15:53:02 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
15:53:02 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/06/25-pwg-irc
15:53:35 <dauwhe> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:48 <Teenya> Teenya has joined #pwg
15:55:59 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwg
15:56:21 <George> George has joined #pwg
15:56:43 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
15:56:52 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:56:52 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group Telco
15:56:52 <ivan> Chair: Tzviya
15:56:52 <ivan> Date: 2018-06-25
15:56:52 <ivan> Regrets+ Rachel, marisa, jeff, jmulliken, vlad
15:56:52 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Jun/0132.html
15:56:53 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2018-06-25: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-publ-wg/2018Jun/0132.html
15:57:00 <tzviya> present+
15:57:07 <dauwhe> present+ dauwhe
15:57:13 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
15:57:17 <wolfgang> present+ wolfgang
15:57:58 <ivan> present+
15:58:22 <Avneesh> present+
15:58:34 <ivan> present+ dkaplan3
15:58:35 <EvanOwens> EvanOwens has joined #pwg
15:58:46 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
15:58:50 <George> present+ George
15:59:04 <Teenya_> Teenya_ has joined #pwg
15:59:13 <laudrain> present+
15:59:16 <Teenya_> Present+
16:00:13 <bendugas> bendugas has joined #pwg
16:00:16 <tzviya> zakim, pick a victim
16:00:16 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose ivan
16:00:43 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
16:00:48 <ivan> scribenick: bigbluehat
16:00:49 <rkwright> rkwright has joined #pwg
16:01:01 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
16:01:21 <rkwright> present+ rkwright
16:01:27 <JunGamo> present+
16:01:35 <JuanCorona> present+ JuanCorona
16:01:35 <garth> garth has joined #pwg
16:01:43 <garth> present+ Garth
16:01:44 <MustlazMS> MustlazMS has joined #pwg
16:01:45 <BenWaltersMS> BenWaltersMS has joined #pwg
16:01:49 <BenWaltersMS> present+
16:01:52 <MustlazMS> present+
16:02:09 <mattg> present+
16:02:23 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I believe we have someone new this week
16:02:27 <bigbluehat> ...Juan?
16:02:28 <ivan> present+ Juan_Corona
16:02:37 <bigbluehat> JuanCorona: hi everyone. I'm with EvidentPoint Software
16:02:46 <bigbluehat> ...we've worked with IDPF in the past
16:02:55 <bigbluehat> ...both as a contributor, developer, and we also contribute to the Readium project
16:03:02 <BenSchroeter> BenSchroeter has joined #pwg
16:03:02 <caitlin_gebhard> caitlin_gebhard has joined #pwg
16:03:07 <ivan> present+ gpellegrino
16:03:11 <bigbluehat> ...I'm very interested in a packaged web publication--EPUB4, naturally
16:03:19 <bigbluehat> ...I want to bring my JS developer experience to the table
16:03:28 <clapierre> clapierre has joined #pwg
16:03:29 <BenSchroeter> present+
16:03:34 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to explore reading system implementations, polyfills, etc.
16:03:55 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we're excited to have you here and impressed by the homework you've done!
16:04:12 <clapierre> present+
16:04:19 <bigbluehat> ...feel free to contact us--the chairs (tzviya and garth) and the staff contact (ivan)
16:04:19 <MustlazMS> thank you!
16:04:24 <gpellegrino> gpellegrino has joined #pwg
16:04:30 <bigbluehat> s/thank you!//
16:04:35 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-06-18-pwg.html
16:04:35 <gpellegrino> present+
16:04:42 <Makoto_> Makoto_ has joined #pwg
16:04:47 <bigbluehat> topic: minutes approval
16:04:51 <caitlin_gebhard> present+
16:04:54 <bigbluehat> tzviya: minutes approved.
16:05:08 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes approved
16:05:09 <ivan> topic: PR-s
16:05:21 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/234
16:05:23 <ivan> Topic: table of content
16:05:23 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we had an issue about the Table of Contents in the manifest
16:05:38 <bigbluehat> ...issue 234, but there's also a pull request for this...
