Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

<tzviya> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Apr/0003.html

<HeatherF> Yay! I got the time zones correct!

<ayla_stein> HAHAHA

I can scribe.

<NickRuffilo> thank you peter!

pleasure.

<tzviya> scribenick: pkra

<HeatherF> Yay Peter!

*swoon*

<tzviya> chair: Tzviya

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/21-DPUB-minutes.html

tzviya: review of last week's minutes. Any comments?
... minutes are approved.
... ivan and others have attended the AC meeting in Boston recently.

AC Report

ivan: link to minutes

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/21-ac-minutes.html

ivan: are members only.

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/22-ac-minutes.html

ivan: relevant for us: Bill made a publication on DPUB IG, pwp etc.
... was a great talk!
... lots of hallway conversations with people, incl. skeptics.
... many other conversations about vertical areas.
... web payment, entertainment, digital marketing etc.
... The second important part was Web Platform Group (html + APIs groups)
... gave an overview of current work and plans
... for us interesting: HTML 5.1 is coming up. CR in June, Rec in September.
... not sure about details element; needs checking.
... also a social/editorial aspect came up.
... huge beast. Used to be only one person really understood it.
... Also, a list / plans for other APIs came up.
... lots of go ahead but no fixed timelines.
... for us: web components and serviceworkers are on track.
... mozilla and edge have started looking into serviceworkers. (Apple: unkown).
... another item: manifest.
... also going ahead.
... Some things need trimming before shipping: web storage is worth keeping an eye on.

<tzviya> SW in mozilla: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Service_Workers

ivan: Some are essentially on hold / might move to other groups. In particular (for us): packaging.
... packaging has not moved since we first considered it.
... not clear who/where it will be moving.
... Some things are really put on ice. E.g., FindText API [/http://w3c.github.io/findtext]

oh...

:)

ivan: The last day was dominated by security. A LOT about EME.

... (you may have heard about protests.)
... not directly relevant for us.
... Also other things on security. Bruce Schneier gave great talk. Obviously, things need to be beefed up. But doesn't directly affect our work.
... One issue/advise that came up indirectly: might be worth talking about PWP ideas/structure to TAG since it touches on issues relevant to TAG. Early is probably better than later.

mgylling: was there any update on WebRTC?

ivan: no. light conversation (people liking it) but not a topic.
... why?

mgylling: b/c codec opus. this is relevant for audio books.

tzviya: regarding security. While it might not be directly relevant, it keeps coming up. Maybe we can recruit somebody to help us catch up?

ivan: Virginie Galindo might be a good person to talk to.

sorry, missed it.

:)

tzviya: before we continue, we have one new member: Nicholas, Stanford University. Library team, archiving, presentation etc.
... let's have an update from the archival TF.

Archival TF

<TimCole> https://www.w3.org/2016/03/24-dpub-arch-minutes.html

TimCole: lots of data gathering. Last call with a lot about LOCKS (?). See the minutes.
... also CLOCKSS, Portico.
... spidering, normalizing into standard format.

<newbie> LOCKSS: http://www.lockss.org/

TimCole: just getting started with ebooks. Good success with journals article (using JATS).

<newbie> CLOCKSS: https://www.clockss.org/clockss/Home

TimCole: as much as possible straight from publishers.

<newbie> blog post on signposting the scholarly web: http://blog.dshr.org/2015/12/signposting-scholarly-web.html

TimCole: we see implications from our discussions for a profile / manifest adequate for archiving services.
... e.g., finding enough of a version of a package that can be used for all browsers downstream (not just one).
... e.g., migrating forward parts of a package (due to changes in standards).
... e.g., multiple pieces from multiple servers
... so a number of use cases.
... learning from PDF/A from Leonard

<ayla_stein> nope

<HeatherF> Yay for use cases!

scribe: we're also trying to provide links and documentation for people to understand archiving. There's a section in PWP where these can go.
... still planning to talk to more groups.

tzviya: next up: locators.

Locator TF

<bjdmeest> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/

Ben: we're finishing up our documents.
... we have general consensus in the task force.
... we talked about next steps for the TF and document.
... thinking about integrating this with the PWP document.

<bjdmeest> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/#manifest_algorithm

Ben: the doc explains terminology, explains manifest, locator, retrieval etc
... maybe go through it in detail tomorrow?

tzviya: are there questions?

ivan: one of the main outcome of the discussion, on the one hand, the really locator specific issues are relatively simple. Almost just a bunch of definitions (what do we mean "canonical locator" etc).
... most of these discussed on group level.
... nothing major / new really.
... two things are more general.
... on the terminology level: concepts, states etc. cf. PWP.
... but became clear that we need an active entity which we call "PWP processor" for now. Mostly client-side thing.
... not bound to any technology but trying to identify what functionality it will have to provide.
... the other new item: the really core issue is the manifest. That's what the processor needs.
... the algo itself is just saying "how do you get to the manifest in various settings".
... (what if only canonical locator, what you receive on http etc.)
... we're converging to the point where the most complicated thing will become: what kind of information do we have in the manifest (and then possibly format as well).
... here we have to synchronize with epub WG.
... this is the high-level view of the TF results.
... Basically, the localtor TF has done what it was supposed to do.

tzviya: do we want to publish this on its own or integrate into PWP or leave alone?

