I would agree with you. However, I am pretty sure that most folks would agree with me that it is a resource. And because it’s a resource, it falls into the second part of the sentence where exclusively applies. I am fully in agreement that we wait to make any changes to that the document until we resolve the terminology. That also means we don’t update it or re-publish it, as I thought I read that you were planning. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 12:09 PM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Deborah Kaplan, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) On 11 Sep 2015, at 17:00 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: [Combined response to both Deborah and Ivan] >General purpose: yes. But getting into all the details of how they behave outside the realm of Digital Publishing >(whose focus, I believe, should be Portable Web Documents only): I do not think we can and we should. > I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions. If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”. This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about. Well… to be honest, I am not too much hung on the name. But I do feel strongly that we should not get outside our boundaries, ie, DigPub. I just do not know whether the term 'digital' is too broad or not, because, to be very precise, we are working on the intersection areas of digital publishing and the Web. I want to avoid being led to areas that are not Web related. But again, if we change Web Document to Digital Document, and Portable Web Document to Portable Digital Document: I do not really mind. >A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > It’s not a great definition, but I can live with that. However, it now takes us into the definition of portable. >>>A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively >>>on the Web >Resources within the same Web Document >>- An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. >I do not believe that is a problem. The user agent is able to render the essential content of the relevant HTML using a fallback font > Then perhaps we have a language problem. The word exclusively (<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exclusively?s=t>) has a very clear and unmistakable meaning that NOTHING ELSE can be used – that means “fallbacks” are not included. It is that word in that sentence which is the problem. If you remove exclusively and/or replace it with another word (predominantly? Mostly? ??) then I believe we are OK. I certainly do not mean NOTHING ELSE. Deborah's approach (in her other mail) is that the inclusion of the 'essential content' terminology mitigates this and, I must admit, this is the same for me, so I do not feel like being forced by this 'exclusively' term. Again, if people are fine with 'predominantly' or 'primarily': I am fine with that. >We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. > Then they should be specific terms, not general ones. >As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways >across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. > Can you please give an example? I am not aware of a case where the same term is defined in a contradictory manner. Sure, the same term may be defined with more or less specificity or with a particular focus in mind but that’s taking the generic->specific and NOT the reverse (which is what you are implying we should do). >We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; >all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. > For terms that already exist, I agree. However, we are creating NEW TERMS and those terms are NOT specific to DigPub…and that’s the problem. >I would prefer not to touch to that document now. But, as I said, that is why this conversation is important. > Again, then we have a serious disagreement as that document is a big part of the work of this committee and the longer that it remains invalid that more confusion that is caused by anyone wishing to join this effort. I’ve already most of the work to remove that term, but haven’t pushed it yet. I do not see where you feel there is a 'serious disagreement'. While I understand your issues with that document, what I claim is that we should not change that document's title (and relevant content) until we have our terminology right (and, probably, some of the results of this discussion should find its way into the document, too). I do not see where the problem is… (There may be other issues with the naming of the document that we must be careful about, namely the perception we give to an established industry, but we should discuss that at another time when this current discussion has got to an equilibrium point.) Ivan Leonard From: Deborah Kaplan Date: Friday, September 11, 2015 at 10:26 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick, Tzviya - Hoboken Siegman Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) +1 to Ivan's definition. Also, Leonard, I believe that Ivan's definition does correctly synthesize yesterday's discussion. A Portable Web Document is not a web document that can only exist in an off-line state, it is a web document which must be able to exist in an off-line state. Ivan's definition: A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. Encapsulates this perfectly. While I recognize that this group was formed to focus on the particular needs of Digital Publishing – if the group is going to take on defining globally applicable terms (such as Web Document and Portable Web Document), then those definitions MUST be general purpose as well! Either that or we should pick terms that are focused strictly on DigPub. We are defining terms that are focused on the particular needs of Digital Publishing. As I have pointed out earlier in the thread, if you look at definitions on the W3C alone, you will see that the same word is defined numerous ways across different working groups and interest groups, and for different specifications and guidelines. We cannot define general-purpose terms for all industries that touch on digital publishing; all we can do is define the terms as they will be used in our documentats and communications. This is the standard way to use specific terminology, not just across the W3C, but in all standards bodies. It is impossible to create general-purpose terms which will have the specificity we need, which is precisely why we have a glossary. Think of this as a namespace issue. We are creating a glossary for the digital publishing namespace. >• A Portable Web Document is a Web Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > On the surface, these definitions sounds reasonable. Unfortunately, as soon as you start diving into them, they fall down fairly quickly. Let me give a simple and easy case (using EPUB as an example of a Portable Web Document): - An EPUB that uses CSS such as { font-family: Helvetica } will not qualify since the OWP UA is using a resource not in the document. This would actually cause no problems at all, because of the way "Portable" has been defined for the purposes of this document: A Web Resource in a Web Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying exclusively on the Web Resources within the same Web Document. (Emphasis mine.) Since we have defined portability to mean "essential", and we have defined "essential" as well, we have avoided this minefield. Unless te EPUB is an illustration of what the hell that if the font looks like, in which case, it is only portable if the font is encapsulated in EPUB, because in the case of that EPUB, the Helvetica font family is essential. Deborah ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Mon, 14 Sep 2015 11:41:08 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Monday, 14 September 2015 09:41:28 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: tsiegman@wiley.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