16:05:38 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/pull/246
16:05:41 <Franco> Franco has joined #pwg
16:05:44 <bigbluehat> ...pull request 246
16:05:57 <cmaden2> cmaden2 has joined #pwg
16:06:00 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
16:06:03 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
16:06:06 <cmaden2> present+ Chris_Maden
16:06:12 <bigbluehat> ivan: the discussion was around having a separate file for a ToC
16:06:12 <josh> present+
16:06:13 <duga> present+
16:06:13 <Franco> present+
16:06:41 <bigbluehat> ...but if it's already in the entry page HTML file, then we use that
16:07:10 <bigbluehat> ...and we also discussed using the same sort of Link mechanism in the manifest to point it in either case
16:07:16 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
16:07:20 <garth> q?
16:07:21 <bigbluehat> ...and this is why I created a PR for this, so we can move on quickly
16:07:35 <ivan> present+ george
16:07:38 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #pwg
16:07:42 <Bill_Kasdorf> present+
16:07:51 <bigbluehat> George: so I'm guessing this is the first thing most UAs would want to display
16:07:58 <bigbluehat> ...so is this front and center? or is this once removed
16:08:11 <bigbluehat> s/once removed/twice removed
16:08:28 <garth> q+
16:08:28 <bigbluehat> ivan: the HTML file that references the manifest may also contain the Toc
16:08:33 <bigbluehat> ...and in this case, the UA will have it
16:08:43 <tzviya> ack garth
16:08:44 <bigbluehat> ...if there is no ToC, then the manifest would be consulted
16:08:54 <bigbluehat> ...and that may reference another file
16:09:03 <josh> +1 to doc-toc in the landing page being sufficient
16:09:10 <duga> q+
16:09:12 <bigbluehat> garth: it seems like it's either one step closer to find the ToC as it was to find the nav file in EPUB
16:09:17 <bigbluehat> ivan: that's correct
16:09:22 <tzviya> ack duga
16:09:30 <bigbluehat> tzviya: and rel="contents" did we invent that? or did that exist?
16:09:35 <ivan> present+ duga
16:09:36 <bigbluehat> ivan: it exists already
16:09:42 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
16:10:00 <bigbluehat> duga: sorry, jumping in late, but are we discussing whether the ToC must be in the entry page?
16:10:15 <bigbluehat> garth: it SHOULD be in the entry page, and if not it would need to be referenced from the manifest
16:10:19 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/234#issuecomment-398788017
16:10:42 <bigbluehat> duga: I'm guessing bigbluehat is still annoyed that this still keeps the ToC out of the entry page potentially
16:11:03 <bigbluehat> garth: right now we're discussing the SHOULD of it, but we could still discuss that SHOULD becoming a MUST
16:11:34 <bigbluehat> ...my hopes is that this is approvable and that we can move on to future work after that
16:11:35 <garth> q?
16:11:43 <ivan> resolved: approve and merge the PR for TOC
16:11:55 <bigbluehat> tzviya: hearing no objections, this is approved, and let's move forward
16:12:10 <tzviya>  https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/237
16:12:11 <ivan> topic: links vs. externalResource
16:12:24 <bigbluehat> ivan: warning, this is a bikeshedding issue
16:12:28 <bigbluehat> tzviya: do you want to skip it?
16:12:31 <adamsisco> adamsisco has joined #pwg
16:12:35 <bigbluehat> ivan: no, we do need to address it
16:12:39 <laurentlemeur> laurentlemeur has joined #pwg
16:12:43 <adamsisco> present+
16:12:48 <laurentlemeur> present+
16:12:49 <bigbluehat> ...we've agreed that there are resources which are not in the resources of the publication
16:13:14 <garth> q?
