12:29:29 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwg
12:29:29 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-irc
12:29:30 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
12:29:30 <ivan> Meeting: Publishing Working Group F2F Meeting—Day 2
12:29:30 <ivan> Chair+ garth, tzviya, wendy
12:29:36 <dkaplan3> present+
12:29:37 <bigbluehat> present+
12:29:39 <ivan> guests+ wseltzer
12:29:40 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
12:29:42 <dauwhe> present+
12:29:46 <ivan> present+
12:29:46 <laudrain> present+
12:29:52 <t-cole3> t-cole3 has joined #pwg
12:29:55 <wendyreid> present+
12:29:59 <mattg> present+
12:30:02 <tzviya> present+
12:30:02 <George> George has joined #pwg
12:30:03 <t-cole3> present+
12:30:05 <Ralph> present+ Ralph_Swick
12:30:19 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we're picking up from where we were yesterday
12:30:19 <George> present+ George
12:30:21 <laurent_> present+
12:30:25 <bigbluehat> ...mostly focusing on building a Testing Task Force
12:30:41 <bigbluehat> ...bigbluehat and Nellie mentioned contributing, but we need a Chief Cat Herder to help make this a reality
12:30:46 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
12:30:54 <timCole> timCole has joined #pwg
12:30:56 <ivan> scribejs, set leslie Leslie Hulse
12:30:58 <bigbluehat> ...I'm busy this summer
12:31:02 <ivan> guests+ leslie
12:31:08 <romain> present+
12:31:16 <timCole> present+
12:31:22 <franco> franco has joined #pwg
12:31:22 <bigbluehat> ...I'm going to just start volunteering people
12:31:28 <ivan> scribejs, set jgmorse Jeremy Morse
12:31:33 <bigbluehat> timCole: I can also contribute, but not in a place to lead
12:31:37 <ivan> guests+ jgmorse
12:31:48 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
12:31:48 <Zakim> Present: dkaplan, bigbluehat, dauwhe, ivan, laudrain, wendyreid, mattg, tzviya, t-cole, Ralph_Swick, George, laurent_, romain, timCole
12:31:51 <Zakim> On IRC I see franco, timCole, romain, George, laudrain, RRSAgent, Zakim, laurent_, jgmorse, ivan, marisa, garth, Nellie, wseltzer, david_stroup, dauwhe, Ralph, wendyreid, duga,
12:31:51 <Zakim> ... mattg, Karen, tzviya, geoffjukes, dkaplan3, jeff, JunGamo, toshiakikoike, plinss_, github-bot, bigbluehat, astearns, dmitry, florian[m], Travis, jyasskin
12:31:53 <bigbluehat> tzviya: do we have a project manager?
12:31:58 <bigbluehat> Rachel: sure
12:32:04 <bigbluehat> tzviya: k. we have what we need for that
12:32:07 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/groups/publ-wg/PublStatus
12:32:18 <bigbluehat> ...if you look at that link, you'll find the timeline for our publications
12:32:22 <Rachel> Rachel has joined #pwg
12:32:24 <bigbluehat> ...in section 2 these are our major milestones
12:32:36 <Rachel> present+
12:32:41 <bigbluehat> ...we're supposed to have CRs in the 3rd quarter of this year which is rapidly approaching
12:32:42 <ivan> present+ avneesh, romain, JunGamo, david_stroup
12:32:48 <bigbluehat> ...ivan can you explain more about CR?
12:32:56 <bigbluehat> ivan: we have to have a kind of feature freeze at some point
12:32:57 <bigbluehat> ...before CR
12:33:12 <bigbluehat> ...once we are in CR, we are not supposed to change technical parts of the documents or add or remove features
12:33:18 <bigbluehat> ...unless we can also prove that something's wrong
12:33:35 <bigbluehat> ...so we should agree on a date after which we don't make such major changes
12:33:43 <bigbluehat> ...editorial changes after that will be fine
12:33:55 <bigbluehat> ...but technical changes won't be made unless something is uncovered by testing
12:34:03 <bigbluehat> ...we do need a realistic timeline set for testing
12:34:18 <bigbluehat> ...and counting back from that, we can determine a timeline for feature freezing
12:34:19 <Andrea> Andrea has joined #pwg
12:34:46 <bigbluehat> ...so we should have CR published right after TPAC
12:34:55 <bigbluehat> ...that would leave us way enough time to do testing
12:35:14 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
12:35:18 <bigbluehat> ...we have to calculate to pass a recommendation we need to have voting time through the AC...which is 4-6 weeks
12:35:25 <bigbluehat> ...so we have to calculate including that
12:35:25 <CharlesL> present+
12:35:41 <bigbluehat> ...Septemberish/Octoberish is too early given time needed for testing
12:35:44 <bigbluehat> present+ Andrea
12:35:50 <bigbluehat> ...I think that's about it
12:35:57 <dauwhe> q+
12:36:06 <bigbluehat> ...and we have 2 documents that go to rec: WPUB and audiobooks
12:36:19 <franco> present+ Franco
12:36:19 <bigbluehat> ...they cross reference each other, so they should go to CR together
12:36:25 <bigbluehat> ivan: matt, do you have any thoughts?
12:36:51 <bigbluehat> mattg: feature-wise, we probably have a significant number of items at this point
12:37:00 <tzviya> q+ to point out that we should close major issues before CR
12:37:03 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
12:37:03 <Zakim> Present: dkaplan, bigbluehat, dauwhe, ivan, laudrain, wendyreid, mattg, tzviya, t-cole, Ralph_Swick, George, laurent_, romain, timCole, Rachel, avneesh, JunGamo, david_stroup,
12:37:05 <bigbluehat> ...the concern in my mind is implementation details--as noted in the TAG review
12:37:07 <Zakim> ... CharlesL, Andrea, Franco
12:37:07 <Zakim> On IRC I see CharlesL, Andrea, Rachel, franco, timCole, romain, George, laudrain, RRSAgent, Zakim, laurent_, jgmorse, ivan, marisa, garth, Nellie, wseltzer, david_stroup, dauwhe,
12:37:07 <Zakim> ... Ralph, wendyreid, duga, mattg, Karen, tzviya, geoffjukes, dkaplan3, jeff, JunGamo, toshiakikoike, plinss_, github-bot, bigbluehat, astearns, dmitry, florian[m], Travis,
12:37:07 <Zakim> ... jyasskin
12:37:16 <bigbluehat> ...hammering those details out and getting people who want to implement these things
12:37:20 <ivan> present+ bigbluehat
12:37:23 <bigbluehat> ...we need commitments from implementers
12:37:32 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
12:37:39 <bigbluehat> ivan: there is a "feature at risk" option
12:37:49 <bigbluehat> ...for things we're unsure that this can be implemented or not
12:37:57 <bigbluehat> ...we can formally mark things that way which are of concern
12:38:29 <bigbluehat> ...if for any reasons, we need to make a significant technical change on something not marked as "at risk", we have to essentially start CR over again
12:38:35 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
12:38:47 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: I think mattg already mentioned this, but we need to find commitments to implement
12:39:10 <bigbluehat> ...and I'm curious to find out what things count as implementations
12:39:13 <garth> q?
12:39:19 <bigbluehat> ...if I write a JS-based reader, does that count?
12:39:35 <tzviya> ack tzviya
12:39:35 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to point out that we should close major issues before CR
12:39:37 <bigbluehat> ...maybe if EDR Labs writes a JS-based reader, maybe there's does count?
12:39:38 <George> q+
12:39:47 <ivan> present+ marisa, laudrain, laurent, garth geoffjukes
12:39:48 <ivan> q+
12:39:51 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I'll volunteer to meet with the group to define what counts as an implementation
12:39:57 <bigbluehat> ...and talk to Ralph about that
12:40:02 <bigbluehat> ...we also have a long list of open issues
12:40:09 <bigbluehat> ...and those should be closed
12:40:11 <tzviya> ack George
12:40:26 <bigbluehat> George: without content a web publication would be meaningless
12:40:31 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
12:40:31 <Zakim> Present: dkaplan, bigbluehat, dauwhe, ivan, laudrain, wendyreid, mattg, tzviya, t-cole, Ralph_Swick, George, laurent_, romain, timCole, Rachel, avneesh, JunGamo, david_stroup,
12:40:35 <Zakim> ... CharlesL, Andrea, Franco, marisa, garth, geoffjukes
12:40:35 <Zakim> On IRC I see Avneesh, CharlesL, Andrea, Rachel, franco, timCole, romain, George, laudrain, RRSAgent, Zakim, laurent_, jgmorse, ivan, marisa, garth, Nellie, wseltzer, david_stroup,
12:40:35 <Zakim> ... dauwhe, Ralph, wendyreid, duga, mattg, Karen, tzviya, geoffjukes, dkaplan3, jeff, JunGamo, toshiakikoike, plinss_, github-bot, bigbluehat, astearns, dmitry, florian[m], Travis,
12:40:36 <Zakim> ... jyasskin
12:40:46 <ivan> present+ Nellie, toshiakikoike
12:40:47 <bigbluehat> ...so a specification is meaningless without commitments from content providers
12:40:48 <Avneesh> apresent+
12:40:53 <bigbluehat> ...how do we track that?
12:40:55 <laurent_> q?
12:40:59 <dauwhe> q+
12:41:02 <bigbluehat> ...who's making efforts to bring publications to market
12:41:03 <tzviya> ack ivan
12:41:08 <bigbluehat> ...what's the story there? I'm not clear on that
12:41:11 <romain> present+ Avneesh
12:41:19 <Avneesh> present+
12:41:30 <bigbluehat> ivan: strictly from a process point of view...well my perspective on that process...
12:41:46 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
12:41:50 <bigbluehat> ...the goal of the CR phase is not to demonstrate usage
12:41:58 <bigbluehat> ...but to prove that implementation can be done
12:42:12 <bigbluehat> ...this is partially an answer to dauwhe
12:42:35 <bigbluehat> ...if there is a JS implementation which works somehow as an extension to the browser
12:42:51 <bigbluehat> ...and proves that the document can be implemented
12:43:18 <bigbluehat> ...some of these things become part of communities
12:43:27 <bigbluehat> ...some don't. I did some of this for the OWL spec
12:43:45 <tzviya> q+
12:43:51 <bigbluehat> ...but the goal wasn't to make something for the community, just to prove the document's content can be implemented
12:44:08 <bigbluehat> ...marisa said yesterday that she almost had an implementation
12:44:23 <bigbluehat> ...if it's the only implementation, then its a problem, but it's already a big step toward what is needed
12:44:28 <bigbluehat> ...we do have some example books
12:44:40 <bigbluehat> ...and we need to have examples for each of the terms we use
12:44:43 <bigbluehat> ...to make sure they're useful
12:45:01 <bigbluehat> ...it is not a goal of the CR period to build up these examples, it's only a welcome outcome
12:45:14 <bigbluehat> ...we can put up goals that go beyond what CR requires
12:45:23 <garth> q?
12:45:27 <bigbluehat> ...but we have to be mindful that we are going beyond that
12:45:30 <tzviya> q-
12:45:39 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
12:45:44 <bigbluehat> tzviya: goal here is to get volunteers
12:45:53 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: I volunteer to do samples/examples
12:45:58 <garth> q+
12:46:11 <bigbluehat> ...I can say Hachette is not committing to publish in this format
12:46:13 <bigbluehat> ...it's way to soon
12:46:29 <bigbluehat> ...I get what ivan is saying, but I feel that if that's all we accomplish, that's sad
12:46:36 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we have a rough timeline for WPUB
12:46:47 <bigbluehat> ...but for audiobooks, we have not published a FPWD
12:47:02 <bigbluehat> wendyreid: FPWD is scheduled for 2 weeks from not
12:47:15 <bigbluehat> tzviya: there is additional feedback coming for audiobooks
12:47:25 <tzviya> ack garth
12:47:30 <bigbluehat> ...and hopefully we can get everything to CR on a similar timeline
12:47:48 <bigbluehat> garth: if I was betting on anything right now, I'd expect audiobooks would be the most useful first
12:47:59 <garth> q?
12:48:15 <bigbluehat> ...can testing audiobooks test WPUB since audiobooks is based on WPUB?
12:48:28 <bigbluehat> ivan: each document should have greater than 2 implementations
12:48:44 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
12:48:54 <bigbluehat> ...so audiobooks will use some of the WPUB features, some of those features will be tested by audiobooks
12:49:06 <garth> q?
12:49:09 <bigbluehat> ...but some features are ignored by audiobooks, and those features will not be
12:49:37 <bigbluehat> tzviya: so we have 10 minutes to finalize packaging/distribution document and talking about what other modules we might focus on for things based on WP
12:49:45 <ivan> Topic: packaging specification
12:49:48 <bigbluehat> ...what steps do we need to take to finalize lightweight packaging
12:50:02 <bigbluehat> laurent_: I think we just need one or two sessions
12:50:12 <bigbluehat> ...during a call to finalize the open issues
12:50:29 <bigbluehat> ...from what I heard yesterday, what was the bigger issue--the origin of the package
12:50:48 <bigbluehat> ...that issue is disappearing if we're only distributing it--and not using it on the Web
12:50:55 <bigbluehat> ...if that issue is closed, in a month it could be finalized
12:51:01 <bigbluehat> tzviya: early June?
