Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference -- 02 Dec 2013

<trackbot> Date: 02 December 2013

<scribe> scribe:walkley

<scribe> scribe: walkley

<mgylling> scribe: walkley

<mgylling> AOB addition: review of CSS shapes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2013Nov/0088.html

<TomDN> that is me

mgylling: a relatively short agenda today, one item of AOB

…which is the request for review of CSS shapes. We will try to volunteer someone for that.

mgylling: asked laudrain to give intro

laudrain: 20 years in digital publishing, sgml, xml, now works for Hachette Livre where he is in charge of digital outputs.

…involved in IDPF working groups, metadata in ONIX, RDF, W3C SVG working group

mgylling: asked if laudrain is up to date with IG documents

laudrain: will get up to speed

mgylling: today's call a very good introduction, one of the items is to review task force summaries.
... last week, no proper minutes as bots weren't working, but text doc at http://www.w3.org/2013/11/dpub-call-minutes-25.txt

…any comments?

…none, so last week's minutes approved.

mgylling: main topic is organisation/working practices for these calls. But first, Q&A/discussions on TPAC F2F meeting. Any questions/remarks arising from TPAC minutes?

<TomDN> +1 for condensed summary

<fjh> +1 for condensed summary

tzviya: one area of confusion… read through the minutes on DRM and clear on the fact that DRM is out of scope for now, but there might have been a discussion on security. What exactly are we calling security at this point?

fjh: Use of underlying open web platform technologies may enable security threats that may need to be addressed.

Sharad: many other issues, DRM is a component, has an action item to discuss with fjh. tzviya welcome to contribute.

<ivan> Guest: Jullie Morris, BISG

mgylling: asked Julie Morris from BISG to introduce herself, trade association for book industry in US
... one other thing, is privacy in scope from a user point of view. Asked fjh and Sharad for view.

fjh: should be in scope

mgylling: Sharad will be lead on this task force.

…Should we produce text summary or refer to minutes?

ivan: as we don't use a tracker with actions, having a list of main resolutions might be a good thing. This exists in draft and needs to be cleaned up and posted to mailing list.

<scribe> ACTION: mgylling to produce summary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/02-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-12 - Produce summary [on Markus Gylling - due 2013-12-09].

mgylling: any other TPAC questions?

consolidation of task forces

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

ivan: has set up a Wiki page for each task force linked from this table.

mgylling: a few of these are new, Page DOM for example.

…this is something that came up during TPAC via brady

…In terms of the fourth column, these task forces won't necessarily use the same method for documentation.

…have one example, Latinreq, which has separate document and will eventually have use cases

…other groups primarily expected to work on the wiki use case tree

…but no problem if a lead wants to move to another form

…These activities will deliver on different schedules. At this point we don't see that we will be able to synchronise everyone for January. Some much faster than others.

…doesn't quite match how charter predicted work but will have to do best.

…have to accept varying deliverable dates. Those are overall comments, thanks to ivan for putting together. Any questions or remarks, including from task force leads.

…in terms of recent activities, Bill_Kasdorf...?

Bill_Kasdorf: have drafted invitation describing mission of task force and soliciting volunteers, to be circulated after this call.
... Sent to mgylling Madi and ivan for review.
... Takes broad view of metadata

…another possible outcome might be determination that issue is broader than this IG.

…might be appropriate to consider separate metadata IG.

…initial task identifying problems with publisher use of metadata which will be done on wiki.

<ivan> wiki page for the metadata task force

mgylling: the next agenda item is MO of the IG calls moving forward

modus operandi moving forward

…so far we have been spending calls having status updates from various groups

…question is whether we should rethink the way we use our calls and list activity to focus more on specific topics for a larger chunk of time. Of course, other ways as well.

…should we give the leads an hour of quality time on their area.

Madi: an hour is a very long time.

…Pearson asks for everything to be justified in ten minutes. Be brief, be brilliant, be gone. How about 30 mins?

…two task forces per meeting.

fjh: agrees with Madi

mgylling: suggestion not to make calls longer, but to work on use case development during calls.

…to produce volume of material required will take longer

tzviya: notes how long it can take to do the background work.