16:13:21 <ReinaldoFerraz> ReinaldoFerraz has joined #pwg
16:13:21 <bigbluehat> ...right now the popular one (slightly) is `links`
16:13:27 <bigbluehat> ...but it's been a wide ranging discussion
16:13:35 <bigbluehat> tzviya: any questions about this one?
16:13:40 <ivan> Pull request: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/pull/244
16:13:45 <bigbluehat> garth: or should we vote on this now
16:13:49 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:13:52 <josh> q+
16:13:55 <garth> +1’s for switching from “extenralResources” to “links”
16:13:57 <garth> +1
16:14:09 <tzviya> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:14:16 <ivan> present+ Bill_Kasdorf
16:14:25 <bigbluehat> Bill_Kasdorf: sorry, I'm coming in late, but isn't it possible that a link  would link to a core resource, not just a general resource?
16:14:45 <garth> q?
16:14:49 <bigbluehat> ivan: this would be for non-core resources
16:14:49 <wolfgang> s/extenralResources/externalResources/
16:14:56 <tzviya> ack josh
16:16:03 <laurentlemeur> +1
16:16:05 <laudrain> +1
16:16:13 <wolfgang> 0
16:16:14 <ivan> 0
16:16:15 <mattg> 0
16:16:16 <tzviya> 0
16:16:16 <Bill_Kasdorf> +0
16:16:20 <josh> 0
16:16:20 <clapierre> 0
16:16:25 <EvanOwens> 0
16:16:26 <Avneesh> 0
16:16:30 <rkwright> 0
16:16:37 <caitlin_gebhard> 0
16:16:37 <duga> !garth
16:16:38 <Bill_Kasdorf> 0
16:17:02 <bigbluehat> tzviya: k. I think we can move on with this one then
16:17:07 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/labels/topic%3Aaffordances
16:17:09 <ivan> resolved: merge #244
16:17:32 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I accidentally included the affordances issues
16:17:35 <bigbluehat> ...in the agenda
16:17:39 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/pull/238
16:17:49 <bigbluehat> garth: didn't we want to do those?
16:17:52 <bigbluehat> tzviya: let's address them later
16:17:56 <ivan> topic: draft restructuring
16:18:02 <bigbluehat> tzviya: Matt did a major revision of the draft in #238
16:18:16 <bigbluehat> ...I just wanted to be sure that everyone was clear on the new structure
16:18:24 <bigbluehat> ...mattg could you go through the changes that you've made?
16:18:24 <ivan> present+ mattg
16:18:47 <bigbluehat> mattg: basically, we were going through all the terms and ideas twice
16:19:01 <bigbluehat> ...so, this PR puts it into a single list, but with infoset and manfiest subsections
16:19:26 <bigbluehat> ...if you're looking for information on any of these, then you're not hoping around trying to make sense of each thing
16:19:38 <bigbluehat> ...so section 3 was kind of the things left over after I did that
16:19:53 <bigbluehat> ...so it explains why we have an infoset and manifest terminology
16:20:05 <wolfgang> s/hoping/hopping/
16:20:05 <bigbluehat> ...then there was another PR that cleaned up some of the required values tables
16:20:12 <bigbluehat> ...each pulled out into other columns
16:20:25 <tzviya> q?
16:20:38 <ivan> q+
16:20:39 <bigbluehat> tzviya: there is an affordance PR open about guided navigation
16:20:41 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:20:59 <bigbluehat> ivan: that later PR came from a previous life, so this is before the restructuring
16:21:12 <bigbluehat> ...we also discussed restructuring where the affordances would be expressed
16:21:40 <bigbluehat> ...we should probably close this PR without merging until we know where affordances will live in this new structure
16:21:42 <josh> +1 to close without merging
16:22:07 <bigbluehat> mattg: some of this is already covered in the progression direction
16:22:19 <bigbluehat> ...and I'm fine to close this PR and address it further if necessary
16:22:28 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we do have a bunch of affordance issues
16:22:35 <garth> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/labels/topic%3Aaffordances
16:22:40 <bigbluehat> ...what we decided last week is that these would be written up within an issue
16:22:46 <bigbluehat> ...and then inform the use case document
16:22:56 <bigbluehat> ...we do have a number of outstanding issues
16:23:58 <bigbluehat> ...please everyone who's signed up for these, please dive back in and file these issues
16:24:13 <bigbluehat> ...if you're not able to finish these, please let us know
16:24:14 <clapierre> I am still working on personalization, and will be bringing this up in the Personalization TF meeting after this.