12:51:06 <bigbluehat> laurent_: the end of June
12:51:23 <ivan> Topic: Other modules
12:51:30 <bigbluehat> tzviya: the next question is what additional modules we'd like to work on
12:52:00 <bigbluehat> ...there are many suggestions for things we might work on
12:52:06 <bigbluehat> ...but no volunteers to make those a reality
12:52:17 <bigbluehat> ...nor clear businesses driving the "we need this to happen in the market"
12:52:26 <bigbluehat> ...now's your chance to express what you're going to build
12:52:33 <bigbluehat> ...archiving would be great
12:52:55 <bigbluehat> jgmorse: so  I have an action item to possibly be included in the WP standard
12:53:13 <bigbluehat> ...I have some stuff sketched out last night
12:53:36 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I'd like to help out, but I'm going to volunteer dkaplan3 because she loves archiving and I like volunteering her for things
12:53:38 <dauwhe> q+
12:53:43 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
12:53:43 <bigbluehat> dkaplan3: I'll be happy to help with archiving jgmorse
12:53:47 <ivan> q+
12:54:14 <tzviya> ack ivan
12:54:25 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: we need to be concerned about timing. If we're kicking off new exploration for things that will be based on these CRs, then there's a very narrow window here...
12:54:30 <bigbluehat> ivan: +1 to what dauwhe just said
12:54:42 <bigbluehat> ...any other module that we look at will not be on a recommendation track
12:55:06 <Rachel> q+
12:55:08 <bigbluehat> ...it may later become a rec-track spec, but not right now
12:55:37 <bigbluehat> tzviya: bigbluehat makes a good point that the Publishing CG is a great place for these things to be explored
12:55:43 <garth> q?
12:55:46 <tzviya> ack Rachel
12:55:52 <bigbluehat> ...and we can begin ideas here in the WG and then figure out if they go to the CG
12:56:09 <bigbluehat> Rachel: I'm not sure what we're looking for here exactly...maybe I'm not the only one?
12:56:35 <bigbluehat> tzviya: when we come to audiobooks, we have something specific--where as WPUB is very general
12:57:22 <bigbluehat> ...there are other areas where these more specific formats will drive needs for the general WPUB
12:57:42 <laurent_> q+
12:57:48 <bigbluehat> ...possibly using Linked Data for scholarly publishing, but don't necessarily get used across all of publishing
12:57:49 <tzviya> ack Ralph
12:57:54 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
12:58:18 <bigbluehat> Ralph: this is making me wonder if declaring feature freeze for WPUB is premature
12:58:36 <bigbluehat> ...perhaps audiobooks can help harden what needs to be in WPUB
12:58:53 <ivan> q+
12:58:56 <bigbluehat> ...I understand why things are timed the way they are
12:59:01 <tzviya> ack laurent_
12:59:16 <bigbluehat> ...but if audiobooks is the only module, then it's perhaps not showing the promise of wpub sufficiently
12:59:47 <bigbluehat> laurent_: if we add more modules, then we may have to add more constraints--such as audiobooks only using audio resources
13:00:37 <bigbluehat> ...will other profiles also come with new limitations? for instance, will scholarly publishing restrict this further
13:00:50 <bigbluehat> ...why isn't Wiley using WPUB now for scholarly
13:00:52 <mattg> q+
13:01:01 <bigbluehat> tzviya: we're using just HTML so far because it's been sufficient
13:01:06 <George> q+
13:01:11 <bigbluehat> ...we could use WPUB, but we don't yet have a need
13:01:20 <Rachel> q+
13:01:26 <tzviya> ack ivan
13:01:39 <bigbluehat> ivan: this question, and also rob's comments
13:01:53 <bigbluehat> ...if we look at the web publication spec...there are 2 major aspects to it
13:02:10 <bigbluehat> ...there is all the metadata structure...the fact that we use JSON-LD, schema.org, some basic building blocks for ToC, etc.
13:02:23 <bigbluehat> ...all these fundamental structures are things audiobooks will need anyway
13:02:31 <bigbluehat> ...any other profile will rely on the same kind of things
13:03:21 <bigbluehat> ...there are many things that go beyond wpub like previews, etc.
13:03:35 <bigbluehat> ...and there is a separate section in wpub that describes what a profile is and what they can do
13:03:52 <bigbluehat> ...that's mostly been about terminology/vocabulary
13:04:13 <bigbluehat> ...we could do this for scholarly, but it also has strict rules about citation
13:04:21 <bigbluehat> ...that may be part of the profile for that
13:04:38 <bigbluehat> ...profiles can also make further restrictions on the format
13:04:46 <bigbluehat> ...like audiobooks can only contain audio files
13:05:17 <bigbluehat> ...so, back to what Ralph said, audiobooks would exercise some of the wpub features
13:05:24 <bigbluehat> ...but would also need its own set of tests
13:06:02 <bigbluehat> ...we need to now look at that profile section and figure out what it requires and what it opens up for changes to the base spec
13:06:18 <bigbluehat> ...doing one for scholarly would follow a similar pattern to audiobooks
13:06:32 <bigbluehat> ...it may introduce changes to reading orders
13:06:36 <mattg> q-
13:06:46 <mattg> q+
13:06:55 <bigbluehat> ...comics world would have something similar if we made a profile for that
13:07:03 <bigbluehat> ...I don't know Rachel if it becomes clearer
13:07:13 <tzviya> ack Rachel
13:08:14 <bigbluehat> Rachel: so these feel a bit like use cases for different business verticals within web pub
13:08:38 <bigbluehat> ...so under that umbrella we have a format and use cases per vertical?
13:08:55 <bigbluehat> ...do they live independently of CR? or do they become part of the WPUB CR?
13:09:01 <bigbluehat> ivan: they live independently
13:09:26 <tzviya> ack George
13:09:27 <bigbluehat> Rachel: shouldn't the first generation of these use cases then come from the business group?
13:09:33 <romain> +1 to Rachel, we need business cases rathern than theoretical specs
13:09:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'll leave that to those chairs
13:10:01 <bigbluehat> George: the DAISY consortium has been doing structured audiobooks for years
13:10:23 <bigbluehat> ...so our request is that these new audiobooks should be able to maintain structure---toc, pagelists, etc.
13:10:46 <bigbluehat> ...they seem possible, but there aren't requirements on ToC, nor requirements on reading apps for using those things
13:11:07 <bigbluehat> ...are these then part of future profile things?
13:11:18 <laurent_> q?
13:11:21 <tzviya> ack mattg
13:11:23 <bigbluehat> ...we don't want to see audiobooks take a step backward to "just a playlist"
13:11:27 <wendyreid> q+
13:11:30 <bigbluehat> ...or this will be rejected by our community
13:11:42 <romain> +1
13:11:44 <tzviya> q+ to respond to george's comments
13:11:52 <bigbluehat> mattg: the web publication is 3 parts now
13:12:02 <bigbluehat> ...audiobooks builds largely on the first part and the third part
13:12:22 <bigbluehat> ...there is a line that gets you from WPUB to audiobooks, but I don't think it's critical
13:12:32 <bigbluehat> ...so it's possible we could just define the manifest format, and then focus on audiobooks
13:12:37 <david_stroup> q+
13:12:41 <bigbluehat> ...since it's not required that audiobooks be a web publication
13:12:46 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
13:13:19 <bigbluehat> wendyreid: serious discussion happening
13:13:37 <Avneesh> q+
13:13:42 <bigbluehat> ...we also have the UCR document we did for the audiobooks spec
13:13:55 <bigbluehat> ...and that UCR document has all those use cases George mentioned
13:14:09 <laurent_> q+
13:14:12 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
13:14:19 <bigbluehat> ...but any implementer that wants to implement audiobooks must reference the UCR
13:14:40 <ivan> ack tzviya
13:14:40 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to george's comments
13:14:41 <bigbluehat> tzviya: much of the feedback we've gotten is that pulling stuff into the UCRs has confused how implementers will happen
13:14:48 <tzviya> ack Ralph
13:14:51 <bigbluehat> ...so, we may be pulling some of this back into the main documents
13:14:59 <bigbluehat> ...we're discussing that in the next session
13:15:16 <bigbluehat> Ralph: differing things into UCRs won't get you interop--which I think was George's concern
13:15:26 <bigbluehat> ...I'm concerned about feature freeze and brand
13:15:54 <bigbluehat> ...maybe think about feature freeze on precisely what is needed for audiobooks
13:16:16 <bigbluehat> ...and that WPUB 1.0 is that foundational framework...and the focus is on it having just what audiobooks need
13:16:18 <tzviya> ack david_stroup
13:16:55 <bigbluehat> david_stroup: I'm still catching up on this WG, but one of the things I'm wrestling with is actually what this all is
13:17:00 <bigbluehat> ...what is the web publication supposed to do
13:17:07 <bigbluehat> ...is it strictly the metadata?
13:17:16 <bigbluehat> ...and then its up to implementers to do all the things George is asking for
13:17:24 <bigbluehat> ...but we don't actually say that they have to
13:17:32 <bigbluehat> ...just here is that information and if you're going to do that, this is where you find it
13:17:57 <bigbluehat> ...so for educational publishing, audio and textual content is very important
13:18:08 <bigbluehat> ...and moving between them is important
13:18:19 <bigbluehat> ...and I keep hearing that audiobooks are more restrictive as a profile
13:18:28 <dkaplan3> q+
13:18:29 <bigbluehat> ...but is it actually any different than an educational profile?
13:18:34 <bigbluehat> ...there seems to be lots of gray area
13:18:45 <wendyreid> ack Avneesh
13:18:56 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: Ralph said much of what I want to say.
13:19:13 <bigbluehat> ...completion of WPUB is important, but I think its good to focus on audiobook
13:19:18 <bigbluehat> ...I see WPUB as a process
13:19:29 <bigbluehat> ...maybe if we'd taken more time to discuss the business cases
13:19:41 <bigbluehat> ...we may not have heard that publishers aren't planning to use it
13:19:53 <bigbluehat> ...perhaps we will recharter along future profiles
13:20:05 <bigbluehat> ...but for now, let's make WPUB a framework, and have a solid specification of audiobooks
13:20:08 <laurent_> q-
13:20:11 <laurent_> q?
13:20:12 <bigbluehat> ...and move on to do all the work following that
13:20:26 <wendyreid> ack dkaplan3
13:20:32 <wendyreid> ack dkaplan
13:20:33 <User2> User2 has joined #pwg
13:20:53 <bigbluehat> dkaplan3: Avneesh did some of this, but the things folks have been saying for the last several minutes boil down to...
13:20:55 <bigbluehat> ...we are finishing WP
13:21:00 <bigbluehat> ...we have a schedule for it
13:21:05 <bigbluehat> ...we also hope to eventually do modules
13:21:11 <bigbluehat> ...some might happen now, some might happen later
13:21:16 <bigbluehat> ...is that what I'm hearing?
13:21:18 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes
13:21:21 <marisa> q+
13:21:28 <wendyreid> ack marisa
13:21:38 <bigbluehat> marisa: what is the difference between a module and a profile
13:21:40 <bigbluehat> q+
13:22:01 <bigbluehat> wendyreid: there isn't one
13:22:07 <bigbluehat> George: do these go through CR?
13:22:19 <bigbluehat> ivan: no. the audiobook is the only one going through CR because it's happening now
13:22:30 <bigbluehat> ...maybe in the future we do them
13:22:45 <garth> q?
13:22:48 <garth> q+
13:22:51 <bigbluehat> ...but as of right now, any other profile is just informative
13:22:51 <duga> scribenick: duga
13:23:12 <duga> bigbluehat: The profile and module term is most confusing because it isn't really profiling
13:23:25 <duga> ... unless we distill it down to just a manifest structure
13:23:38 <duga> ... because we throw a lot of that out in audiobooks
13:23:58 <duga> ... audiobooks are a different animal that also uses the manifest
13:24:01 <wendyreid> ack bigbluehat
13:24:06 <duga> ... it's not really a profile, it is a fork
13:24:17 <laudrain> q+
13:24:21 <duga> ... we could just ship audiobooks and not use wpub
13:24:36 <duga> ... don't need discovery, entry page, etc
13:24:57 <duga> wendyreid: You might want to read the audiobook spec
13:25:11 <duga> ... we kept a lot of that stuff, and it is not optional
13:25:17 <ivan> q+
13:25:26 <duga> ... we think there will be audiobooks on the web some day
13:25:29 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
13:25:34 <wendyreid> ack garth
13:25:41 <bigbluehat> garth: I wanted to get back to dkaplan3's summary
13:25:47 <ivan> q-
13:25:59 <bigbluehat> ...it may be at odds with what Avneesh and George said before
13:26:20 <bigbluehat> ...if we took Avneesh and George's approach, then we would ship more of these and keep WPUB alive somehow
13:26:31 <bigbluehat> ...but that's different than what dkaplan3 said
13:26:46 <bigbluehat> ...I'm not sure I have a strong opinion about either route, but maybe now's the time we pick one
13:26:51 <wendyreid> ack laudrain
13:26:59 <bigbluehat> wendyreid: laudrain is here, and he's chair of the business group
13:27:07 <bigbluehat> laudrain: we have a chance with audiobooks
13:27:15 <bigbluehat> ...something that will be implemented and will be sued
13:27:22 <bigbluehat> s/sued/used
13:27:47 <bigbluehat> ...this the chance we have to create something that may be real for the business
13:27:52 <ivan> q+
13:28:07 <dkaplan3> q+
13:28:18 <bigbluehat> ...then it will build confidence in this foundational spec
13:28:25 <bigbluehat> ...and then begin to consider future profiles
13:28:33 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:28:35 <bigbluehat> ...so I think we should focus primarily on audiobooks
13:29:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: the audiobooks on the Web conversation frustrates me
13:29:23 <bigbluehat> ...the whole procedure by which you get to the manifest which could be in the HTML file
13:29:25 <George> q+
13:29:28 <bigbluehat> ...or at least linked from that HTML file
13:29:39 <bigbluehat> ...you essentially unpack the zip file and start that process
13:30:00 <bigbluehat> ...the reading order content is restricted to audio files
13:30:12 <bigbluehat> ...the ToC may be included and is in HTML
13:30:25 <bigbluehat> ...but it may be streamed or whatever
13:30:48 <wendyreid> ack dkaplan
13:31:11 <bigbluehat> ...it's blatantly incorrect to say audiobooks are not related to WPUB
13:31:28 <bigbluehat> dkaplan3: what is our actual plan for how we ship these?