In the spirit of trying to close this discussion, I have made the following changes: - I exchanged the term (Portable) Web Document to (Portable) Digital Document. I said in my previous mail[1] that I do not care about the name; in fact, I am not 100% sure this change is fine, because I am a bit concerned about giving the impression to be outside of the realm of the Web. That being said, a Digital Document is a set of Web Resources, so it may be fine. - I exchange the term "exclusively" to "essentially" in the definition of the Portable Web Resource. I hope this will not backfire on us later (we shall see) but it may be acceptable in closing this issue. I have copied the full set of definitions below; I have also updated the Glossary page[2]. I would propose to freeze these definitions now. I believe it reflects an acceptable consensus from all involved in this mail thread. We can reopen the conversation if we hit issues with them later, but I believe we should give the priority in defining the other entries in the glossary. After all, as Tzviya said below, our goal is to communicate clearly with other W3C groups and others. A number of those glossary entries may reveal technical issues that remain to be solved; locating those is the real job this IG has. Thanks to all Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org <http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org> [2] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> [[[ • A Web Resource is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. • Essential content of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. • Functionality related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. • A Digital Document is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource • A Digital Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Digital Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. • A Digital Document should provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. • A Digital Document should provide accessible access to content. • A Digital Document is not an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not necessarily equivalent to an HTML Document. • A Web Resource in a Digital Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying essentially on the Web Resources within the same Digital Document. • A Portable Digital Document is a Digital Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. ]]] > On 11 Sep 2015, at 21:01 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com> wrote: > > A morning of meetings, a pile of emails. > > I am going to attempt to make some sense of this and set a goal for this group to a decision by the time I return to my desk on Wednesday morning: > > Ivan has provided revised definitions [1] of “Web Resources”, “Web Document”, and “Portable Web Document” based on the extensive feedback from this group. > > It seems to me that some of the conversation has gotten to the point of reminding ourselves what our task is. > > 1. We are defining terms that we (DPUB IG) use so that we communicate clearly with one another as well as with other W3C groups (and anyone else). This may mean saying “Bagel is a bread product originating in Poland, traditionally shaped by hand into the form of a ring from yeasted wheat dough, roughly hand-sized, which is first boiled for a short time in water and then baked.” [2]. This definition clearly indicates that we are not talking about “The Montreal bagel, a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York-style bagel the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.” [3] > 2. We are NOT detailing information about formats in the glossary. This is not a specification. It may seem that information about formats is implied, but that is not the discussion we are having now. > 3. We are NOT providing information about the process by which one achieves any of the terms identified. Unlike the bagels, the cooking is not part of the definition. This too may be part of a future (or not – TBD). > 4. We are NOT attempting to redefine terms like “Web”. Those terms have widely-known and accepted meaning and we do not wish to usurp them, and we do not need to explain them here. > > As Ivan mentioned [4], our current charter includes working on EPUB+WEB (or whatever name you would like to recommend for this white paper). > > Although there has been much discussion today, the only recommendation I see for a change is to remove the word “exclusively”. I think this term clarifies the intent of “portable”, which we have addressed at greater length in our packaging document [5]. > > If anyone takes issue with a definition or a piece of definition, can I request a proposed change of text? > > Thank you and have a good weekend. > > Shana tova to those for whom it is relevant, > Tzviya > > [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel> > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel> > [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html> > [5] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging> > > Tzviya Siegman > Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead > Wiley > 201-748-6884 > tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Fri, 18 Sep 2015 12:31:13 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 12:31:44 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org, tsiegman@wiley.com
Copied to: dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