16:24:18 <bigbluehat> ...so that we can reassign them
16:24:43 <bigbluehat> josh: to be clear, the affordances that I agreed to write that have to do with paging, I'm putting those in the UCR rather than for the WPUB draft
16:24:53 <bigbluehat> ...once they're in the UCR, then we're going to point to the UCR from the draft
16:24:55 <bigbluehat> ...is that correct?
16:25:07 <ivan> q+
16:25:10 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I think we have to figure out the relationship between the UCR and WPUB draft
16:25:20 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:25:32 <bigbluehat> josh: as an implementer, it's actually nice to have two documents rather than having all the reasoning mixed into the spec document
16:25:41 <bigbluehat> ivan: essentially yes, with one additional item
16:26:08 <bigbluehat> ...we should not only reference the UCR document, but also say what of the manifest or infoset items are necessary or maybe sufficient for that use case to be doable
16:26:35 <bigbluehat> ...so not only a link, but some sort of analysis of how it's expressed according to the spec
16:26:48 <bigbluehat> tzviya: any other comments on this topic?
16:27:06 <bigbluehat> ...I didn't actually expect to get to this last item
16:27:25 <ivan> Topic: schema.org discussion items
16:27:54 <bigbluehat> ...we have a list of terms we're planning to raise with Dan Brickley that we'd like to get added to schema.org
16:28:08 <bigbluehat> garth: ivan, didn't you do a wiki page or something for this sort of list?
16:28:10 <bigbluehat> ivan: that is correct
16:28:14 <ivan> I have https://github.com/w3c/wpub/wiki/Schema.org-problems
16:28:32 <bigbluehat> ...this is a wiki page of the items that we map into schema.org
16:29:01 <bigbluehat> ...so 6 items that I remember that may be troublesome with schema.org
16:29:11 <bigbluehat> ...some of you have experience with schema.org
16:29:16 <garth> q?
16:29:26 <bigbluehat> ...so we should discuss these before we address these with Dan or whoever from schema.org
16:29:51 <bigbluehat> ...should I go through these items one by one? to see about differing opinions?
16:29:53 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we can do that
16:30:03 <bigbluehat> ivan: one problem is that we have a family of items
16:30:41 <bigbluehat> ...there is the creator, but then there are many different classes and types of them (authors, editors, etc)
16:30:49 <bigbluehat> ...in schema.org these are not ordered lists
16:30:59 <bigbluehat> ...but for many publishers, the ordering is important
16:31:15 <bigbluehat> ...we can express this in our context file
16:31:27 <bigbluehat> ...but it's not clear what the schema.org processors will do with that information (if anything)
16:31:40 <bigbluehat> ...there's also some mention of other places this has been a problem in schema.org
16:31:50 <bigbluehat> ...one was recipe ingredient ordering
16:31:57 <bigbluehat> ...they have something they use for ordered lists
16:32:06 <bigbluehat> ...and we'll need to see if that works for our terms
16:32:21 <bigbluehat> ...Another item at issue is the class CreativeWork
16:32:27 <tzviya> https://schema.org/CreativeWork
16:32:27 <bigbluehat> ...they have many sub-types, Comic, etc.
16:32:42 <bigbluehat> ...if we want to create new items, what is the best mechanism for this
16:32:53 <bigbluehat> ...but this is something we'll need to synchronize with schema.org
16:32:57 <bigbluehat> ...any questions or comments?
16:32:59 <bigbluehat> q?