13:31:34 <bigbluehat> ...I have opinions on that
13:31:45 <bigbluehat> ...but I'm more concerned that we're not driving this to a resolution
13:31:54 <bigbluehat> ...I thought WPUB was just shipping as the foundational underlying structure
13:32:08 <bigbluehat> ...which is easier to bootstrap into systems
13:32:22 <bigbluehat> ...but I'm now concerned that's in question wrt to its relationship with audiobooks
13:32:29 <timCole> q+
13:32:33 <wendyreid> ack George
13:32:50 <bigbluehat> George: tell me where our accessibility checker fits in this
13:33:07 <bigbluehat> ...I'm going to talk about scholarly publishing and audiobooks
13:33:18 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
13:33:37 <bigbluehat> ...it would be great to know that audiobooks can come with some amount of a11y features expressed in the metadata
13:33:50 <geoffjukes> q+
13:33:51 <bigbluehat> ...same would be true for scholarly publishing. does this conform to WCAG AA, etc.
13:34:04 <bigbluehat> ...I want to be able to have a11y conformance and discover those features
13:34:06 <bigbluehat> ...is that a module?
13:34:22 <bigbluehat> ...or is this an a11y checker we write that applies to WPUB and everything based on it?
13:34:28 <ivan> q+
13:34:35 <ivan> q-
13:34:35 <bigbluehat> ...we have this in the publishing industry now, and I don't want this to take a step backwards
13:34:57 <bigbluehat> tzviya: I believe that right now the answer is going to depend on whether a publication is one file or multiple files
13:35:18 <bigbluehat> ...if you have a single file, then we have things like AXE which work on single HTML files and we'r egood
13:35:37 <romain> s/AXE/Axe/
13:35:40 <wendyreid> zakim, close the queue
13:35:40 <Zakim> ok, wendyreid, the speaker queue is closed
13:35:42 <bigbluehat> ...if we're working on multiple files, then we'll have to adapt it to use the WP ToC document and then all the other multiple documents
13:36:01 <bigbluehat> ...we want to change as little in the modules as possible
13:36:11 <bigbluehat> ...so the ToC is the same in WPUB and in audiobooks
13:36:20 <bigbluehat> ...the only difference you would have to make right now
13:36:26 <romain> q?
13:36:36 <bigbluehat> ...is that it goes across multiple object modules
13:36:45 <wendyreid> ack timCole
13:36:53 <bigbluehat> ...fundamental question, though, is whether we're keeping WPUB open or closing it
13:37:09 <bigbluehat> timCole: the audiobook seems to have support to go to CR on the current schedule
13:37:16 <bigbluehat> ...WPUB doesn't seem ready in that timeline
13:37:25 <bigbluehat> ...education, for instance, would need changes to the WPUB foundation
13:37:38 <geoffjukes> q-
13:37:39 <bigbluehat> ...so WPUB seems to need more work to support these future modules
13:38:03 <bigbluehat> ...perhaps we say, here's audiobooks, it uses a foundation which we hope to use in other future profiles
13:38:15 <bigbluehat> ...and as we do future modules, those modules shouldn't break audiobooks
13:38:25 <bigbluehat> ...so there's a commitment to the WPUB core framework
13:38:39 <bigbluehat> ...but it leaves it open for growth and change
13:38:45 <bigbluehat> ...but if we take WPUB to CR, we won't have that option
13:38:49 <bigbluehat> ...when we explore future profiles
13:39:02 <bigbluehat> ack geoffjukes
13:39:31 <bigbluehat> geoffjukes: this is a bit off topic, but kind of to address George
13:39:44 <bigbluehat> ...at Blackstone, we have audiobooks, and a separate DAISY product
13:39:59 <ivan> q+
13:40:01 <bigbluehat> ...if we can maintain that separation, then I feel adoption will  be more likely
13:40:15 <bigbluehat> ...and we could up-sell folks to the DAISY one
13:40:24 <bigbluehat> ...and this notion of being modular becomes very appealing
13:40:33 <bigbluehat> ...we can then sell the media-sync layer
13:40:44 <bigbluehat> ...which can be plugged into the product without having to sell or distribute a separate thing
13:40:57 <bigbluehat> ...this kind of thing could be really appealing to the business
13:41:13 <bigbluehat> tzviya: so a lot of publications have an "extensibility mechanism"
13:41:18 <bigbluehat> ...maybe that's all we need?
13:41:41 <bigbluehat> ...at least if its defined well enough?
13:41:51 <bigbluehat> ivan: that's section 3
13:42:01 <bigbluehat> ...but in this side conversation I've been having with mattg
13:42:14 <bigbluehat> ...it may be that we have to chop the document into separate docs--which I've been trying to avoid
13:42:21 <bigbluehat> ...we have a general metadata structure
13:42:37 <bigbluehat> ...we have a set of metadata items
13:42:51 <bigbluehat> ...there are disagreements among the editors whether accessing the manifest is fundamental or not
13:43:07 <bigbluehat> ...to make the whole transition process possible, we may have to make some of these separate
13:43:14 <bigbluehat> ...to make the core possible to go to rec-track
13:43:19 <bigbluehat> ...and see how things evolve later
13:43:29 <bigbluehat> ...I don't think we can come up with a real plan right now
13:43:37 <bigbluehat> ...but that may be a possible avenue
13:43:43 <George> q+
13:43:47 <garth> q?
13:44:03 <bigbluehat> ack George
13:44:36 <bigbluehat> George: I think modules and profiles are actually different
13:44:43 <bigbluehat> ...if you have your core, then ever profile must conform to that
13:44:52 <bigbluehat> ...but then there are modules that can be added to create a profile
13:45:06 <bigbluehat> ...if we create a module that does a11y reporting, then that could be added to the scholarly profile
13:45:12 <mattg> q+
13:45:21 <bigbluehat> ...or to the audiobook profile
13:45:40 <wendyreid> zakim, open the queue
13:45:40 <Zakim> ok, wendyreid, the speaker queue is open
13:46:17 <bigbluehat> ...video is not a thing in every publication, but if there were a video module, then perhaps that could go into educational publishing, etc.
13:46:24 <dkaplan3> q+
13:46:38 <bigbluehat> mattg: is it important to delay WPUB because we're concerned about future modules?
13:46:47 <bigbluehat> ...other things may offer other features
13:46:49 <Avneesh> q+
13:47:07 <bigbluehat> ...is it an overabundance of caution that causes this concern about taking WPUB to rec?
13:47:23 <bigbluehat> ...or could we move WPUB and audiobooks forward together as originally planned
13:48:24 <bigbluehat> wendyreid: modules is not a real thing
13:48:41 <bigbluehat> ...we're not currently structured that way, and unlikely to be
13:48:52 <ivan> q+
13:48:56 <bigbluehat> ...so do we proceed to CR on both? or just audiobooks?
13:49:04 <laurent_> q+
13:49:08 <dauwhe> q+
13:49:09 <bigbluehat> ...and leave WP open and add stuff to it as we go forward
13:49:11 <marisa> q+
13:49:26 <bigbluehat> ...that is still  the decision we need to make
13:49:31 <wendyreid> ack dkaplan
13:49:37 <bigbluehat> dkaplan3: so I agree completely that's the decision to make
13:49:57 <bigbluehat> ...but my opinion is that there are no blockers to this choice
13:50:05 <bigbluehat> ...there is a revision mechanism in the W3C
13:50:09 <bigbluehat> ...we can use that
13:50:20 <wendyreid> ack Avneesh
13:50:38 <bigbluehat> Avneesh: I don't think we still understand the situation. we've been discussing this for about 2 years
13:50:51 <bigbluehat> ...what is the business requirement?
13:50:57 <bigbluehat> ...the charter says we have to publish WPUB
13:51:08 <bigbluehat> ...so we should go through that and plan for potential changes in the future
13:51:22 <bigbluehat> ...maybe just one call more to find things to soften
13:51:29 <wendyreid> ack Ralph
13:51:34 <bigbluehat> ...which could allow audiobooks to move forward to CR
13:51:51 <bigbluehat> Ralph: so I probably contributed to the bi-annual existential crisis talk this morning
13:51:59 <bigbluehat> ...are we going to be able to test everything in WPUB?
13:52:16 <bigbluehat> ...the art here, will be saying "WPUB is the foundation for all these things"
13:52:30 <bigbluehat> ...the first thing based on this framework is audiobooks
13:52:38 <bigbluehat> ...so testing audiobooks, should test parts of WPUB
13:52:51 <bigbluehat> ...one technique that could be used is marking only certain things as normative
13:52:59 <bigbluehat> ...and leaving undecided things informative
13:53:03 <bigbluehat> ...which could be made normative later
13:53:14 <bigbluehat> ...so, normative bits are the things audiobooks require
13:53:18 <garth> q?
13:53:20 <wendyreid> ack ivan
13:53:22 <tzviya> +1 to Ralph
13:53:23 <bigbluehat> ...and anything we're not wanting to test right now become informative
13:53:26 <wendyreid> +1 ralph
13:53:44 <CharlesL> +1 to Ralph, which also means we could go to CR for both WPUB & AudioPub
13:53:51 <bigbluehat> ivan: the only comment I had was to what wendyreid said, is that we cannot publish the audiobook by itself
13:54:01 <bigbluehat> ...because it must have normative references to wpub
13:54:14 <bigbluehat> ...so we'd at the very least have to copy/paste much of wpub into audiobooks
13:54:18 <wendyreid> ack laurent_
13:54:34 <bigbluehat> laurent_: one question first...when?
13:54:40 <bigbluehat> ...starting septemberish?
13:54:48 <bigbluehat> ...what are the foundational conditions for that?
13:54:58 <bigbluehat> ...one key issue is open since a year about alternative renditions
13:55:09 <garth> q?
13:55:14 <bigbluehat> ...we can't freeze functionalities until we have at least closed that
13:55:16 <garth> q+
13:55:26 <bigbluehat> ...if we speak about web publications at large, things for ebooks, not audiobooks
13:55:33 <bigbluehat> ...one thing never discussed was fixed layout
13:55:52 <bigbluehat> ...many publishers will never use web publications if they don't do fixed layout
13:56:14 <ivan> q+
13:56:18 <bigbluehat> ...so, do we hope to leave that open to being discussed?
13:56:25 <bigbluehat> ...and other things that have never been discussed?
13:56:28 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
13:56:30 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
13:56:31 <garth> ack dauwhe
13:56:43 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: CSS actually has `position: absolute`
13:56:55 <bigbluehat> ...which does make fixed layout possible
13:57:00 <bigbluehat> ...we should not be afraid of CR
13:57:13 <david_stroup> +1 to move forward with WP and revise as needed
13:57:19 <dkaplan3> dauwhe +a gazillion
13:57:21 <bigbluehat> ...the most valuable thing we can get right now is finding out how these work out in reality
13:57:28 <tzviya> dauwhe++
13:58:00 <bigbluehat> marisa: so I like the idea of a web pub as a framework
13:58:07 <bigbluehat> ...one is a book
13:58:37 <ivan> q?
13:58:41 <wendyreid> ack
13:58:43 <ivan> ack marisa
13:58:43 <bigbluehat> ...so by using one or more modules, you end up with a profile
13:58:48 <bigbluehat> ...that seems very clean and also extensible
13:58:57 <wendyreid> ack garth
13:59:08 <bigbluehat> garth: there was something very strange that happened way back
13:59:12 <garth> PROPOSAL: Take WPub to  CR, with normative content for anything that’s required by Audiobooks.  Take Audiobooks to CR.
13:59:18 <bigbluehat> ...Ralph made a proposal which got some +1's
13:59:34 <bigbluehat> ...this proposal (reworded by me) seems like what Ralph said, and I think we can +1 that for real
13:59:41 <bigbluehat> ...Ralph is nodding
13:59:48 <tzviya> +1
13:59:50 <CharlesL> +1
13:59:52 <romain> 0
13:59:53 <garth> +1
13:59:53 <wendyreid> +1
13:59:54 <ivan> +1
13:59:55 <bigbluehat> +1
13:59:57 <dkaplan3> +1
14:00:08 <timCole> +1
14:00:11 <romain> q+
14:00:24 <david_stroup> +1
14:00:30 <jgmorse> +1
14:00:44 <garth> (portions of WPub that are not required by audiobooks are informative in first CR version)
14:00:44 <Nellie> +1
14:00:56 <laudrain> +1
14:01:24 <garth> q?