[Sorry for the delay in responding] I am going to (as you might have imagined) STRONGLY object to the removal of Web and inclusion of Digital. There are MANY existing types of Portable Digital Documents used in the context of Digital Publishing today that are not based on Web Resources. Using this term is only going to confuse. I would ask that you revert to Portable Web Document. Otherwise, I think we’re all in alignment. Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:41 AM To: Tzviya Siegman Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) In the spirit of trying to close this discussion, I have made the following changes: - I exchanged the term (Portable) Web Document to (Portable) Digital Document. I said in my previous mail[1] that I do not care about the name; in fact, I am not 100% sure this change is fine, because I am a bit concerned about giving the impression to be outside of the realm of the Web. That being said, a Digital Document is a set of Web Resources, so it may be fine. - I exchange the term "exclusively" to "essentially" in the definition of the Portable Web Resource. I hope this will not backfire on us later (we shall see) but it may be acceptable in closing this issue. I have copied the full set of definitions below; I have also updated the Glossary page[2]. I would propose to freeze these definitions now. I believe it reflects an acceptable consensus from all involved in this mail thread. We can reopen the conversation if we hit issues with them later, but I believe we should give the priority in defining the other entries in the glossary. After all, as Tzviya said below, our goal is to communicate clearly with other W3C groups and others. A number of those glossary entries may reveal technical issues that remain to be solved; locating those is the real job this IG has. Thanks to all Ivan [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org [2] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary [[[ • A Web Resource is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. • Essential content of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. • Functionality related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. • A Digital Document is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource • A Digital Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Digital Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. • A Digital Document should provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. • A Digital Document should provide accessible access to content. • A Digital Document is not an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not necessarily equivalent to an HTML Document. • A Web Resource in a Digital Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying essentially on the Web Resources within the same Digital Document. • A Portable Digital Document is a Digital Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. ]]] On 11 Sep 2015, at 21:01 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote: A morning of meetings, a pile of emails. I am going to attempt to make some sense of this and set a goal for this group to a decision by the time I return to my desk on Wednesday morning: Ivan has provided revised definitions [1] of “Web Resources”, “Web Document”, and “Portable Web Document” based on the extensive feedback from this group. It seems to me that some of the conversation has gotten to the point of reminding ourselves what our task is. 1. We are defining terms that we (DPUB IG) use so that we communicate clearly with one another as well as with other W3C groups (and anyone else). This may mean saying “Bagel is a bread product originating in Poland, traditionally shaped by hand into the form of a ring from yeasted wheat dough, roughly hand-sized, which is first boiled for a short time in water and then baked.” [2]. This definition clearly indicates that we are not talking about “The Montreal bagel, a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York-style bagel the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.” [3] 2. We are NOT detailing information about formats in the glossary. This is not a specification. It may seem that information about formats is implied, but that is not the discussion we are having now. 3. We are NOT providing information about the process by which one achieves any of the terms identified. Unlike the bagels, the cooking is not part of the definition. This too may be part of a future (or not – TBD). 4. We are NOT attempting to redefine terms like “Web”. Those terms have widely-known and accepted meaning and we do not wish to usurp them, and we do not need to explain them here. As Ivan mentioned [4], our current charter includes working on EPUB+WEB (or whatever name you would like to recommend for this white paper). Although there has been much discussion today, the only recommendation I see for a change is to remove the word “exclusively”. I think this term clarifies the intent of “portable”, which we have addressed at greater length in our packaging document [5]. If anyone takes issue with a definition or a piece of definition, can I request a proposed change of text? Thank you and have a good weekend. Shana tova to those for whom it is relevant, Tzviya [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html [5] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging Tzviya Siegman Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead Wiley 201-748-6884 tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Fri, 18 Sep 2015 15:03:11 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Friday, 18 September 2015 13:03:34 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: lrosenth@adobe.com
Copied to: tsiegman@wiley.com, dkaplan@safaribooksonline.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, bmccoy@idpf.org, olaf@druemmer.com, liam@w3.org, swick@w3.org.

Leonard, You said, in [1], that > "I can think of numerous types of documents that would like to be Portable Web Documents but have NOTHING to do with DigPub – and I would HOPE that we would want all of those to be included by our definitions. If our goal is only to define terms for DigPub, then we should be using DigPub specific terms such as a “Portable Digital Publication” and not the more generic “Portable Web Document”. This is something, you may gather, that I feel VERY strongly about." My conviction is that we should focus our attention on documents/publications/whatever that are in the realm of Digital Publishing and our attention should not be diverted by more general considerations. It is not our role and place. It is in response to this and your mail that I suggested the change. That being said, although my preference was to remain with (Portable) Web Document, I did not have very strong feelings about it. I am happy to change that back; because we are now in alignment, we can finally close the issue. I have changed it on the glossary page. [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0103.