16:33:08 <bigbluehat> ...the 3rd and 4th are related
16:33:18 <bigbluehat> ...we need to be able to control the language of the terms
16:33:24 <bigbluehat> ...we have that in the info set
16:33:40 <bigbluehat> ...and it has the scope of the things expressed in the manifest
16:33:56 <bigbluehat> ...and it is separate from the language expressed in the HTML file that contains or references the manifest
16:34:11 <bigbluehat> ...right now, surprisingly, there's no way to do this in schema.org
16:34:21 <bigbluehat> ...there is a way to do it within JSON-LD, and I've included an example in the wiki
16:34:31 <bigbluehat> ...but it's unclear if the schema.org will use that properly
16:34:52 <bigbluehat> ...where this matters are cases like author names being in one language, when the content is in another language
16:34:54 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:35:02 <bigbluehat> ...at this point Google's schema.org processor rejects that sort of expression
16:35:08 <bigbluehat> ...but both of these things are absolutely improtant
16:35:12 <tzviya> ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:35:20 <bigbluehat> Bill_Kasdorf: when you refer to language, are you also referring to script? or is that important/
16:35:23 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes and no
16:35:32 <bigbluehat> ...to be precise, I'm referring to codes in BCP47
16:35:44 <bigbluehat> ...the values that are in BCP47 cover both language and script
16:35:59 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/220
16:36:03 <bigbluehat> ...so it is possible to express Chinese in either simplified or traditional
16:36:17 <bigbluehat> ...so that's covered with BCP47
16:36:27 <bigbluehat> ...so these two are important
16:36:42 <bigbluehat> ...there is a possible solution
16:36:53 <bigbluehat> ...JSON-LD 1.0 has a way to express the same term in multiple languages
16:37:06 <bigbluehat> ...a typical case is a name expressed in Chinese and transliterated in English
16:37:16 <bigbluehat> ...that can be done via an indexing mechanism
16:37:27 <josh> q+
16:37:32 <bigbluehat> ...sadly, that's completely unknown to schema.org
16:37:40 <tzviya> ack josh
16:37:51 <bigbluehat> ...it would make things much simpler, but I suppose we could live without them...though grudgingly
16:38:08 <bigbluehat> josh: I hope this isn't a can of worms and it seems where making some progress with authors, editors, and things
16:38:19 <bigbluehat> ...but one of the things I'd like to know as a processor of these documents
16:38:39 <bigbluehat> ...if I mark up all these in JSON-LD, should I also markup my stuff in RDFa?
16:38:46 <bigbluehat> ivan: you don't need to
16:38:55 <tzviya> q+
16:39:06 <bigbluehat> josh: k. the ScholarlyHTML community was working on RDFa for expressing similar things
16:39:28 <bigbluehat> tzviya: it's going to be redundant anyway because we're going to be displaying it in the markup
16:39:31 <ivan> q+
16:39:35 <ivan> ack tzviya
16:40:02 <bigbluehat> josh: I realize it'll be redundant for display,  but what about the RDFa spans and such to express these things?
16:40:23 <bigbluehat> ...if I do those things, do they relate? or do they interact? which takes precedence?
16:40:23 <tzviya> q?
16:40:33 <bigbluehat> ...or which route do I take if I'm building something for both of these communities?