14:01:34 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:01:59 <bigbluehat> ivan: sometime around TPAC...we'll have to have a separate existential conversation
14:02:01 <bigbluehat> ...but we're good at these
14:02:11 <bigbluehat> ...the question is, what do we do after next June?
14:02:15 <wendyreid> ack romain
14:02:28 <bigbluehat> romain: if WPUB 1.0 is only used normatively for audiobooks
14:02:35 <bigbluehat> ...we say we shouldn't be afraid of 2.0
14:02:58 <bigbluehat> ...but if 1.0 is only used for audiobooks, why not just ship a single audiobooks
14:03:03 <bigbluehat> spec
14:03:07 <bigbluehat> ...spec
14:03:19 <bigbluehat> ...what is a web publication if it's only used for audiobooks?
14:03:28 <dauwhe> +1 to romain
14:03:40 <bigbluehat> ...so why not just postpone it to 2.0?
14:03:56 <bigbluehat> Ralph: I think it's just a statement of timing, and that the door is staying open to future uses
14:04:18 <bigbluehat> ivan: besides the scary editorial issues, I fear other profiles (like comics) won't look at it
14:04:32 <bigbluehat> ...so we'd go back to what we have today later?
14:04:34 <bigbluehat> romain: yes
14:04:38 <dkaplan3> ivan +1
14:04:49 <bigbluehat> ivan: my instinct is that this would cause more harm than good
14:05:24 <Ralph> s/future uses/future uses that the group has explicitly deferred
14:05:27 <ivan> resolved: Take WPub to  CR, with normative content for anything that’s required by Audiobooks.  Take Audiobooks to CR.
14:05:31 <danielweck> danielweck has joined #pwg
14:06:02 <garth> resolved: (portions of WPub that are not required by audiobooks are informative in first CR version)
14:14:23 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
14:18:30 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
14:20:09 <josh> josh has joined #pwg
14:26:06 <Karen> Karen has joined #pwg
14:26:09 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
14:28:50 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
14:30:33 <josh> present+
14:30:42 <josh> q?
14:35:50 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
14:36:09 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
14:37:20 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
14:38:18 <ivan> Topic: finalizing the UCR document
14:38:40 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
14:39:04 <ivan> scribenick: garth
14:39:26 <garth> Wendy: Over to Franco…
14:39:36 <garth> Franco: Reading over TAG review.
14:39:36 <jgmorse> jgmorse has joined #pwg
14:40:15 <franco> https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#r_protection
14:40:31 <franco> Req. 17: A Web Publication should be able to express the access control and write protections of the publication.
14:40:40 <garth> … Req #17: WP should be able to express rights & access info.
14:40:57 <laurent_> laurent_ has joined #pwg
14:41:13 <garth> … What if lose permission?  Warnings?
14:41:48 <ivan> present+ CharlesL, danielweck
14:41:56 <franco> Req. 5: All constituent resources, and their contents, should be identified by either a URL or a unique handle that can be mapped to a URL.
14:42:02 <dauwhe> q+
14:42:14 <tzviya> TAG review of audiobooks: https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/417
14:42:32 <garth> … Conern: how does this interact with Web Security model — require origin.
14:42:43 <ivan> -> requirement 5: https://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-ucr/#r_identify-const-resources
14:42:44 <laudrain> q+
14:42:51 <ivan> github-bot, bye
14:42:51 <github-bot> github-bot has left #pwg
14:43:01 <garth> … Need to clear up TAG-review related issues.
14:43:10 <garth> … What items need to come through from WP?
14:43:14 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
14:43:38 <garth> Dave: Req #17 is DRM not far in disguise.
14:43:51 <garth> … Out of scope for WG, but perhaps in scope for BG.
14:43:55 <garth> … Remove #17?
14:44:03 <garth> Luc: Agree with dave.
14:44:14 <wendyreid> ack laudrain
14:44:18 <garth> … Perhaps BG or out-of-scope.
14:44:25 <garth> … Library lending systems.
14:44:51 <garth> … Agree, expunge.
14:45:23 <franco> UC 69: A library may loan the publication for two weeks or a university may make a textbook available for its students for the course of the year. A Web Publication should provide a means to inform user agents about the availability period to enable the UA to control access accordingly.
14:45:45 <garth> Franco: Yes, DRM in disguise.  Okay to remove.
14:45:57 <laudrain> q+
14:46:04 <wendyreid> ack laudrain
14:46:33 <garth> Luc: Link to privacy policy.  That might be fine, but DRM is not WP stuff.
14:46:47 <tzviya> UCR: https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp-ucr/
14:47:04 <garth> Ralph: Should just document this as “out-of-scope”, rather than just expunge.
14:47:14 <garth> s/Raiph/Ralph/
14:47:54 <danielweck> present+
14:48:08 <garth> Geroge: Some purchasing meachnism would control access to the WP (even though that detail is out of scope).
14:48:14 <wendyreid> ack Ralph
14:48:41 <tzviya> "All constituent resources, and their contents, should be identified by either a URL or a unique handle that can be mapped to a URL."
14:48:42 <Rachel> s/Geroge/George
14:48:47 <franco> Req. 5: All constituent resources, and their contents, should be identified by either a URL or a unique handle that can be mapped to a URL.
14:49:00 <dauwhe> q+
14:49:12 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/TR/pwp-ucr/#r_identify-const-resources
14:49:19 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
14:49:58 <garth> Dave: WP resources mapped to URL — how does that fit with Web security & origin?
14:50:25 <laudrain> q+
14:50:32 <garth> … Addressed on the Web today, but get more complicated with multiple layers (e.g., cloud reader).
14:50:54 <wendyreid> ack lau
14:50:57 <garth> … problem needs more explination.
14:51:05 <franco> UC 18: Judit uses an annotation tool to comment on a publication authored by Pablo. She puts an annotation against a sentence in a particular paragraph, anchoring that annotation to the sentence using a reliable way of identifying it. That identification should not be invalidated by a subsequent change of the document by Pablo (unless he, e.g., removes that sentence).
14:51:08 <Rachel> q+
14:51:19 <garth> Luc: UC #18 — annotations — solved by Web Annotations?  But not adopted.
14:51:34 <garth> … hopefully possible in the futrue.
14:51:40 <wendyreid> ack Rachel
14:52:04 <garth> Rachel: Is UC #17 a response to the CFI issues with EPUB for Edu?
14:52:37 <garth> Tzviya: maybe
14:52:59 <garth> … a UC can still exist if a solution exists.
14:53:02 <ivan> q+
14:53:13 <wendyreid> ack ivan
14:53:16 <garth> Franco: should said solution be included in the UC?
14:54:09 <garth> Ivan: “a uniqque handle that can be mapped to a URL” — those UC’s don’t seem to map to that.
14:54:09 <dauwhe> q+
14:54:48 <garth> … Perhaps just say “URL” rather than unique handle.
14:55:04 <garth> s/uniqque/unique/
14:55:15 <George> 5I agree with Ivan and the DOI resolves to a URL, which preserves the security.
14:55:23 <wendyreid> ack dau
14:55:34 <garth> s/5//
14:56:06 <ivan> s/uniqque/unique/
14:56:10 <garth> Wendy: should implementations that we’re lookig to achieve be in the UCR doc?
14:56:30 <garth> Tzviya: Spec needs to have implementation clairty.
14:57:06 <garth> … How will be make implementation detais clear?
14:57:17 <garth> … Need to make things clear for UAs.
14:57:44 <dauwhe> q+
14:57:49 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
14:57:52 <garth> … What goes where (UCR, Spec) for implemention details?
14:58:27 <timCole> q+
14:58:34 <garth> Dave: Confusion around UC doc — perhaps a gap analysis?  What’s normal Web stuff?
14:58:46 <ivan> +1 to dave
14:59:01 <garth> … many UC are satisfied by Web stuff.
14:59:03 <tzviya> ack timCole
14:59:32 <garth> Tim: UCR references the Spec — easy to get lost.  Some examples, perhaps?
14:59:52 <ivan> q+
14:59:58 <Ralph> +1 to citing where a use case may already have been addressed by other web technology
15:00:06 <garth> … Challening thing to do.
15:00:06 <wendyreid> ack ivan
15:00:13 <franco> q+
15:00:22 <garth> Ivan: Ivan loves Dave’s (gap analysis) idea.
15:00:35 <wendyreid> ack franco
15:00:36 <garth> … avoid perception we’re reinventing the Web.
15:01:10 <garth> Franco: Address this explicitly in the UCR document?
15:01:20 <garth> Ivan: A table might be good.
15:02:03 <garth> Wendy: AI for gap analysis?  Franco and Josh likely best?
15:02:15 <George> q+
15:02:16 <ivan> action: franco to produce a gap analysis of the ucr items vs. existing web concepts
15:02:30 <tzviya> ack George
15:02:53 <garth> George: If an example exists in, say, EPUB, should we just point to that as an example?
15:03:18 <garth> Tzviya: perhaps.   Real world is good, but not the same as the Web.
15:03:56 <garth> … EPUB is closed ecosystem, needs to be adapted to Web.
15:04:28 <laudrain> q+
15:04:35 <CharlesL> Nice to have an example to be guided by even if its not specifically based on the web.
15:04:42 <tzviya> ack laudrain
15:04:44 <garth> … What does an implementor do?  We’ve pointed to UCR.  Butk folks seem to want one document.
15:04:53 <garth> Luc: Good question from George.
15:05:24 <garth> … EPUB is about Publications.  Gap analysis should also include EPUB 3.
15:05:52 <garth> … BG should review UCR document.  Will be a BG AI.
15:06:57 <garth> Luc: documents what exists and is practically useful.
15:07:09 <garth> … What’s solved in EPUB 3 is relevant.
15:07:35 <garth> Tzviya: how do we doucument implementastion guidelines.
15:07:50 <garth> … RS Conformance from the EPUB days!
15:07:55 <tzviya> ack romain
15:07:58 <tzviya> ack Ralph
15:08:47 <garth> Ralph: Heard reference to normative guidance to implementors to be found in UCR document — that doesn’t seem wise.
15:09:31 <ivan> q+
15:09:49 <marisa> q+
15:09:53 <garth> … UC #24 — listening to audiobook, would like to see  chapter info — that’s really advice to implementrors.  Link back to metadata needed to address UC
15:09:57 <garth> … (in Spec).
15:10:10 <tzviya> ack ivan
15:10:28 <garth> … should where in Web suite where what’s required to implement UC’s can be found.
15:10:39 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/
15:11:21 <garth> Ivan: Similarity to annotation model document — describes a vocabulary, not how a UA behaves.
15:11:27 <garth> … Like us.
15:12:02 <garth> … For each metadata item, shows small UC that uses it.
15:12:18 <garth> … Examples are good.
15:12:56 <tzviya> ack marisa
15:13:30 <garth> Marisa: Another great informative resource would be code snippets.
15:13:30 <dkaplan3> q+
15:13:44 <tzviya> ack dkaplan
15:13:46 <garth> … Copy and paste is (generally) good.
15:13:47 <dauwhe> q+
15:14:47 <garth> dkaplan3: Some UC’s will create implentation advice for AT’s.
15:14:59 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
15:15:49 <garth> Dave: What kind of code samples?  Browser folks in C++, or polyfill folks in JS?
15:16:03 <George> q+
15:16:37 <franco> q+
15:16:47 <tzviya> ack George
15:16:49 <garth> Tzviya: UC’s to identify Specs they are served by… and code samples are good too.
15:18:15 <garth> Geroge: If we’re providing implementation guidance — we have problems across bounds (multiple reading order items).
15:18:42 <garth> … Should these two approachs to the search problem be included?
15:18:43 <CharlesL> Lazy Indexing or Background Indexing is other options as well.
15:19:21 <garth> … is that obvious or should such be included in implementation guidance.
15:19:40 <tzviya> ack franco
15:20:36 <garth> Franco: We’ve been encountering problems with varried audiences.  Browser would or otherwise?
15:21:05 <garth> … Code samples are another possible mismatch with multiple audiences.
15:21:32 <dkaplan3> q+
15:21:42 <garth> Tzviya: A10L crisis #2.
15:21:51 <dauwhe> q?
15:21:56 <dkaplan3> q-
15:22:08 <tzviya> ack Ralph
15:22:29 <garth> Ralph: UCR’s are generally advice to  WG or spec developers… not implementors.
15:23:02 <garth> … What have we failed to provide?  Don’t need to fill each gap.
15:23:06 <mattg> q+
15:23:28 <josh> q+
15:23:32 <garth> … “We’ve design section 4.3.x to meet this UC.”
15:23:37 <dkaplan3> q+
15:23:41 <dauwhe> q+
15:23:45 <garth> …  Better as advice to “us.”
15:24:12 <garth> s/A10L/E10L/
15:24:22 <tzviya> ack mattg
15:25:04 <garth> Matt: Data-driven specification — in EPUB we merged UC’s into Spec — perhaps successful, perhaps not.
15:25:39 <tzviya> ack josh
15:25:46 <garth> … Deal with what implementors want, and avoid to many layers.
15:26:37 <garth> Josh: Code snippets are good.  UCR is (should be?) a business documents.  Code shouldn’t be there; they should be in Sepc, if anywhere.