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0103.html> > On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:31 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com> wrote: > > [Sorry for the delay in responding] > > I am going to (as you might have imagined) STRONGLY object to the removal of Web and inclusion of Digital. There are MANY existing types of Portable Digital Documents used in the context of Digital Publishing today that are not based on Web Resources. Using this term is only going to confuse. > > I would ask that you revert to Portable Web Document. > > Otherwise, I think we’re all in alignment. > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Monday, September 14, 2015 at 5:41 AM > To: Tzviya Siegman > Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, Deborah Kaplan, W3C Digital Publishing IG, Bill McCoy, Olaf Drümmer, Liam Quin, Ralph Swick > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > In the spirit of trying to close this discussion, I have made the following changes: > > - I exchanged the term (Portable) Web Document to (Portable) Digital Document. I said in my previous mail[1] that I do not care about the name; in fact, I am not 100% sure this change is fine, because I am a bit concerned about giving the impression to be outside of the realm of the Web. That being said, a Digital Document is a set of Web Resources, so it may be fine. > - I exchange the term "exclusively" to "essentially" in the definition of the Portable Web Resource. I hope this will not backfire on us later (we shall see) but it may be acceptable in closing this issue. > > I have copied the full set of definitions below; I have also updated the Glossary page[2]. > > I would propose to freeze these definitions now. I believe it reflects an acceptable consensus from all involved in this mail thread. We can reopen the conversation if we hit issues with them later, but I believe we should give the priority in defining the other entries in the glossary. After all, as Tzviya said below, our goal is to communicate clearly with other W3C groups and others. A number of those glossary entries may reveal technical issues that remain to be solved; locating those is the real job this IG has. > > Thanks to all > > Ivan > > [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org <http://www.w3.org/mid/6D429C0A-8D1D-4184-B55A-58F057AC0301@w3.org> > [2] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> > > [[[ > • A Web Resource is a digital resource that can be uniquely addressed by a Unified Resource Identifier (URI), and whose content can be accessed through standard protocols like HTTP, FTP, etc. > • Essential content of a Web Resource: if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content. > • Functionality related to a Web Resource: processes and outcomes achievable through user action. > • A Digital Document is a Web Resource which itself is a collated set of interrelated Web Resources and which is intended to be seen as a single Web Resource > • A Digital Document should be constructed of resources whose formats enable (individually or in conjunction with other resources in the same Digital Document) delivery of essential content and functionality when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > • A Digital Document should provide a gracefully degrading experience when delivered via a variety of technologies or delivery platforms. > • A Digital Document should provide accessible access to content. > • A Digital Document is not an object with a precise technical meaning, e.g., it is not necessarily equivalent to an HTML Document. > • A Web Resource in a Digital Document is Portable if an OWP compliant user agent can render its essential content by relying essentially on the Web Resources within the same Digital Document. > • A Portable Digital Document is a Digital Document whose all constituent Web Resources are Portable. > ]]] > > >> On 11 Sep 2015, at 21:01 , Siegman, Tzviya - Hoboken <tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>> wrote: >> >> A morning of meetings, a pile of emails. >> >> I am going to attempt to make some sense of this and set a goal for this group to a decision by the time I return to my desk on Wednesday morning: >> >> Ivan has provided revised definitions [1] of “Web Resources”, “Web Document”, and “Portable Web Document” based on the extensive feedback from this group. >> >> It seems to me that some of the conversation has gotten to the point of reminding ourselves what our task is. >> >> 1. We are defining terms that we (DPUB IG) use so that we communicate clearly with one another as well as with other W3C groups (and anyone else). This may mean saying “Bagel is a bread product originating in Poland, traditionally shaped by hand into the form of a ring from yeasted wheat dough, roughly hand-sized, which is first boiled for a short time in water and then baked.” [2]. This definition clearly indicates that we are not talking about “The Montreal bagel, a distinctive variety of handmade and wood-fired baked bagel. In contrast to the New York-style bagel the Montreal bagel is smaller, thinner, sweeter and denser, with a larger hole, and is always baked in a wood-fired oven. It contains malt, egg, and no salt and is boiled in honey-sweetened water before being baked.” [3] >> 2. We are NOT detailing information about formats in the glossary. This is not a specification. It may seem that information about formats is implied, but that is not the discussion we are having now. >> 3. We are NOT providing information about the process by which one achieves any of the terms identified. Unlike the bagels, the cooking is not part of the definition. This too may be part of a future (or not – TBD). >> 4. We are NOT attempting to redefine terms like “Web”. Those terms have widely-known and accepted meaning and we do not wish to usurp them, and we do not need to explain them here. >> >> As Ivan mentioned [4], our current charter includes working on EPUB+WEB (or whatever name you would like to recommend for this white paper). >> >> Although there has been much discussion today, the only recommendation I see for a change is to remove the word “exclusively”. I think this term clarifies the intent of “portable”, which we have addressed at greater length in our packaging document [5]. >> >> If anyone takes issue with a definition or a piece of definition, can I request a proposed change of text? >> >> Thank you and have a good weekend. >> >> Shana tova to those for whom it is relevant, >> Tzviya >> >> [1] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Glossary> >> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagel> >> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal-style_bagel> >> [4] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2015Sep/0108.html> >> [5] https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging <https://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Requirements_for_Web_Publication_and_Packaging> >> >> Tzviya Siegman >> Digital Book Standards & Capabilities Lead >> Wiley >> 201-748-6884 >> tsiegman@wiley.com <mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com> >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Wed, 23 Sep 2015 06:59:01 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 04:59:15 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, duga@google.com, swick@w3.org.