16:40:46 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:40:47 <bigbluehat> ...I'd really like a format to rule them all
16:40:59 <bigbluehat> ivan: so it is a can of worms
16:41:07 <bigbluehat> ...schema.org is expressed in generic terms
16:41:23 <bigbluehat> ...and that community, they tell you that if you want to express these terms you can use JSON-LD or RDFa, then you can
16:41:39 <bigbluehat> ...we decided up 'till now to pick only syntax to express those things
16:41:51 <bigbluehat> ...we could say, you can express them in one or the other, or both, and somehow resolve them
16:42:02 <bigbluehat> ...my fear is that could complicate and confuse things
16:42:21 <bigbluehat> ...though it is a generic problem, so might still need addressing somewhere
16:42:38 <bigbluehat> ...my experience with RDFa is that it can be complicated to get the expression right
16:43:07 <bigbluehat> ...and you'll do lots of testing to get the expression correct to get the processors to be happy with the RDFa
16:43:29 <bigbluehat> ...that is why, I think JSON-LD has become...not preferred as a requirement, but in practice the most widely used format for schema.org
16:43:40 <bigbluehat> ...so, for the time being, we say use JSON-LD
16:43:46 <bigbluehat> ...I can't comment on the ScholarlyHTML CG
16:43:59 <bigbluehat> ...I know lots of people there were pushing for the RDFa
16:44:08 <bigbluehat> ...my preference would be for them to use JSON-LD in a script tag
16:44:10 <josh> q+
16:44:15 <tzviya> ack josh
16:44:18 <bigbluehat> ...but I'm not active there, and it's really their issue to address
16:44:40 <bigbluehat> josh: one last thing to wrap this up, I've no personal problem, I'd just like to not do it twice
16:44:51 <bigbluehat> ...I like RDFa because it pus the schema on top of the data
16:44:57 <bigbluehat> ...where as JSON-LD puts the data on top of the schema
16:45:03 <bigbluehat> ...and JSON-LD is necessarily redundant
16:45:04 <wolfgang> s/pus/puts/
16:45:13 <bigbluehat> ...so author name is always going to appear at least twice
16:45:19 <ivan> q+
16:45:34 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:45:35 <bigbluehat> tzviya: yeah, we're probably getting off topic
16:45:41 <bigbluehat> ...and we could discuss this for hours
16:45:45 <ivan> q-
16:45:51 <bigbluehat> ivan: yeah. let's push this to a different discussion
16:46:04 <bigbluehat> tzviya: is there anything else here ivan?
16:46:11 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes, there's one more about linking to external resources
16:46:25 <bigbluehat> ...we have defined our own object, Publishing Resource object
16:46:36 <bigbluehat> ...and we were wondering about using an existing type (whatever the name was...)
16:46:41 <bigbluehat> ...and that looked like a very good idea
16:47:10 <bigbluehat> ...except for reasons which I can't really understand, is that the fileFormat can't be used for the kind of use we need it for
16:47:23 <bigbluehat> ...if that were addressed by schema.org, then we could just use their thing
16:47:33 <bigbluehat> ...so, these are the things that I gathered with Dan Brickley
16:47:59 <bigbluehat> garth: the issues that are in the agenda, page marks, land marks, etc.
16:48:03 <bigbluehat> ...is that...
16:48:07 <George> q+
16:48:11 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes, I'd put those in as issues if we had time
16:48:19 <tzviya> ack George
16:48:22 <bigbluehat> garth: so those weren't for this discussion?
16:48:24 <bigbluehat> tzviya: no, sorry.
16:48:32 <ivan> s/ivan/tzviya/
16:48:32 <Avneesh> we also need to explore conformance metadata to schema.org
16:48:34 <Avneesh> https://idpf.github.io/epub-vocabs/package/a11y/
16:49:12 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: so there are 4 items that we did for EPUB
16:49:21 <bigbluehat> ...and we discussed porting these to schema.org
16:49:32 <bigbluehat> tzviya: was there ever an attempt to do this with schema.org?
16:49:53 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: they said they'd discussed them, but it didn't make it
16:50:06 <bigbluehat> ...but we should re-raise it with them if we need it
16:50:23 <bigbluehat> ivan: I will have to add those to the wiki
16:50:36 <bigbluehat> ...and at some point, we'll need to make a clearer document to discuss this with them
16:50:43 <bigbluehat> ...we'll have to see where we go with this
16:50:57 <bigbluehat> ...my guess is that they will say, "has anything changes since this was first submitted?"