15:26:38 <laudrain> +1 to josh
15:26:41 <tzviya> ack dkaplan
15:27:08 <garth> dkaplan3: No religion about where advice to implementors lands, but needs to be somewhere.
15:27:46 <garth> … E.g., handling of cover art — flowchart, alt-text, et al.
15:27:47 <ivan> q+
15:28:04 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
15:28:07 <garth> … Needs to exist somewhere clearly — deal breaker not to do so.
15:28:43 <garth> Dave: Guidance for implementors… but who are the implementors?
15:29:00 <garth> … Likely not native browser support.
15:29:23 <garth> … Perhaps a WP library to import in folk’s own projects.
15:29:25 <dkaplan3> s/flowchart, alt-text, et al./implementors need a clear instruction flow of "if you want a cover in this view, get it from here, get the alt-text from there"/
15:30:36 <tzviya> ack ivan
15:30:36 <garth> … using just JS and existing APIs.  Really a RS script.  Kinda like Mathjax for WP.
15:31:06 <garth> Ivan: Setting up unattainable goals for this WG?
15:31:28 <garth> … There should be an implementation guidline document.
15:31:49 <josh> q+
15:32:14 <Andrea> Andrea has joined #pwg
15:32:21 <garth> … What we expect an implementtion should pick up this metadata and bounded content and present it as a uniform whole.
15:32:33 <dkaplan3> q+
15:32:45 <garth> … Regardless of native browser or Polyfill (as implementation).
15:33:08 <garth> … We expect XX,  YY features to existing based upon available data.
15:33:15 <tzviya> ack josh
15:33:47 <garth> Josh: It’s sad if we think browsers won’t natively implement this.
15:34:09 <garth> … Browsers what our content.
15:34:14 <tzviya> s/what/want
15:34:32 <garth> … If the content comes, Browsers will play.
15:34:37 <bigbluehat> q+
15:35:01 <garth> … Josh remains hopeful.
15:35:05 <CharlesL> +1 I agree :)
15:35:06 <laudrain> +1 to Josh, again
15:35:35 <tzviya> ack dkaplan
15:35:45 <garth> Tzviya: need to come up with UCR action items…and how to proceed with implementation guidlines.
15:36:55 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
15:36:56 <garth> dkaplan3: Not sure who are we writing implementation requirements for — we should say things like the information about a cover or its alt-text should come from here (specifically).
15:37:35 <garth> bigbluehat: If we build it, they will come — no they won’t — hasn’t proven true with the semantic web.
15:37:44 <garth> … build as web apps first.
15:37:57 <garth> q?
15:38:17 <garth> Tzviya: dkaplan3 had good exmaples — covers.
15:38:38 <garth> … Best pracatices, not UCR.
15:38:56 <jeff_> jeff_ has joined #pwg
15:39:21 <ivan> s/pracatices/practices/
15:39:24 <laurent_> q?
15:39:25 <franco> q+
15:39:30 <tzviya> ack franco
15:39:40 <garth> … Are we beating a dead horse?  All else goes into Implementation Guidlines?
15:40:12 <dkaplan3> s/Not sure who are we writing implementation requirements for — we should say things like the information about a cover or its alt-text should come from here (specifically)./"Implementation" needs to be defined. Not "write this code" but "covers come from X. navigation comes from Y. alt text comes from Z. Remember WCAG applies to A, B, and C."
15:40:47 <ivan> q+
15:40:49 <garth> Franco: A few more things need to get done.  UA display info and WP authoring info.  That’s the current state.
15:40:54 <tzviya> ack ivan
15:41:39 <garth> Ivan: A higher level implementastion vision should be a different document (or even Wiki page).  Maybe not long.
15:41:49 <franco> q+
15:41:53 <josh> q+
15:42:00 <tzviya> ack franco
15:42:37 <garth> Franco: should that be informed by testing task force?
15:42:45 <ivan> ack franco
15:42:45 <tzviya> ack josh
15:42:48 <garth> Tzviya: different animals.
15:43:25 <jeff__> jeff__ has joined #pwg
15:43:46 <garth> Josh: I don’t think we should merge branch that puts technical implementation details into UCR.  It should instead be start of
15:43:51 <garth> … implementation document.
15:44:15 <garth> Tzviya: Looks like we’re wrapping up UCR document for publication soon.
15:44:42 <garth> … Implementation best practices effort to start — Matt & Tzviya.
15:45:18 <david_stroup> q+
15:45:19 <garth> George: Not really best practices, really implementation vission.
15:45:44 <garth> … How our bounded content should work.
15:45:51 <tzviya> ack david_stroup
15:46:08 <garth> david_stroup:  Is the UCR document a living document?
15:46:14 <garth> … as impacted by profiles?
15:46:14 <franco> q+
15:46:23 <tzviya> ack franco
15:47:20 <garth> Franco: UCR tries to be generic as possible, not specific to profiles — but may well become more specific over time (with more profiles).
15:47:49 <garth> Tzviya: The UCR is a note, so can be repubished as frequently as desired.
15:47:53 <garth> … “final for now"
15:48:24 <garth> … Gap analysis still TBD and may have some impact.
15:48:58 <tzviya> q?
15:49:10 <garth> Ivan: Automatic publishing not set up for Notes, so a bit of a pain.  But, can still get done.
15:49:27 <garth> Tzviya: UCR document — the whole thing is informative.
15:53:49 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwg
16:08:11 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
16:13:35 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
16:18:45 <romain_> romain_ has joined #pwg
16:24:19 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
16:33:43 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
16:47:37 <JunGamo> JunGamo has joined #pwg
16:53:24 <laudrain> laudrain has joined #pwg
16:55:45 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
16:57:45 <ivan> ivan has joined #pwg
16:57:50 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
17:00:35 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-minutes.html ivan
17:01:15 <ivan> Topic: Addressibility
17:01:24 <garth> scribenic: George
17:01:28 <romain_> romain_ has joined #pwg
17:01:38 <ivan> scribenick: George
17:01:44 <George> Scribing George
17:01:49 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
17:02:04 <George> Tim: Addressibility
17:02:21 <Avneesh> Avneesh has joined #pwg
17:02:29 <George> First, sections in editors draft
17:02:32 <timCole> https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#address
17:02:59 <Nellie> Nellie has joined #pwg
17:03:03 <timCole> https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#canonical-identifier
17:03:11 <timCole> https://w3c.github.io/wpub/#dfn-primary-entry-page
17:03:21 <George> Address, identifier, andprimary entry page,
17:03:50 <duga> duga has joined #pwg
17:04:07 <George> We do not have the actions quite right, wo there is work to do.
17:04:31 <George> Reading from the definition.
17:05:30 <garth> q?
17:05:35 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
17:06:27 <timCole> https://schema.org/identifier
17:06:31 <George> We need to discuss the use of schema.org as an identifer
17:06:55 <tzviya> s/as an//
17:07:11 <timCole> http://id.loc.gov/ontologies/bibframe.html#c_Identifier
17:07:27 <laurent> laurent has joined #pwg
17:07:49 <ivan> scribenick: franco
17:08:09 <franco> tim: schema.org has property value
17:08:40 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwg
17:08:56 <franco> ... issue about hte identifier as a schema identifier that we're using here. example 49 uses key id. i dont think we've talked about putting that in context
17:09:01 <franco> ... its not the same add ID
17:09:10 <tzviya> s/add ID/@id
17:09:28 <franco> ... we can have id to current key or identifier to both canonical identifier and for other types potentially that dont use property value, like DOIs
17:09:58 <franco> ... 2 more issues: talked yesterday that one of the current concerns about the light weight packaging format which is the base issue. another potential issue:
17:10:16 <franco> ... should it be possible to add a doi to a lwp
17:10:31 <franco> ... addressibility of components and spans and components within a wp, particularly multi part wp
17:10:52 <franco> ... for example: audiobooks, previews, identifiying spans
17:11:34 <franco> ...  a lot of other useful specs out there ( css selectors, shadow dom, eg) . we may not need as much of the web anno as we thought
17:12:18 <franco> ... basic question: what other specs to reference? what do we need to invent with regard to addressibility
17:13:03 <bigbluehat> https://w3c.github.io/wpub-ann/
17:13:09 <franco> ... perhaps it should be a tech working group note  that could later come back
17:13:30 <franco> ... this goes back to cfi and its use to epub community. is it useful? if so, it has to be addressed in wp
17:13:32 <wendyreid> q?
17:13:33 <garth> q?
17:13:54 <laurent> laurent has joined #pwg
17:13:58 <mattg> q+
17:14:17 <franco> ... is there a problem of consistency between PEP and canonical identifier?
17:14:22 <franco> matt: definitely a problem there
17:14:30 <garth> ack mattg
17:15:01 <franco> tim: how do we resolve it?
17:15:14 <franco> matt: its just removing two paras. i can do that real quickly
17:16:18 <bigbluehat> q+
17:16:22 <franco> tim: what about the issue of multiple addresses for entry page?
17:16:39 <garth> q?
17:16:47 <franco> ... canonical id has to be unique. pep also has to be unique. if that is true, they are the same thing. but that means pep can never be moved
17:16:55 <garth> ack bigbluehat
17:17:01 <franco> ben: pep is pratcially going to be called index.html
17:17:48 <garth> q?
17:17:52 <dauwhe> q+
17:17:55 <franco> ... if it is default, it already gets two identifiers.
17:18:08 <franco> ... as slash and as index
17:18:18 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:18:20 <garth> ack dauwhe
17:18:47 <franco> dave: slash = pub address, index = pep
17:18:59 <franco> ... is there precedence to this?
17:19:03 <franco> ben: yes, scope
17:19:27 <franco> dave: how does this fit in with DOI?
17:19:29 <tzviya> s/scope/scope in service workers
17:19:41 <timCole> q+
17:19:54 <garth> q?
17:20:12 <ivan> q+
17:20:15 <tzviya> ack timCole
17:20:36 <franco> tim: idea of canonical id was at one point palce for dois. we could drop canonical and just talk about identifiers
17:21:04 <franco> ... the address is closest to identifier. the pep separate as index.html. doi, use the schema.org identifier property
17:21:40 <franco> ... identifier could be lots of things. urls have to be urls. but theres more nuance to that
17:21:47 <garth> ack ivan
17:22:06 <franco> ivan: i may be too worried about this slash story. that means imposing certain structures to how author would put out their thing. which is quite a tall order
17:22:20 <danielweck> danielweck has joined #pwg
17:22:28 <dauwhe> q+
17:22:36 <franco> ... if i take the doi example. i just checked it with one of my doi. that resolves to a url with slash. but thats not a requirement that anyone imposes.
17:22:51 <franco> ... therefore the doi could resovle to something we would not consider canonical identifier. i would be cautious
17:22:53 <garth> q?
17:22:54 <franco> ... the world may not do that
17:22:57 <jgmorse> +1
17:23:00 <bigbluehat> q+ to suggest we spec it so the world will do that
17:23:07 <franco> ... i understand slash is usually what is used.
17:23:30 <garth> ack dauwhe
17:23:33 <franco> ... i think we build in a dependency from the outside world which is way too heavy .
17:24:02 <franco> dave: this require ment may be a help to us. the naive web server you have a lot of stuff in a folder. this prohibits two peps in the same folder
17:24:18 <timCole> q+
17:24:24 <franco> ... which i think eliminates the possibility of a lot of bad things. and especialy if these things have service workers to enable offline. could have different scopes...
17:24:32 <franco> ... it seems to be an idea that could promote hygiene
17:24:32 <garth> ack bigbluehat
17:24:32 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to suggest we spec it so the world will do that
17:24:48 <franco> ben: practically it is how web devs do it now. not just apache. always some default response from something edning in slash
17:25:06 <jgmorse> q+
17:25:21 <franco> ... index.html is not the req here. just make sure when mobydick.com/  you get the pep
17:25:44 <garth> q?
17:25:46 <franco> ... its not a hefty requirement or abnormal. solves for there being an index and an index-2.html and it being a second pub
17:26:00 <franco> ... theres no technical way to say these dont conflict and theyre not entangled into each other
17:26:24 <franco> ... by scoping it to essentially a director ending in slash, we avoid a host of problems.  already how static site gens do it. we're still avoiding issuing statements like ....
17:26:32 <franco> ... must be called this or that. still not dictacting urls
17:26:52 <duga> q+
17:26:56 <garth> ack timCole
17:26:59 <dauwhe> q+
17:27:01 <tzviya> ack timCole
17:27:23 <franco> tim: not sure i agree with ivan. i think that we prob should not decide today. id like to see this discussed in the issue and PR. there are gonna be use cases we havent tlkaed baout yet
17:27:43 <franco> ... ex: i have something that sreves as page one of article and pep of wp, but is also one of several articles thatm ake up a journal
17:27:59 <bigbluehat> q+ to note this usage pattern in ServiceWorkers - https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#ref-for-dfn-scope-to-registration-map%E2%91%A8
17:28:02 <franco> ... ben should propose this and talk about it later
17:28:09 <duga> q-
17:28:10 <tzviya> ack jgmorse
17:28:29 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
17:28:39 <franco> jgmorse: two points - i dont think this is anticipating platforms where several wps might be served nested under a site and served by an api
17:29:12 <franco> ... more generally -- yo udont want this to only be adopted by only new or existing wps. requiring anything more than add the manifest ...