(Changed the subject line to 'move' it, at least in term of the subject, to the other thread…) > On 23 Sep 2015, at 24:13 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: > > I know I'm coming late—probably too late—to this conversation. But I have a very serious reservation about PWD, and it's the D part. I have long advocated the term "publication." The reason is that a publication is typically composed of many documents. The most obvious case is that an EPUB often contains multiple content documents. I think it is very misleading to characterize this package as "a document." That encourages people to envision it as something much simpler that it usually is. It's a publication, even if it _does_ only consist of a single document. I understand what you say and… I am not convinced:-(. But are walking a fine line here. By using the term "document" which is, in general, the term used for web content (apart from a 'page':-) we emphasize the fundamental role these "things" play on the Web (which is the medium we are interested in). By using "publication", even if it it is a "Web Publication" we tend to push (back…) the publishing community in its silo that the rest of the Web community should not care about. As I said, all this is a fine line, but makes me keep the term "Document"… Cheers Ivan > > Sorry I missed the conversation when it was happening, but it was unavoidable. > > From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:03 AM > To: Ivan Herman; W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: Brady Duga; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > As you note, Ivan – there are subtleties involved in actually trying to spell out what each of the quadrants means. Your example of an unpacked PWD accessed locally via web protocols is a good one, but it could just as easily have been a packaged PWD accessed that same way – in fact, I built one of those back in 2011 as part some work we were doing. > > But more importantly, the two sets of dimensions are indeed key and for the reasons you state – one for the defining the packaging technology to be used for a PWD and the other for influencing the identification mechanism. > > Also, now that we have defined a term – Portable Web Document (PWD) - how about using that in all instances where you might previously have written EPUB? It took us a lot of time/effort to get to that term – let’s use it! > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 7:18 AM > To: W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: "Brady com>", Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Leonard Rosenthol > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > So… it seems that we do have two dimensions for 'states. Because Ascii art can go very bad with different clients, I created images as attachments. The first attached image shows is the offline/online vs. packed/unpacked situation with some typical usage scenarios. > > However, offline/online may be an elusive notion. I would think (although I am not sure) that it may be more precise to differentiate along access methods: in practice, if we are in a Web setting, the difference may be whether the content is accessed via an HTTP(S) protocol, through Web protocols, or whether the content is accessed through a file system. So I created a second image doing that. Note the difference between the two: if I have an unpacked set of files in a folder, the same content can be accessed via the file system or via a server running on my machine with the same content served through HTTP. Although, in both cases, the content is accessed offline, the access method is different. > > Whichever four states we choose (and their definitions should be properly pinned down) the real question for this Interest Group is which of these states are of real interest (sic!) for the group and for the digital publishing community at large. And, in fact, I believe all four are. Indeed, > > - the packed/unpacked dimension is (obviously) of interest for the details and requirements on packaging; ie, it influences the details on an architectural view for some sort of a unified approach for readers' core (our service worker based scenario) > > - the offline/online or, alternatively, file or protocol access dimension raises questions on identifiers. Do we use generic identifiers overall, regardless of locations, how should the references within a Portable Web Document be organized to ensure a unified identification scheme. (I cc-d BillK explicitly, because I know these questions are of a real interest to him:-) > > If we agree with these two dimensions, we can go forward and define them more thoroughly > > Ivan > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 18:21 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > Yes, I believe that caching is more an implementation issue than a format or design issue. > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: "Brady com>", W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:35 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > [Sorry for coming in late] > > I agree with Brady – there is a huge difference between package/unpackaged and online/offline. The original terms made more sense to me as they focused on whether the content was usable without standard web protocols (aka offline) or not. > > Indeed. As I say below, we seem to have two different dimension for 'states' and not one dimension only. I can be unpacked and offline, and packed and online. So the question is whether defining two types of states (offline/online and packed/unpacked) is enough. Ie, whether treating cached separately on any dimension is necessary or not (my feeling is that it is not, it is more of an implementation issue). > > Ivan > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > <image001.jpg><image002.jpg> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
RE: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Bill Kasdorf   Wed, 23 Sep 2015 17:12:24 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 17:12:56 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: ivan@w3.org
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, duga@google.com, swick@w3.org.