16:51:05 <Avneesh> q+
16:51:05 <bigbluehat> ...what are the new issues to make this worth reopening the discussion
16:51:13 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to find out if we have that before asking them again
16:51:18 <wolfgang> s/changes/changed/
16:51:33 <bigbluehat> George: I think the discussion around this along time ago, was around every web page in the world having a "conformsTo" statement
16:51:37 <bigbluehat> ...wouldn't be practical
16:51:55 <tzviya> q+
16:52:04 <bigbluehat> ...what's different now, is that we have a WG where that need becomes clearer as it applies directly to our publishing needs
16:52:05 <ivan> q+
16:52:07 <bigbluehat> ack Avneesh
16:52:36 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: so, this answer was from the WCAG group, that it would need to be optional/additive
16:52:46 <bigbluehat> ...when we sent it to schema.org, we got absolutely zero response
16:53:06 <tzviya> ack tzv
16:53:12 <bigbluehat> ...so we can point out that there was no previous consensus, and instead push for consensus this time for these new reasons
16:53:24 <bigbluehat> tzviya: since that time, schema.org has done work with the openbadges community
16:53:39 <bigbluehat> ...they're also beginning to work with the fact checking CG folks
16:53:51 <bigbluehat> ...it's certification, but its a very different sort of certification
16:53:54 <bigbluehat> ...but it does exist
16:54:12 <bigbluehat> George: we should make it clear that conformance and certification are different
16:54:13 <tzviya> ack ivan
16:54:20 <bigbluehat> tzviya: yes, but the tagging will be similar
16:54:24 <bigbluehat> George: true
16:54:32 <bigbluehat> ivan: schema.org has this mechanism for extensions
16:54:50 <bigbluehat> ...we know many of them we hope to use come from bib.schema.org extensions for bibliography
16:55:03 <tzviya> schema.org claimReview for fact checking https://schema.org/ClaimReview
16:55:09 <bigbluehat> ...so, if we have other things that "deserve" to be in schema.org, but we could begin them in an extension
16:55:24 <bigbluehat> ...it's a possibility, but I'm a little bit worried
16:55:45 <bigbluehat> ...we are currently trying to specify terms for our infoset terminology
16:56:06 <bigbluehat> ...but if we open it up wider to include all kinds of publishing related terms, we may cause many more problems
16:57:20 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we have specific needs of the larger group, but may not be part of the minimal set
16:57:34 <bigbluehat> ...so maybe we'd want an a11y task force to take this up
16:57:54 <bigbluehat> ...222, 223, and 225 are about page lists and offlining
16:57:59 <bigbluehat> ...so figure that out and come back to us in a week
16:58:14 <bigbluehat> George: before we schedule anything with Dan, I think we really need to have our ducks in a row
16:58:26 <bigbluehat> ...and that we're all clear about what we're asking
16:58:57 <bigbluehat> ...do our a11y task force need to be ready at that meeting?
16:59:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'd prefer we have some sort of priority here
16:59:19 <bigbluehat> ...some of these like language and ordering of authors, are absolutely fundamental for any web publication
16:59:25 <bigbluehat> ...so I would consider these a primary thing
16:59:36 <Avneesh> q+
16:59:45 <bigbluehat> ...a mechanism to extend CreativeWork, however that gets solved is less of a concern
16:59:56 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
16:59:59 <bigbluehat> ...the a11y terms, may become deal breakers for using schema.org
17:00:09 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: we talked about a backup plan
17:00:31 <bigbluehat> ...if schema.org doesn't want these terms, we'd like to use them from epub-vocab
17:00:39 <bigbluehat> ...so it would not be a show stopper
17:00:52 <bigbluehat> ivan: the backup plan is good, we already have a few of our own terms, context file, etc.
17:00:58 <bigbluehat> ...we're working to keep that small
17:01:02 <bigbluehat> ...but as you say there is a backup plan
17:01:11 <bigbluehat> tzviya: that's the end of the meeting them
17:01:15 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/06/25-pwg-minutes.html ivan