17:29:30 <franco> ... is just another further barrier to adoption of the spec. which seems like a problem. if it already looks like a wp, then slap on the manifest and its a wp
17:29:41 <ivan> s/yo udont/you don't/
17:29:46 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
17:29:55 <franco> dave: ivan how would you disambiguate between a url of a whole and the url of the pep itself ?
17:30:23 <franco> ivan: i dont have an answer. but this answer does not satisify me.
17:30:51 <franco> ... i would be more happy even if its also a set up problem if we say something on the http response instead of the format of the url
17:31:10 <franco> ... because the url is just something that is too narrow in this sense. http response might include info about this is the wp or something like that
17:31:23 <franco> ... i think we are buying ourselves a problem if we impose a format of uris
17:31:34 <franco> ... maybe in a few years youll get urls that have a idfferent syntax
17:31:46 <dauwhe> q+
17:31:54 <franco> ... like DIS or whatever, and suddenly we are stuck because we are stuck and we imposed a certain url
17:32:04 <garth> q?
17:32:09 <franco> ... we drive ourselves in a corner with such a very strict constraint
17:32:47 <franco> ben: there are ways to avoid this concern. all of them have a path delimiter.
17:33:00 <garth> q?
17:33:05 <garth> ack bigbluehat
17:33:05 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to note this usage pattern in ServiceWorkers - https://w3c.github.io/ServiceWorker/#ref-for-dfn-scope-to-registration-map%E2%91%A8
17:33:17 <franco> ... more vaguely: end your path but not specifiying a specific file. goal is to disambiguate between the wpub and the pep page itself.
17:34:50 <franco> ... .. we shouldnt fear those futures. if they become popular, that wp 2.0.
17:34:59 <garth> ack  dauwhe
17:35:14 <franco> dave: i think this is worth proposing and seeing what the reaction of the community is. i want to game this out
17:35:20 <franco> ... we might learn something interesting.
17:35:31 <franco> ... i think trying this and seeing what people think is reasonable.
17:35:38 <franco> ... starting out strict, its easier to relax requirements
17:35:41 <garth> q?
17:35:43 <franco> .. than the opposite
17:35:44 <laurent> q+
17:36:06 <wendyreid> ack laurent
17:36:12 <franco> laurent: when someone makes a package before something goes to the web ...
17:36:13 <tzviya> zakim, close the queue
17:36:13 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is closed
17:36:21 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
17:36:28 <franco> ... when we go to def of canonical id, there is no preferred version of the wp at this time
17:36:38 <franco> ... there is a solution to avoid canonical id and wp says this is ok.
17:36:50 <franco> ... but this means the process means this must add canonical id
17:37:08 <franco> ... other solution is to use doi. but this is not good, because you need the url
17:37:30 <franco> ... we have to solve that and recommend something to creators of packages and its not evident at all
17:37:43 <franco> garth: sounds liek benjamin is going to do this as a proposal.
17:37:50 <tzviya> zakim, open the queue
17:37:50 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is open
17:37:53 <ivan> s/liek/like/
17:37:53 <garth> zakim, open the queue
17:37:53 <Zakim> ok, garth, the speaker queue is open
17:38:22 <bigbluehat> action: bigbluehat to file issue about publication addresses being required to end in `/`
17:38:37 <garth> q?
17:39:35 <garth> q?
17:40:14 <bigbluehat> this doc https://w3c.github.io/wpub-ann/
17:40:25 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/wpub-ann/ Web Annotation Extenstions for Web Publications
17:40:59 <ivan> q+
17:41:03 <franco> tim: we have a first public working draft of web anno extensions for wps. ratther than push that to recommendaiton, can we hand that off and develop more slowly?
17:41:19 <garth> ack ivan
17:41:19 <tzviya> ack ivan
17:41:43 <franco> ivan: the clean way: this will not go through a rec track right now. i think the proper way that groups do, that htey publish this as a note
17:42:06 <franco> ... and hten from that point on , if you are at iannotate, talk to the people there, if there is an interest. there is work going on with media sync where these things can be tried.
17:42:10 <franco> ... basis for experimentiation
17:42:25 <franco> ... once we put it in a note, we make it clear that at the moment we are not working on this as a potential recommendation right now.
17:42:38 <franco> ... my porposal would be to publis hit as a note and for the time being consider as closed within this working gorup
17:42:49 <franco> tim: id like to clean up a couple of loose ends if we pub as a note
17:42:52 <ivan> s/porposal/proposal/
17:43:03 <bigbluehat> q+
17:43:39 <franco> ben: how many of you knew about this document?
17:43:39 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
17:43:53 <franco> ... everyone should look at whats in here.
17:43:55 <ivan> proposed: publish the Web Annotation Extension for Web Publication as a WG note
17:44:03 <timCole> +1
17:44:12 <ivan> +1
17:44:26 <bigbluehat> +1
17:44:38 <mattg> +1
17:44:52 <romain_> +1
17:44:52 <dauwhe> +1
17:45:13 <ivan> resolved: publish the Web Annotation Extension for Web Publication as a WG note
17:46:16 <garth> q?
17:46:20 <franco> tim: lw publication is a longer discussion.
17:46:26 <ivan> Topic: issue bashing
17:46:55 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/44
17:47:11 <franco> wendy: accessibility in audiobooks
17:47:14 <ivan> Subtopic: Ensure text equivalent for accessibility
17:47:15 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
17:47:44 <franco> avneesh: aduiobooks: good for many people but people with hearing loss and maybe some other disabilities, audiobooks doesnt fufill accessibility requirements
17:47:51 <garth> q?
17:47:57 <marisa> q+
17:48:04 <mgarrish> mgarrish has joined #pwg
17:48:09 <franco> ... for all streamining media there should be a text equivalent. this is soemthing which makes audiobooks inaccessibility. we had this discussion. the direction we are going in is ...
17:48:20 <franco> ... we should be having a provision of having some kind of pointing to text equivalent
17:48:40 <franco> ... there is a link that goes to audio file. at the same time, a link or some other mechanism goes to an html page or sync narration file
17:48:50 <franco> ... this is the porposal on the table
17:48:57 <franco> ... we yet have to figure out details
17:49:05 <franco> ... but this is the main concept on the table which can be resolved .
17:49:07 <dkaplan3> q+
17:49:18 <franco> garth: is this a requirement or something you need to do ?
17:49:40 <franco> avneesh: there was a concern that this will increase overhead. but actually this is the definition of horizontal review. but it sstates that there should be a WAY of achieving it
17:49:41 <romain_> s/porposal/proposal/
17:49:48 <ivan> q+
17:49:53 <franco> ... they need this to make wcag aa, aaa
17:49:55 <garth> ack marisa
17:49:55 <wendyreid> ack marisa
17:50:24 <franco> marisa: what we are discussing on this issue is to use a porpoety in the manifest like alternative which could point to an html file, for example. or could point to sunc media file
17:50:47 <franco> ... this same poperty alternative we could use to create sync media content. it doesnt make our spec any bulkeir and satisfies horizontal review
17:50:49 <garth> ack dkaplan
17:50:49 <romain_> s/sunc/sync/
17:51:22 <marisa> q+
17:51:26 <George> q+
17:51:37 <franco> deborah: question: it looksl ike this proposal if im reading it right, does not allow for promgammatic identification that this is an alternative taht can be parsed by AT. it seems like this is just a link to an alternative and then the onus is on some other human or aspect of publication to make it clear as to what the alternative is
17:52:17 <garth> q?
17:52:21 <franco> marisa: we havent gotten to the point of high level metadata like epub has. this property could point to a resource that has a mimetype identified. so you know if its pointing to a file. but it doesnt give an overall perspective
17:52:30 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/44#issuecomment-490182553
17:52:52 <garth> q?
17:52:59 <franco> wendy: we should have a flag that says that an audiobook has text assistance
17:53:08 <garth> ack ivan
17:53:13 <marisa> q-
17:53:36 <franco> ivan: two ways to look at this and i dont know which one we want. one is to say: this is a propoerty that refers to an alt to the audio. in whcih case this is a property that is defined for audiobooks only.
17:53:45 <franco> ... which means that this should be defined in the audiobook spec. that is sort of straightforward
17:53:47 <marisa> q+
17:53:50 <bigbluehat> q+ to note the existence of rel="alternate"
17:53:56 <franco> ... question is there a more general concept here.
17:54:42 <dkaplan3> q+
17:54:43 <franco> ... do we want to get more general about alternative methods of displaying content? or do we just want to get it right for audio and worry about general later
17:54:46 <garth> ack George
17:54:56 <mattg> q+
17:55:17 <franco> george: in epub accessibility spec, weve got these things like confroms to wcag aa, or a, etc. audiobooks have been used for accessibility purpose for a long time. it seems crazy to
17:55:26 <Karen> Karen has joined #pwg
17:55:38 <franco> ... identify an audio book as not being accessible. what we did in that spec is identify a publication that is optimized for a particular group. aduiobooks fit into that category
17:55:49 <franco> ... so it would conform to the audiobook spec in that metadata
17:56:31 <franco> ... its reasonable if we do point to an html version of that book, that you may have to buy it. i think in the metadata in we should say that its not accessible to people that are deaf so access mode would be audio
17:56:50 <franco> ... and in the accessibility summary we say this is an audiobook. we should say that its available as a wp or epub. on the practical side we do those things in the metadata
17:56:55 <franco> ... and solve our rights problems
17:57:09 <franco> ... audiobook pub doesnt always have text rights.
17:57:18 <garth> ack marisa
17:57:40 <franco> marisa: great points. i think that having a property to indicate an alternative woudl go in a primary deinftion of the manifest
17:57:42 <Avneesh> q+
17:58:07 <franco> wendy: we do address the accessibility symmary in the spec
17:58:10 <garth> ack bigbluehat
17:58:10 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to note the existence of rel="alternate"
17:58:12 <ivan> q+
17:58:24 <franco> ben: for linked resource, we already give rel alternate for free. we dont need an alternate propeorty
17:59:09 <franco> ... related to this: if its per audio file then we're doing each one of these texts and theres a need to provide more than one thing, we should accommodate that. if we can bring in the linked resource pattern,
17:59:17 <franco> ... we can get a lot more things for free inthat space rather than a new property
17:59:28 <garth> ack dkaplan3
17:59:33 <garth> ack dkaplan
17:59:34 <franco> deborah: going back to ivans original question
17:59:52 <garth> q+ ivan
18:00:00 <franco> .... id just liek to argue that making specific decisions about audiobooks where we treat accessibility particularly for audiobooks is probbaly a bad ideas. given that there can be accessibility issues ...
18:00:10 <garth> s/liek/like/
18:00:11 <bigbluehat> +1 to not doing a11y stuff for just audiobooks
18:00:12 <franco> ... there are a multidute of media which will require alternative content
18:00:46 <franco> ... its safer to say that we are not going to treat an accessible alt to audiobooks
18:00:51 <garth> q?
18:00:57 <garth> ack mattg
18:01:27 <franco> matt: it reminds me of mutiple rendition of an epub. it becomes complicated quickly. when we're gonna have to spell out what these alternatives are. its going to grow. they didnt get much traction in epub....
18:01:51 <garth> ack Avneesh
18:02:24 <franco> avneesh: agree with ivan about generic alternatives. i am not too much tied up whether it should be file level or top level. we just need a solution
18:02:28 <franco> ... im not getting in to specifics.
18:02:29 <dkaplan3> s/we are not going to treat an accessible alt to audiobooks/we are not going to treat an accessible alt to audiobooks as a special case; we should have a generic solution/
18:02:31 <laurent> q?
18:02:34 <laurent> q+
18:02:36 <david_stroup> q+
18:02:44 <garth> ack ivan
18:03:05 <franco> ivan: maybe that is what benjamin have in mind but i did not understand it. if we do in general then we have the problem of somehow saying what is the alternative for.
18:03:15 <franco> ... what can be done in the current sturcture and trying to change as little as possible...
18:03:22 <laurent> Issue https://github.com/w3c/wpub/issues/308 is a proposal for alternate resources in a link object
18:03:43 <franco> ... is to realize we do have already now the possibility of listing links which are reseooucres in the book but are not useed directly. if in an audiobook which is in a reading order
18:03:56 <franco> ... i say alternative to audio, the html file must be in the list of links because it is a resource
18:04:02 <franco> ... that means there is a linked resource object for that alt file
18:04:15 <franco> ... then we need a vocab maybe. yes we can use rel attr for that which says this is what it does
18:04:31 <dkaplan3> q+
18:04:35 <franco> ... worry is do we have that vocab? how do we express it? i see mechanism in terms of metadata structure
18:04:42 <franco> ... but there is a point where we need to fill it with specific terms
18:05:02 <garth> ack laurent
18:05:05 <franco> laurent: already a proposal for that. one year old now. iss 308.
18:05:15 <franco> ... there is a resolution of that that has been made in readium
18:05:42 <franco> ... link to what has been done in the readium context. simply an alt array of links.
18:05:55 <franco> ... already used for audiobook alternate bit rates.
18:06:00 <franco> ... it can be very flexible
18:06:47 <franco> ivan: this is not exactly the same i had in mind but we can discuss separately. this is different. this is alternate bit format. in original case this is a text alternate
18:06:54 <franco> ... information should be there
18:07:00 <franco> ... it is implicit because of media type
18:07:07 <franco> ... is it enough thatw it is implicit?