Point taken, but I can't resist pointing out two truisms of our current situation: --Everybody's a publisher. ;-) --Every web page is a publication. (Not every publication is a web page.) From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:59 AM To: Bill Kasdorf Cc: Leonard Rosenthol; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Brady Duga; Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) (Changed the subject line to 'move' it, at least in term of the subject, to the other thread…) On 23 Sep 2015, at 24:13 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote: I know I'm coming late—probably too late—to this conversation. But I have a very serious reservation about PWD, and it's the D part. I have long advocated the term "publication." The reason is that a publication is typically composed of many documents. The most obvious case is that an EPUB often contains multiple content documents. I think it is very misleading to characterize this package as "a document." That encourages people to envision it as something much simpler that it usually is. It's a publication, even if it _does_ only consist of a single document. I understand what you say and… I am not convinced:-(. But are walking a fine line here. By using the term "document" which is, in general, the term used for web content (apart from a 'page':-) we emphasize the fundamental role these "things" play on the Web (which is the medium we are interested in). By using "publication", even if it it is a "Web Publication" we tend to push (back…) the publishing community in its silo that the rest of the Web community should not care about. As I said, all this is a fine line, but makes me keep the term "Document"… Cheers Ivan Sorry I missed the conversation when it was happening, but it was unavoidable. From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:03 AM To: Ivan Herman; W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: Brady Duga; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states As you note, Ivan – there are subtleties involved in actually trying to spell out what each of the quadrants means. Your example of an unpacked PWD accessed locally via web protocols is a good one, but it could just as easily have been a packaged PWD accessed that same way – in fact, I built one of those back in 2011 as part some work we were doing. But more importantly, the two sets of dimensions are indeed key and for the reasons you state – one for the defining the packaging technology to be used for a PWD and the other for influencing the identification mechanism. Also, now that we have defined a term – Portable Web Document (PWD) - how about using that in all instances where you might previously have written EPUB? It took us a lot of time/effort to get to that term – let’s use it! Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 7:18 AM To: W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: "Brady com>", Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Leonard Rosenthol Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states So… it seems that we do have two dimensions for 'states. Because Ascii art can go very bad with different clients, I created images as attachments. The first attached image shows is the offline/online vs. packed/unpacked situation with some typical usage scenarios. However, offline/online may be an elusive notion. I would think (although I am not sure) that it may be more precise to differentiate along access methods: in practice, if we are in a Web setting, the difference may be whether the content is accessed via an HTTP(S) protocol, through Web protocols, or whether the content is accessed through a file system. So I created a second image doing that. Note the difference between the two: if I have an unpacked set of files in a folder, the same content can be accessed via the file system or via a server running on my machine with the same content served through HTTP. Although, in both cases, the content is accessed offline, the access method is different. Whichever four states we choose (and their definitions should be properly pinned down) the real question for this Interest Group is which of these states are of real interest (sic!) for the group and for the digital publishing community at large. And, in fact, I believe all four are. Indeed, - the packed/unpacked dimension is (obviously) of interest for the details and requirements on packaging; ie, it influences the details on an architectural view for some sort of a unified approach for readers' core (our service worker based scenario) - the offline/online or, alternatively, file or protocol access dimension raises questions on identifiers. Do we use generic identifiers overall, regardless of locations, how should the references within a Portable Web Document be organized to ensure a unified identification scheme. (I cc-d BillK explicitly, because I know these questions are of a real interest to him:-) If we agree with these two dimensions, we can go forward and define them more thoroughly Ivan On 18 Sep 2015, at 18:21 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Yes, I believe that caching is more an implementation issue than a format or design issue. From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: "Brady com>", W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:35 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: [Sorry for coming in late] I agree with Brady – there is a huge difference between package/unpackaged and online/offline. The original terms made more sense to me as they focused on whether the content was usable without standard web protocols (aka offline) or not. Indeed. As I say below, we seem to have two different dimension for 'states' and not one dimension only. I can be unpacked and offline, and packed and online. So the question is whether defining two types of states (offline/online and packed/unpacked) is enough. Ie, whether treating cached separately on any dimension is necessary or not (my feeling is that it is not, it is more of an implementation issue). Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <image001.jpg><image002.jpg> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Leonard Rosenthol   Thu, 24 Sep 2015 01:45:37 +0000

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 01:46:10 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com, ivan@w3.org
Copied to: public-digipub-ig@w3.org, duga@google.com, swick@w3.org.