…sometimes splitting hairs takes longer than one expects. Conversation very informative, discussion very helpful. In favour of greater focus, two topics per call.

<Madi> I must jump off to go to another meeting.

Suzanne: agreed with that. Thinking about separate meetings for accessibility, but would be great to have more detail in meeting.

JeanK: tzviya and I have own working group, research not insignificant, some off-group conversations.

…bigger thing is being able to concentrate on 1-2 topics per meeting, would need to come to conclusions more quickly.

Bill_Kasdorf: related question: understand individual task forces don't have to work same way. Curious as to how many task forces are having off-group calls? General meetings shouldn't be that.

…results of task force calls should then be discussed with group as a whole.

mgylling: concern about risk for silos to develop off-list. Would be better to do thinking/discovery process on-list.

<TomDN> -q

Bill_Kasdorf: I anticipated most of work done on-list and wiki, and periodic but infrequent task force calls offlist.

<fjh> +1

<JeanK> +1 to mailing list, but use a prefix in [] to indicate which task force you're discussing specifically.

<TomDN> +1 to what Bill said. this telecon should ideally be used to /present/ the results of the individual task force's work (avoiding large discussion on this call)

ivan: Would really like to see discussions done through mailing list, interested to see what is going on in task forces even if cannot contribute, important to know what is happening, also on-list discussions are archived for posterity, might be useful later.

…organising with a prefix per task force would be good.

mgylling: Many of the task forces would benefit from wider input.

Bill_Kasdorf: what I was implying was to work up issues and present for discussion amongst the wider group

Jean: ivan's point came up with overlap between MathML and accessibility. Put everything on list but be clear about topic.

mgylling: Could we try this? At least one week in advance, task force would be told they would be up to report and open up for discussion.

<ivan> Let us use: [latinreq] [pdom] [metadata] [adaption] [annotation] [stem] [security] [a11y] [bridge] as mail prefixes

…I am interested in trying this. Need to get more discussions started.

<ivan> +1

<TomDN> +1

<tzviya> +1

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1

mgylling: Great, let's do so.

<tmichel> +1

<Suzanne> +1

…who wants to take first slot next week?

<ivan> RESOLVED: At least one week in advance, task force would be told they would be up to report and open up for discussion

…Suggest tzviya and JeanK: if you are interested we could start with you? Okay?

tzviya: Can't do next week.

<JeanK> sorry... phone just dropped call...

mgylling: Suzanne and gcapiel?

<JeanK> I can do an update on the state of our existing STEM use cases next week, and tell people the direction we are headed in, but not much more.

gcapiel: Could have people review the use cases that are out there.

Suzanne: lots of people have ideas for use cases but haven't added yet, useful to capture these.

mgylling: also have Laura… Laura and Mark interested in semantics

Suzanne: once we get use cases, would like to recruit subject-specific folks, but good to get scope established first.

resolved: do accessibility next week

mgylling: We'll try a couple of calls on this format and then review.
... AOB?

<mgylling> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2013Nov/0088.html

request from CSS WG

…Request from CSS working group to review CSS shapes

…Reviewed CSS text a couple of weeks ago

…deadline for comment Jan 7th. Any volunteers to take an action to review?

…would need to be done by Jan 6th 2014.

astearns: a bit of background for anyone not familiar, start of css feature that allows one to specify non-rectangular shapes.

…allows float around non-rectangular objects.

…useful for comments from someone familiar with content wrapping outside web platform

mgylling: any takers?

…have to take that as a no. Will repeat request for review on mailing list.

…AOB?

Suzanne: just wanted to make sure that anyone who wants to be involved in accessibility task force, let her know or put name on wiki.

mgylling: Please repeat that on list as well.

<ivan> A11y TF Wiki page

…I think we're done. Thank you all.

<Suzanne> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Task_Forces/Accessibility

<Suzanne> ivan - would you be able to share laura fowler's email with me? I want to write and see who from ETS might be planning to join the accessibility taskforce

<tmichel> tmichel I am here ...

<Suzanne> thx much!

<ivan> suzanne: lfowler@ets.org

<Suzanne> thx

- DRAFT -

Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

02 Dec 2013

Attendees

Contents

consolidation of task forces

modus operandi moving forward

request from CSS WG

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output