18:07:16 <franco> ... or is it somehting thta has to be expresssed explicitly? i dont know
18:07:20 <franco> ... if media type is enough im happy
18:07:28 <franco> laurent: it is sufficient for RS devs
18:07:42 <garth> ack david_stroup
18:08:10 <franco> david: regarding media type, in my expreince its sufficient for it to be on audio. youll get alt bit rate, text alternate, etc. we do that quite often.
18:08:27 <garth> q?
18:08:36 <franco> ... it soundslike we need being able to express alternative both at file level and pub level
18:08:57 <garth> ack dkaplan
18:09:00 <wendyreid> q+
18:09:04 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about https://schema.org/AudioObject
18:09:26 <franco> deborah: it seems like based on all this discussion, 44 gives us some of the info we want
18:09:33 <franco> ... in a generic way
18:10:25 <garth> q?
18:10:28 <garth> ack wendyreid
18:10:53 <franco> wendy: audiobooks needs a mechanism to make it accessible to users. what we need to decide: how do we do that?
18:11:00 <franco> ... main proposal is alternate on linked resource level
18:11:13 <ivan> q+
18:11:17 <franco> ... two options: at resource level or pub level?
18:11:37 <franco> ... but at pub level, looking at metadata to say whether this book is accessible with an alternative
18:11:54 <franco> ... do we go ahead with linked resource alternative or do we go with a different function?
18:12:07 <franco> ivan: what is in the porposal just to make it clear is indeed ok as it is
18:12:12 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/pwpub/issues/44#issuecomment-475151362
18:12:15 <wendyreid> ack ivan
18:12:24 <franco> ... this is what can be done easily. requires one single additional property: alternate with value of url
18:12:40 <franco> ... for the time being it seems that no extra info is needed because the media type is there
18:12:43 <franco> ... thats fine
18:12:58 <dkaplan3> s/some of the info we want/some of the info we want (uri, media type, but not the very useful schema.org a11y vocabulary features)/
18:13:49 <franco> ben: if we dont use schema.org audioObject, how do we justify that?
18:14:22 <garth> q?
18:14:27 <garth> ack bigbluehat
18:14:27 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about https://schema.org/AudioObject
18:14:31 <marisa> q+
18:15:47 <marisa> q-
18:15:57 <franco> ... already a lot of this in audioObject and associated media is close enough. if not sufficient we should make a claim that audioobject needs something else , if it isnt caption or transcript
18:16:15 <franco> ... more general request that we need to make sure we are consulting schema.org before doing new stuff
18:16:36 <franco> wendy: it looks promising
18:16:38 <tzviya> https://schema.org/Audiobook
18:16:42 <franco> ivan: i dont see any problem whatsoever
18:17:09 <franco> ben: we should take a look
18:17:47 <franco> ... lots of stuff in schema.org that could be relevant. lets wring out schema.org
18:18:42 <garth> q?
18:18:55 <franco> wendy: should we xplore this as a solution?
18:19:33 <dkaplan3> the schema.org vocabulary is more complete for accessibility than Ivan's proposed solution from #44, it's true.
18:19:40 <franco> ivan: this comes back to my question: if we say audioobject, it has a transcript. which means if we say in the audiobook spec, any resource listed should also be a typed out audioobject, then we get transcript and issue is solved, right?
18:19:48 <franco> ... 44 is solved without having to do anything
18:20:13 <franco> ... the question about whether we need a more generic version it is pushed back because we have resolved the audio specific issue
18:20:44 <George> q+
18:21:02 <franco> george: are we requiring that to be in the audiobook, that there be a transcript
18:21:09 <franco> wendy: no. we are giving that option if they want to
18:21:10 <garth> ack George
18:21:12 <garth> q?
18:21:31 <franco> ... we dont have a mechanism for it at all, aside from making html files supplemental content. gives a publisher that option
18:22:55 <Ralph> [Wendy noted that schema:transcript only takes text values and audiobooks would likely want to be able to provide a URI]
18:23:03 <wendyreid> action: wendy to review "AudioObject" schema and explore what feedback is required for schema
18:23:20 <franco> george: an image without alt text, as long as we provide the ability to provide alt text, we're good citizens and our spec provides the facilities to do things right even though we know the audio publishers dont have the rights to the text
18:23:42 <garth> q?
18:23:52 <franco> ... i do think that the whole metadata about audio publications needs to conform to the accessibilt conformance and discovery spec. otherweise we are doing a disservice
18:24:09 <franco> wendy: we may have also acceidently solved 308 as well.
18:24:26 <franco> ... audioobject has a thing for bitrate and encoding format, etc, that are in 308.
18:24:37 <laurent> q+
18:24:38 <franco> ... i will review to make sure it fits all our needs and whether we need to give feedback to schema
18:24:41 <marisa> q+
18:24:45 <garth> q?
18:24:54 <garth> ack laurent
18:25:27 <franco> laurent: an array of of media objects or html objects, this alternate array becomes a union of different json ld types which works. my only concern may be the author of the manifest who writes somethign by hand as dave says
18:25:55 <franco> ... to add a type this type that on each of these things is extra work. the faciliity of only mimetype is lost because there are mor things to add. i dont say no but maybe it will be a bit hard
18:26:06 <franco> wendy: yes we'll have to look into that as well but i think it brings us closer to resoving this issue
18:26:12 <ivan> q+
18:26:15 <garth> ack marisa
18:26:50 <franco> marisa: i do appreciate that there are some thigns in schema that can solve our problems. not just 308 or 44. but we would still need to intro a propoerty to describe sync media to linked resource. so we might end up with both solutions whereas just having one term would be more elegant
18:27:01 <garth> ack ivan
18:27:02 <franco> ... i dont think we have to solve it today. just want to get it in the minutes for my own future recollection
18:27:03 <garth> ?
18:27:05 <garth> q?
18:27:06 <ivan> https://schema.org/MediaObject
18:27:35 <romain_> s/?//
18:27:39 <franco> ivan: there is a slightly mroe general thing because there is the mediaobject which is the superclass whcih ahs other subclasses like image object which is problely of interest to us for hte ame reasons. if wendys exploration is positive then there is a general statement
18:27:53 <franco> ... there are a number of schema.org types that you may want to add.
18:28:18 <bigbluehat> q+
18:28:23 <franco> ... in the audiobooks we may have that as a requirement that you must use audioobject. i think we shouldnt forget about that
18:28:41 <garth> ack bigbluehat
18:28:42 <franco> ben: linked reosurce: any plans to send to schema.org ?
18:28:52 <garth> q?
18:29:11 <franco> ivan: we had a discussion started to talk about what features we need. schema.org is not known to be fast in responding. for the time being it isi there. we would prefer to go the schema.org way but these are what are missing.
18:29:24 <timCole> q+
18:29:26 <franco> ben: theres some way we could imagine it as a subtype of media object. but its good to know its been attempted
18:29:36 <bigbluehat> s/ben/bigbluehat
18:30:05 <garth> ack timCole
18:30:34 <franco> tim: we talked to schema.org to get anthology. once they got the ideas right. we want these 25 things. they do have a pattern for this. theyre slow and htey like it better when you bring stuff to them.
18:31:22 <franco> ivan: the chairs and i have alreayd internally discussed that we should have a schema.org horizontal review. the problem is that the only name that i know could be helpful is rcihard wallace. i dont know who else could be helpful. i think this is something that in the near future we should send our documents to schema.org
18:31:42 <franco> ... should have a good contact
18:32:11 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:32:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-minutes.html ivan
18:33:08 <timCole> c /anthology/bibliography
18:56:04 <romain> romain has joined #pwg
18:56:19 <geoffjukes> geoffjukes has joined #pwg
18:57:05 <romain_> romain_ has joined #pwg
19:04:04 <marisa> marisa has joined #pwg
19:04:55 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
19:05:01 <Nellie> Nellie has joined #pwg
19:05:11 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #pwg
19:05:16 <ivan> ivan has joined #pwg
19:06:49 <ivan> Topic: Business group
19:07:03 <ivan> slides -> 	For Luc: meet.google.com/vje-abzq-xts
19:07:10 <wendyreid> laudrain: Update on the PBG, EPUB 3.2 has been approved
19:07:38 <wendyreid> scribenick: George
19:07:39 <George> George is scribing
19:07:48 <mattg> mattg has joined #pwg
19:07:51 <tzviya> scribenick: George
19:08:29 <George> Luc: EPUB 3.2 has overwheliming been approved by the CG and the PBG. Thank you Matt, Dave and everybody for the hard work.
19:09:35 <George> EPUBCheck 4.2 has been released and a lot of texting has been done and bugs have been resoved. It has been translated to six languages.
19:10:03 <George> EPUBCheck is more precise and it has resolved issues for publishers.
19:10:44 <George> EPUBCheck is more accurate with EPUB 2 as well. This may help to move publishers to EPUB 3.
19:11:28 <George> ISO, a new Accessibility 1.0 is being moved to ISO. It has been rewritten using the ISO language.
19:12:19 <George> It is important for adoption, because governments need ISO specs. Also in Europe there is a need for ISO standard for accessibility
19:13:06 <George> who wrote the accessibility act knows about this work in ISO and we want them to refer to this ISO standard.The EU commission
19:14:04 <George> Events where we can talk about our work BEA is one place, but hard to know how easy it is to get a stage at Book Expo America (BEA).
19:14:51 <George>  June 25 and 26 there is a good opportunity to communicate.In Paris at the publishing summi
19:15:36 <George> In Japan Fukuoka Japan in September before TPAC there will be a publishing conference.
19:16:41 <George> Juc says Daihae has spoken to publishers in Japan and plan specif items for the 2 and half hour publishing meeting. This will help to move publishing in Japan.
19:16:56 <George> Action items are commucating about the events.
19:17:49 <George> This publishing victorys are an achievement. EPUB 3.2, EPUBCheck 4.2 the movement to ISO standards are all great achievements.
19:18:14 <George> We need testamonials from implementors in support of 3.2 and EPUBCheck.
19:18:36 <George> We want all members to push information out through all their channels.
19:20:01 <George> Finally, EPUBCheck fund raising has been good, but we are stuck at 2/3 of what we need. The  next phase will start and finish in December, but we need more funds to complete the work we plan to do.next phase will
19:20:11 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/publishing/epubcheck_fundraising
19:20:37 <ivan> guest+ jeff
19:20:42 <George> Avneesh is running in the AB election. We want to get the vote out for Avneesh. Get your AC rep and AC reps you have access to to vote for Avneesh.
19:21:57 <George> At TPAC there will be demonstrations.
19:22:05 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwg
19:22:43 <George> A new CG will internationalize and develop markets for a range of products.
19:23:14 <George> What will happen in Spring of 2020 in the BG.
19:23:31 <George> What will be the roadmap will be the topic.
19:24:03 <dauwhe> q+
19:24:08 <tzviya> q+
19:25:22 <garth> q?
19:26:25 <George> There is the issue that new releases of the print and it is the same ISBN, but just no edition change. The EPUB is also being updated as well. It is the same work and only the packaging is updated. Same goes for accessibility. We know how to make them accessible. We will not change the ISBN, and how do we let the users know. The users need to know that a new better file sis available.
19:27:11 <George> We are improving EPUB files based on the new EPUBCheck. Files correct years ago become invalid with EPUBCheck 4.2.
19:27:44 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
19:27:46 <George> The PBG should review should review the issues that this brings forward.
19:28:42 <George> if somebody came to his door and said a book he has has been updated.Dave: Publishers are interested internally. Dave would be annoyed and
19:29:04 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
19:29:19 <George> We get automatic updates in Apps and they don't tell you enough? I wonder if the is a spec or process issue.
19:29:34 <George> TZ: very few readers want the update.
19:30:46 <George> I have heard the Japanese Maga publishers are interested in developing their product.
19:30:56 <dauwhe> q+
19:31:13 <dkaplan3> s/Maga/Manga/
19:31:28 <George> Luc: The Manga market is digital. It is a great success. We must be careful in this area.
19:31:54 <Ralph> scribenick: Ralph
19:32:04 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
19:32:05 <tzviya> s/maga/manga
19:32:16 <laurent> laurent has joined #pwg
19:32:16 <tzviya> s/are interested/are not interested
19:32:38 <Ralph> Dave: working on final steps to publish EPUB 3.2
19:32:49 <Ralph> ... what should the EPUB CG do next?
19:32:57 <Ralph> ... considered Best Practices but lost the editor
19:33:01 <Ralph> ... may get back to that
19:33:07 <Ralph> ... some cleanup to do for EPUB for Education
19:33:10 <Rachel> s/the editor/an editor
19:33:22 <Ralph> ... parts fo the IDPF spec have shifted to IMSGlobal
19:33:43 <Ralph> ... we need to clarify what's absorbed into EPUB 3.2 and what's abandoned
19:33:54 <Ralph> ... discuss with BG the future path for EPUB
19:34:03 <tzviya> +1000 dauwhe
19:34:03 <Ralph> ... how does this work relate to WPub
19:34:26 <Ralph> ... high-level discussions on where all this might go to help guide the technical discussions
19:34:27 <tzviya> q?
19:34:51 <Ralph> Luc: see "business cases" on my slide
19:34:58 <Ralph> ... the BG should provide input
19:35:16 <dauwhe> q+
19:35:26 <wendyreid> ack dauwhe
19:35:29 <Ralph> ... I'm hoping that the release of the audiobook spec will build industry attention
19:35:37 <garth> q?