Agreed, Bill. I would also extend this to… - Not every document is a publication - Not every publication is a document I have no objection to changing from PWD to PWP(ublication) - I think it fits in nicely with EPUB (not, Edoc, it should be pointed out :). However, Ivan is also quite correct that if we use that term we may pigeon-hole the work into the area of publications (as they are today) and not be able to expand into the general document area (eg. Governments, enterprises, etc.). But that’s OK as this is the Digital Publication IG and not (as has been pointed out to me before) the general purpose documents IG. Leonard From: Bill Kasdorf Date: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 1:12 PM To: Ivan Herman Cc: Leonard Rosenthol, W3C Digital Publishing IG, "Brady com>", Ralph Swick Subject: RE: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) Point taken, but I can't resist pointing out two truisms of our current situation: --Everybody's a publisher. ;-) --Every web page is a publication. (Not every publication is a web page.) From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:59 AM To: Bill Kasdorf Cc: Leonard Rosenthol; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Brady Duga; Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) (Changed the subject line to 'move' it, at least in term of the subject, to the other thread…) On 23 Sep 2015, at 24:13 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com<mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote: I know I'm coming late—probably too late—to this conversation. But I have a very serious reservation about PWD, and it's the D part. I have long advocated the term "publication." The reason is that a publication is typically composed of many documents. The most obvious case is that an EPUB often contains multiple content documents. I think it is very misleading to characterize this package as "a document." That encourages people to envision it as something much simpler that it usually is. It's a publication, even if it _does_ only consist of a single document. I understand what you say and… I am not convinced:-(. But are walking a fine line here. By using the term "document" which is, in general, the term used for web content (apart from a 'page':-) we emphasize the fundamental role these "things" play on the Web (which is the medium we are interested in). By using "publication", even if it it is a "Web Publication" we tend to push (back…) the publishing community in its silo that the rest of the Web community should not care about. As I said, all this is a fine line, but makes me keep the term "Document"… Cheers Ivan Sorry I missed the conversation when it was happening, but it was unavoidable. From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com] Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:03 AM To: Ivan Herman; W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: Brady Duga; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states As you note, Ivan – there are subtleties involved in actually trying to spell out what each of the quadrants means. Your example of an unpacked PWD accessed locally via web protocols is a good one, but it could just as easily have been a packaged PWD accessed that same way – in fact, I built one of those back in 2011 as part some work we were doing. But more importantly, the two sets of dimensions are indeed key and for the reasons you state – one for the defining the packaging technology to be used for a PWD and the other for influencing the identification mechanism. Also, now that we have defined a term – Portable Web Document (PWD) - how about using that in all instances where you might previously have written EPUB? It took us a lot of time/effort to get to that term – let’s use it! Leonard From: Ivan Herman Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 7:18 AM To: W3C Digital Publishing IG Cc: "Brady com>", Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Leonard Rosenthol Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states So… it seems that we do have two dimensions for 'states. Because Ascii art can go very bad with different clients, I created images as attachments. The first attached image shows is the offline/online vs. packed/unpacked situation with some typical usage scenarios. However, offline/online may be an elusive notion. I would think (although I am not sure) that it may be more precise to differentiate along access methods: in practice, if we are in a Web setting, the difference may be whether the content is accessed via an HTTP(S) protocol, through Web protocols, or whether the content is accessed through a file system. So I created a second image doing that. Note the difference between the two: if I have an unpacked set of files in a folder, the same content can be accessed via the file system or via a server running on my machine with the same content served through HTTP. Although, in both cases, the content is accessed offline, the access method is different. Whichever four states we choose (and their definitions should be properly pinned down) the real question for this Interest Group is which of these states are of real interest (sic!) for the group and for the digital publishing community at large. And, in fact, I believe all four are. Indeed, - the packed/unpacked dimension is (obviously) of interest for the details and requirements on packaging; ie, it influences the details on an architectural view for some sort of a unified approach for readers' core (our service worker based scenario) - the offline/online or, alternatively, file or protocol access dimension raises questions on identifiers. Do we use generic identifiers overall, regardless of locations, how should the references within a Portable Web Document be organized to ensure a unified identification scheme. (I cc-d BillK explicitly, because I know these questions are of a real interest to him:-) If we agree with these two dimensions, we can go forward and define them more thoroughly Ivan On 18 Sep 2015, at 18:21 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: Yes, I believe that caching is more an implementation issue than a format or design issue. From: Ivan Herman Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM To: Leonard Rosenthol Cc: "Brady com>", W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:35 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com<mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: [Sorry for coming in late] I agree with Brady – there is a huge difference between package/unpackaged and online/offline. The original terms made more sense to me as they focused on whether the content was usable without standard web protocols (aka offline) or not. Indeed. As I say below, we seem to have two different dimension for 'states' and not one dimension only. I can be unpacked and offline, and packed and online. So the question is whether defining two types of states (offline/online and packed/unpacked) is enough. Ie, whether treating cached separately on any dimension is necessary or not (my feeling is that it is not, it is more of an implementation issue). Ivan ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <image001.jpg><image002.jpg> ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...)
Ivan Herman   Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:13:45 +0200

public-digipub-ig > September 2015 > 0000.html

Received on Thursday, 24 September 2015 05:14:00 UTC

Show in list: by dateby threadby subjectby author

Link to this message in this page.

Sent to: bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com
Copied to: lrosenth@adobe.com, public-digipub-ig@w3.org, duga@google.com, swick@w3.org.