Ben: recently we discussed that it makes sense to integrate it; lots of overlap with PWP discussion.
... not sure if we have to wait for PWP to be further along.

ivan: I think this document would be better if it's part of PWP document. But not in its current form (or else it gets huge).
... the first section of PWP is basically use cases. Now that we have a use case doc, we should move/incorporate there.
... then the draft becomes a more formal document.
... more on technology. describe the "PWP processor" more abstractly.
... merge so that the technical content is more elaborate.
... I'd expect a section on manifest there eventually
... address the problems coming from archiving etc.

mgylling: so the part that isn't use cases would go into the PWP whitepaper?

<ayla_stein> need to leave for another meeting

ivan: yes. and the use cases should move to use case doc.

mgylling: depends on what we see the PWP whitepaper to become.
... originally a "shallow" document, overview.
... if we do this, then we're saying: we'll be growing this into something with a lot more technical detail.

ivan: the current version already has a lot of detail.
... SW, state etc.
... so we're moving in that direction already.
... but perhaps we should keep the a short vision document.

mgylling: more a minor issue. More important to research and publish this. Not important to me, just want to clarify that the whitepaper was a vision paper and is slowly becoming something different.

ivan: just to recap: I think the locators doesn't work as a standalone doc.

tzviya: we should probably discuss the direction for the whitepaper separately.
... next up: Use Cases.

Use Cases

HeatherF: romain and I discussed next steps.
... a bit of a gap coming up.
... we have a wide collection of use cases.

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/wiki/Use-Cases-Overview

HeatherF: but I want to go ahead and create the PWP use cases in the spirit of CSV on the Web [?] doc.

<tzviya> http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/

HeatherF: I also looked at last minutes. Looks like a lot of discussion whether packaging is or is not in scope.

tzviya: I think I meant that we wanted to discuss this further.

mgylling: we realized it's in scope but a huge chunk so we should look at this in the groups.
... maybe good for virtual F2F in May.

HeatherF: we also talked about DRM, archiving use cases.
... looking for those come in. Is DRM relevant?

ivan: early on decided DRM is not in scope. But maybe we should revisit.
... we also "lost" people who were interested in DRM.

mgylling: but security and privacy are not out of scope.

ivan: agreed.

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about how people should add info

tzviya: from epub, we got the idea to look at hooks for encryption/DRM instead.
... other TFs might be collecting use cases in their own repos / docs.
... might just be waiting for sign to move them over.
... should they do issues or just add to docs?

HeatherF: either works.
... I think we've covered everything in the overview.

tzviya: I think several people promised additions but haven't.

TimCole: we put ours up on our wiki page.
... could you walk us through what should be in the use case? So that we're sure we get the right information in.

HeatherF: my take: tell a story of what an actor is trying to accomplish.
... not saying "using X technology to do the following" but "read a recipe and need to read it offline".

TimCole: let me try. "I've archived a PWP that contains several components, one of which is shared among components but that component is now newer than previously archived, do I update the component so that it's identical to PWP and archive or do I consider the original archive for that PWP?"/

tzivya: best practice is making it as simple as possible.

<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Use_Cases

tzivya: that way you end up finding out whether you have one or many.
... cf. annotation use cases.
... those are very good.
... "Tim wants to do xyz".

HeatherF: from that try: at least 2-3 use cases.

TimCole: ok, we'll try to be very granular.

tzviya: to all: don't worry about the form too much. Just write them. If they're not perfect, we don't care -- we need the info out there and can clean it up.
... to those how volunteered: check the wiki where your name will show!

NickRuffilo: I sent my use case to the group, got feedback, revised it. What's my next step? Put on wiki?

<tzviya> post use cases to https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-ucr/issues

HeatherF: eithe on the wiki or put it in an issue.
... whatever you find easier.

Misc issues

ivan: re use cases. Permissions&Obligations is starting to collect use cases. We could use more publishing use cases.
... we had a mention of this work in the metadata report last year.
... This is the time! Submit something to the group. Send them to me or whatever works for you.
... do it now.
... one more thing: the AnnotationWG has published three drafts. Pretty final. Please read through and comment!

wait, there are points?

<HeatherF> Yes, there are points

tzviya: we'll be discussing the annotations documents.

<HeatherF> :-D

TimCole: we have a bit of traveling shortages but hopefully get an update soon.

ivan: the week after next sounds good.

:)

<Vlad> thanks!