19:36:01 <Ralph> Dave: dinner conversation last night on how business cases influence technical decisions
19:36:16 <Ralph> ... I'm concerned about the business case for Web Publications
19:36:21 <romain> +1
19:36:56 <Ralph> ... that's what's behind my earlier statement about Hachette US and Web Publications being far outside Hachette's business model
19:37:09 <jeff> q+
19:37:17 <tzviya> ack jeff
19:37:21 <Ralph> ... possibly W3C might not be the venue for this
19:37:50 <Ralph> Jeff: the question of right venue for business disussions is an important one
19:38:15 <Ralph> ... we should ask the BG participants and the Steering Group to discuss that within their companies
19:38:38 <Ralph> ... if we have a new spec that may be important in some business we need to know who they are
19:38:45 <dauwhe> q+
19:38:55 <Ralph> Tzviya: I hope the BG can help answer those questions
19:39:26 <Ralph> Tzviya: I've heard mention of EPUB 3.3 and wasn't aware that was in consideration
19:39:47 <Ralph> ... this WG is chartered to work on "EPUB4"; maybe we need to talk about what that is
19:39:51 <laudrain> q+
19:39:59 <Ralph> Dave: who is the parent of EPUB4?
19:40:03 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
19:40:11 <Ralph> ... EPUB 3.2 or WPub?
19:40:27 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
19:40:38 <bigbluehat> dauwhe: I do think there's room for EPUB's evolution
19:40:47 <bigbluehat> ...do they open the door to new types of publications?
19:40:52 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #pwg
19:40:59 <bigbluehat> ...so we'd need to do cost/benefit analysis
19:41:04 <bigbluehat> ...things like cleaning up old cruft
19:41:13 <bigbluehat> ...and it would be cool...but doesn't it help people reading books?
19:41:18 <bigbluehat> ...but I'd like to find out
19:41:35 <bigbluehat> ...some of the questions around how to monetize things on the Web
19:41:43 <bigbluehat> ...for trade publishers, that's a very scary topic
19:41:58 <bigbluehat> ...and audiobook folks seem scared of standards
19:42:09 <Ralph> scribenick: Ralph
19:42:11 <tzviya> ack laudrain
19:42:16 <bigbluehat> ...but if we take standards conversations too far into business, then we run into a different propblem
19:42:22 <bigbluehat> s/propblem/problem
19:42:27 <Ralph> Luc: I didnt' mention EPUB4 in my slides
19:42:35 <Ralph> ... I think the BG should work on business cases, not specific standards
19:42:48 <bigbluehat> q?
19:42:49 <Ralph> ... if there is a business case for trade books they will happen
19:42:54 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask for the business case for WPUB
19:43:05 <Rachel> q+
19:43:07 <Ralph> ... I hope audiobooks will anchor the success for WPub
19:43:18 <romain> q+
19:43:35 <Ralph> ... education and scholarly publishing are also business cases
19:43:38 <Ralph> Benjamin: what is the business case for WPub?
19:43:52 <Ralph> ... scholarly is already on the web
19:43:59 <tzviya> ack bigbluehat
19:43:59 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask for the business case for WPUB
19:44:12 <laudrain> q+
19:44:16 <Ralph> ... I've heard more reasons for the success of EPUB
19:44:35 <Ralph> ... the thing we're all excited about in this WG is audiobooks
19:44:47 <Ralph> ... which look like EPUB-in-JSON
19:45:11 <laurent> q+
19:45:11 <Ralph> ... we have two routes to the same [set of] features
19:45:22 <dauwhe> q+
19:45:30 <Ralph> ... I don't know what WPub brings that Publishers are saying they want
19:45:50 <Ralph> ... maybe they will in the future but they're not now
19:46:11 <Ralph> Rachel: I agree with Benjamin
19:46:12 <tzviya> ack Ralph
19:46:18 <tzviya> ack Rachel
19:46:26 <Ralph> ... I can't explain what WPub will bring for Macmillan
19:46:46 <garth> q?
19:46:56 <tzviya> ack romain
19:47:09 <tzviya> q+ to provide a reality check
19:47:19 <Ralph> Romain: I want to remind us of the Publishing CG
19:47:37 <tzviya> +1 to CG
19:47:37 <Ralph> ... the web is built from incubation
19:47:40 <garth> q+ to provide HappyPills(tm)
19:47:47 <Ralph> ... some things have taken a long time to incubate
19:47:59 <tzviya> https://www.w3.org/community/publishingcg/
19:48:13 <Ralph> ... things don't happen by magic; the CG succeeds only if people bring resources
19:48:24 <tzviya> ack laurent
19:48:39 <Ralph> Luc: as BG co-chair I don't want to forget the business
19:48:47 <tzviya> ack laud
19:48:48 <Ralph> ... there is an EPUB business today
19:49:00 <Ralph> ... our energy should go into Web Publications, not EPUB3
19:49:14 <Ralph> ... there may be a need for an EPUB 3.2.1 with small tweaks
19:49:16 <George> q+
19:49:24 <Ralph> ... Web Publication and its profiles are the future
19:49:36 <Ralph> ... it may take a long time
19:49:44 <Ralph> ... we have identified priorities
19:50:06 <Ralph> ... the Publishing CG can incubate technical questions
19:50:19 <romain> BG should care about staffing, putting the resources where they are useful
19:50:26 <Ralph> ... I'm not afraid of the future; I think it will take time
19:50:42 <Ralph> ... many publishers are still publishing with EPUB2
19:51:00 <Ralph> ... we need to tell them to use EPUB3
19:51:07 <romain> s/staffing/staffing + long-term strategy/
19:51:39 <Ralph> ... about Web Publication, I agree with Dave that content protection is an issue
19:52:02 <Ralph> ... but there are many EPUBs that are not, or no longer, protected
19:52:09 <Ralph> ... these need to become Web Publications
19:52:18 <laudrain> q?
19:52:22 <garth> q?
19:52:36 <Ralph> Laurent: I disagree that audiobooks are EPUB-in-JSON
19:52:42 <Ralph> ... there are two parts to our work
19:52:58 <Ralph> ... EPUB3 is not good for audio content so we're doing something else
19:53:22 <ivan> q?
19:53:25 <tzviya> zakim, close the queue
19:53:25 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is closed
19:53:26 <Ralph> ... but to expose audiobooks on the web we need to expose it in pieces due to their size
19:54:06 <Ralph> ... I was myself surprised to see that Readium has several projects, including a ReadiumWeb -- a piece of javascript to do Web Publications
19:54:16 <Ralph> ... this shows that reading on the Web does have traction
19:54:22 <ivan> q+
19:54:32 <Ralph> ... I regret that scholarly publishing won't use Web Publications soon
19:54:37 <garth> q?
19:54:48 <Ralph> ... but there will be books with analytis inside
19:54:58 <laudrain> s/In Japan Fukuoka Japan in September before TPAC/In Japan Fukuoka Japan in September during TPAC/
19:55:05 <ivan> s/analytis/analytics/
19:55:06 <garth> q?
19:55:09 <Ralph> Tzviya: we've had this discussion many times
19:55:11 <George> q-
19:55:38 <tzviya> ack dauwhe
19:55:39 <Ralph> ... Web Publications 1.0 won't be perfect but we know it will be used by some
19:56:00 <Ralph> ... let's stop bemoaning that 1.0 won't be perfect
19:56:21 <Ralph> Dave: the glory of the Web was enabling many more people to have a voice
19:56:38 <Ralph> ... HTML was so simple -- it lowered the barrier to people
19:56:41 <garth> q?
19:56:45 <Ralph> ... EPUB enabled self-publishing
19:57:02 <Ralph> ... lowering the barrier whether people were monetizing their work or not
19:57:24 <Ralph> ... reading books on the Web is still crappy; the experience is still sub-optimal
19:57:32 <dkaplan3> +1 dauwhe. I know multiple free, not for profit publishing platforms who want enhanced publishing functionality.
19:57:42 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #pwg
19:57:45 <Ralph> ... there's a lot we can do; not sure exactly what it is
19:57:49 <tzviya> q-
19:57:56 <ivan> q?
19:57:57 <tzviya> ack garth
19:57:57 <Zakim> garth, you wanted to provide HappyPills(tm)
19:58:00 <david_stroup> david_stroup has joined #pwg
19:58:02 <Ralph> ... we should keep trying even if our use cases dont' work for $1B publishers
19:58:10 <Ralph> Garth: I view that we're doing exactly the right thing
19:58:17 <jeff> q+ to discuss a potential role for the BG (even though the queue is closed).
19:58:57 <Ralph> ... we got a long way into WPub as a standalone thing then realized that we needed the audiobook profile to help evolve it
19:59:05 <Ralph> ... we've not done anything dumb
19:59:23 <Ralph> ... whether EPUB 3.4 makes sense is a separate discussion
19:59:32 <Ralph> Tzviya: closing thoughts ...
19:59:49 <Ralph> ... we've recorded lots of action items in these two days
19:59:59 <Ralph> ... there's a lot of work to complete those
20:00:12 <Ralph> ... the WG will meet on Monday
20:00:17 <Ralph> ... we're on track to publish
20:00:32 <Ralph> ... we have a group of people to work on testing to prove that we do have implementations that work in the real world
20:00:40 <Ralph> ... we'll reasses in a few weeks
20:00:53 <tzviya> zakim, open the queue
20:00:53 <Zakim> ok, tzviya, the speaker queue is open
20:01:07 <Ralph> Jeff: this team seems pretty confident that there is a worthwhile use case to proceed with
20:01:11 <Ralph> ... that's good
20:01:21 <Ralph> ... I also hear angst that it's not good enough
20:01:46 <Ralph> ... I'd like to suggest that the WG assign to the BG and/or SC to do all they can to help create the business case and help popularize it
20:01:57 <Ralph> ... the BG has focused on epubcheck which was necessary
20:01:58 <ivan> +1 to jeff
20:02:08 <dauwhe> q?
20:02:08 <Ralph> ... this would be a great thing to do next
20:02:23 <Ralph> Tzviya: Romain reminded us of the Publishing CG
20:02:37 <ivan> q+
20:02:41 <Ralph> ... we should make a strong effort to make sure the business cases and the technical cases are aligned
20:02:43 <tzviya> ack ivan
20:02:47 <Rachel> +1 Jeff
20:02:58 <garth> q?
20:03:10 <Ralph> Ivan: it's still far away but I think it's OK to think early about the rechartering period
20:03:19 <Ralph> ... we'll need to seriously consider it in 6 months
20:03:37 <Ralph> ... be more serious about getting the BG and WG to work closely together
20:03:53 <Ralph> ... to help us avoid e10l crises every other meeting
20:04:10 <Avneesh> q+
20:04:19 <Ralph> ... in January 2020 we'll have to start thinking seriously about a new charter or an extension of our current charter
20:04:29 <garth> q?
20:04:31 <Ralph> ... we should make [the cooperation with the BG] much better than it has been
20:04:43 <tzviya> ack Avneesh
20:04:59 <Ralph> Avneesh: with EPUB 3.2 just out there's a gestation period for adoption
20:05:11 <Ralph> ... making decisions before adoption would be premature
20:05:36 <Ralph> ... we might waht to take 6 months [in 2020] to observe adoption
20:05:56 <Ralph> ... the BG can concentrate on what are the highest priority use cases
20:06:03 <garth> q?
20:06:10 <Ralph> ... see what is adopted
20:06:23 <Ralph> ... take 6-10 months to decide next priorities
20:06:44 <Ralph> Tzviya: the overwhelming advice from the AB/Publishing meetup in New York was "these things take time"
20:06:52 <Ralph> ... "work with the developers and implementors"
20:07:06 <Ralph> ... we might have a really good spec but are taking the wrong approach
20:07:17 <Ralph> ... we can't expect instant delivery
20:07:22 <garth> zakim, close the queue
20:07:22 <Zakim> ok, garth, the speaker queue is closed
20:07:43 <Ralph> Tzviya: That's All Folks!
20:08:13 <duga> duga has left #pwg
20:08:22 <Ralph> zakim, bye
20:08:22 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been dkaplan, bigbluehat, dauwhe, ivan, laudrain, wendyreid, mattg, tzviya, t-cole, Ralph_Swick, George, laurent_, romain, timCole,
20:08:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwg
20:08:22 <dkaplan3> http://ridesharedriversunited.com/rideshare-drivers-united-are-calling-for-a-24hrs-strike-8-may-2019-in-la-california-usa/
20:08:25 <Zakim> ... Rachel, avneesh, JunGamo, david_stroup, CharlesL, Andrea, Franco, marisa, garth, geoffjukes, Nellie, toshiakikoike, josh, danielweck
20:08:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-minutes.html Ralph
20:08:51 <JunGamo> JunGamo has left #pwg
20:08:52 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:08:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-minutes.html ivan
20:08:52 <ivan> zakim, bye
20:08:52 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
20:08:52 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-actions.rdf :
20:08:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: franco to produce a gap analysis of the ucr items vs. existing web concepts [1]
20:08:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-irc#T15-02-16
20:08:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bigbluehat to file issue about publication addresses being required to end in `/` [2]
20:08:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-irc#T17-38-22
20:08:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: wendy to review "AudioObject" schema and explore what feedback is required for schema [3]
20:08:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/05/07-pwg-irc#T18-23-03
20:09:06 <toshiakikoike> bye