As I said, this is a fine line. I would propose not touch it for now; we can revisit this later… (B.t.w.: "every web page is a publication": not even sure. Is a gmail page a publication?) Ivan > On 23 Sep 2015, at 19:12 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com> wrote: > > Point taken, but I can't resist pointing out two truisms of our current situation: > > --Everybody's a publisher. ;-) > > --Every web page is a publication. (Not every publication is a web page.) > > From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:59 AM > To: Bill Kasdorf > Cc: Leonard Rosenthol; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Brady Duga; Ralph Swick > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Definition of a portable document (and other things...) > > (Changed the subject line to 'move' it, at least in term of the subject, to the other thread…) > > On 23 Sep 2015, at 24:13 , Bill Kasdorf <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com <mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>> wrote: > > I know I'm coming late—probably too late—to this conversation. But I have a very serious reservation about PWD, and it's the D part. I have long advocated the term "publication." The reason is that a publication is typically composed of many documents. The most obvious case is that an EPUB often contains multiple content documents. I think it is very misleading to characterize this package as "a document." That encourages people to envision it as something much simpler that it usually is. It's a publication, even if it _does_ only consist of a single document. > > I understand what you say and… I am not convinced:-(. But are walking a fine line here. > > By using the term "document" which is, in general, the term used for web content (apart from a 'page':-) we emphasize the fundamental role these "things" play on the Web (which is the medium we are interested in). By using "publication", even if it it is a "Web Publication" we tend to push (back…) the publishing community in its silo that the rest of the Web community should not care about. As I said, all this is a fine line, but makes me keep the term "Document"… > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > > > Sorry I missed the conversation when it was happening, but it was unavoidable. > > From: Leonard Rosenthol [mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>] > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 8:03 AM > To: Ivan Herman; W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: Brady Duga; Ralph Swick; Bill Kasdorf > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > As you note, Ivan – there are subtleties involved in actually trying to spell out what each of the quadrants means. Your example of an unpacked PWD accessed locally via web protocols is a good one, but it could just as easily have been a packaged PWD accessed that same way – in fact, I built one of those back in 2011 as part some work we were doing. > > But more importantly, the two sets of dimensions are indeed key and for the reasons you state – one for the defining the packaging technology to be used for a PWD and the other for influencing the identification mechanism. > > Also, now that we have defined a term – Portable Web Document (PWD) - how about using that in all instances where you might previously have written EPUB? It took us a lot of time/effort to get to that term – let’s use it! > > Leonard > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Monday, September 21, 2015 at 7:18 AM > To: W3C Digital Publishing IG > Cc: "Brady com>", Ralph Swick, Bill Kasdorf, Leonard Rosenthol > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > So… it seems that we do have two dimensions for 'states. Because Ascii art can go very bad with different clients, I created images as attachments. The first attached image shows is the offline/online vs. packed/unpacked situation with some typical usage scenarios. > > However, offline/online may be an elusive notion. I would think (although I am not sure) that it may be more precise to differentiate along access methods: in practice, if we are in a Web setting, the difference may be whether the content is accessed via an HTTP(S) protocol, through Web protocols, or whether the content is accessed through a file system. So I created a second image doing that. Note the difference between the two: if I have an unpacked set of files in a folder, the same content can be accessed via the file system or via a server running on my machine with the same content served through HTTP. Although, in both cases, the content is accessed offline, the access method is different. > > Whichever four states we choose (and their definitions should be properly pinned down) the real question for this Interest Group is which of these states are of real interest (sic!) for the group and for the digital publishing community at large. And, in fact, I believe all four are. Indeed, > > - the packed/unpacked dimension is (obviously) of interest for the details and requirements on packaging; ie, it influences the details on an architectural view for some sort of a unified approach for readers' core (our service worker based scenario) > > - the offline/online or, alternatively, file or protocol access dimension raises questions on identifiers. Do we use generic identifiers overall, regardless of locations, how should the references within a Portable Web Document be organized to ensure a unified identification scheme. (I cc-d BillK explicitly, because I know these questions are of a real interest to him:-) > > If we agree with these two dimensions, we can go forward and define them more thoroughly > > Ivan > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 18:21 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > Yes, I believe that caching is more an implementation issue than a format or design issue. > > From: Ivan Herman > Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 9:07 AM > To: Leonard Rosenthol > Cc: "Brady com>", W3C Digital Publishing IG, Ralph Swick > Subject: Re: [Glossary] Portable Digital Document's states > > > On 18 Sep 2015, at 14:35 , Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com <mailto:lrosenth@adobe.com>> wrote: > > [Sorry for coming in late] > > I agree with Brady – there is a huge difference between package/unpackaged and online/offline. The original terms made more sense to me as they focused on whether the content was usable without standard web protocols (aka offline) or not. > > Indeed. As I say below, we seem to have two different dimension for 'states' and not one dimension only. I can be unpacked and offline, and packed and online. So the question is whether defining two types of states (offline/online and packed/unpacked) is enough. Ie, whether treating cached separately on any dimension is necessary or not (my feeling is that it is not, it is more of an implementation issue). > > Ivan > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > > <image001.jpg><image002.jpg> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Digital Publishing Lead > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/> > mobile: +31-641044153 > ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704> > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Digital Publishing Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704