12:42:26 RRSAgent has joined #pbgsc 12:42:26 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/23-pbgsc-irc 12:42:27 rrsagent, set log public 12:42:46 Meeting: Publishing Strategy meeting 12:42:52 chair: rachel 12:45:59 Daihei has joined #pbgsc 12:56:31 present+ 12:57:39 Rachel has joined #pbgsc 12:57:44 RalphS has joined #pbgsc 12:57:45 jeff has joined #pbgsc 12:58:15 Avneesh has joined #pbgsc 12:58:32 present+ jeff ralph 12:58:46 present+ 12:58:55 present+ 12:59:38 zakim, who's on the call? 12:59:38 Present: wendyreid, jeff, ralph, Rachel, Avneesh 12:59:46 laudrain has joined #pbgsc 12:59:50 George has joined #pbgsc 12:59:55 present+ 13:00:24 present+ 13:00:30 present+ 13:01:59 mgarrish has joined #pbgsc 13:03:15 present+ liisa 13:03:35 present+ daihei 13:03:48 liisamk has joined #pbgsc 13:03:51 present+ 13:04:08 present+ mattg 13:04:44 garth has joined #pbgsc 13:04:51 present+ Garth 13:06:09 scribe+ garth 13:06:22 scribenick Garth 13:07:03 scribe: Garth 13:07:27 topic: known truths 13:07:30 Rachel: The outcome of the publishing strategy meetings is to come up with a strategy for publishing at 13:07:31 W3C for next 3 to 5 years. Strategy development exercise is different from project planning, the 13:07:32 two most important foundation blocks of publishing strategy are: 13:07:33 • Identification of target beneficiaries and compelling objectives for the beneficiaries 13:07:34 • Shared ownership of objectives: The target beneficiaries should feel that these 13:07:35 objectives are their own objectives. 13:07:48 … Known truths. 13:07:54 … Support EPUB 13:07:59 … Support Validator 13:08:10 … GB will continue, with evolving goals. 13:08:17 s/GB/BG/ 13:08:31 … Continue to develop audiobooks 13:08:43 q+ 13:08:56 … address the business needs of the publishing 13:08:56 ack jeff 13:08:57 industry 13:09:08 Jeff: integrate EPUB with Web 13:09:09 q+ 13:09:26 ack laudrain 13:09:36 [I heard Jeff say "continue to integrate ..." 13:09:57 Luc: What’s met by “Web Technology”? 13:10:05 s/met/meant/ 13:10:07 q+ to respond 13:10:18 … Mostly built on Web, with packaging. 13:10:50 q- 13:10:54 ack jeff 13:11:00 goot to keep idea in parking zone 13:11:01 Jeff: Continue to intgrate Web tech into EPUB (as we already have with HTML). 13:11:11 q+ 13:11:13 Luc: Help Web Tech support EPUB. 13:11:13 [I think this is part of the roadmap] 13:11:26 +1 to parking lot 13:11:56 Geroge: Posted slides of IBM’s adoption of EPUB — broader meaning of publoshing. 13:12:03 ack George 13:12:06 q+ 13:12:15 s/publoshing/publishing/ 13:12:23 … Gov & Corp docs. 13:13:09 George's coment is good for beneficiary. 13:13:09 … Should have broadest view of publishing. Anybody doing “publishing” is our beneficiaries. 13:13:28 known truth are more strong statements 13:13:35 Rachel: Expand “publishing to industry” to incoude Gov & Corp publishing too 13:13:36 ack liisamk 13:13:47 [parkinglot+ what do we mean by "publishing"?] 13:14:07 ack RalphS 13:14:17 Liisa: Expand and evolve to encompas more types of publishing in our work (as known truth). 13:15:00 Jeff: Not rat-hole of on exactly definition (e.g., NYT & WP), but still be broad. 13:15:13 s/Jeff:/Ralph:/ 13:15:59 Rachel: Noted expansion of “publishing” definitio in Parking Lot. 13:16:33 q? 13:16:41 s/definitio/definition/ 13:16:45 q+ 13:16:52 ack liisamk 13:17:20 +1 to Liisa 13:17:23 q+ 13:17:25 Liisa: Continue to support innovation and experimentation with CG’s (or however). 13:17:36 ack Avneesh 13:17:37 … Should be forward looking. 13:18:10 Aveneesh: Known truths are about past/present, not objectives. 13:18:11 +1 to Avneesh 13:18:16 +1 13:18:48 present+ mateus 13:19:03 Topic: target beneficiaries 13:19:54 Rachel: Publsihing industry; dependant on EPUB 3 13:20:03 … Folks who can leverage Web 13:20:12 … Using native tech on Web 13:20:24 … Publsihing w/o using EPIB 3 tech 13:20:30 … Who else? 13:20:44 q+ 13:20:50 ack wendyreid 13:21:13 q+ 13:21:18 q+ 13:21:36 Wendy: Add — entities that could benefit from this tech, but haven’t gotten there yet. (e.g., audibooks) 13:21:37 q+ 13:21:50 Rachel: is that an expanded #4? 13:21:53 present+ 13:21:54 Wendy: yes 13:22:00 ack laudrain 13:22:51 Luc: Where are the likes of Koeran folks doing Web tunes? They are on the Web tech already — but, non-standard. 13:22:59 … Part of category #3? 13:23:09 It looks god fit for 3. 13:23:11 … yes. 13:23:36 … Waht about PDF folks? 13:23:38 q+ 13:23:44 ack liisamk 13:23:51 Rachel: Category #4 13:23:56 +1 to lisa 13:24:01 Liisa: maybe add some examples to each? 13:24:26 q+ 13:24:48 ack ivan 13:25:09 [I'd find a functional characterization of target beneficiaries useful; e.g. "distributing curated collections of web pages as a single unit"] 13:25:21 Ivan: Fourth category is perhaps too much open ended. 13:26:08 … PDF publishing, yes on the Web, but… 13:26:28 * liisa Amazon isn't really EPUB any more. They derive from EPUB, yes, but their formats are either json/sql lite or PDF with a wrapper. 13:26:30 Rachel: Wendy clairification may help 13:26:47 q? 13:26:52 Ivan: #4 could be “those publishing on the Web, but not using W3C stuff.” 13:27:20 Matt: +1 to being clearer, and adding examples. Those migrating from EPUB 2 too. 13:27:29 ["EPUB*"] 13:27:34 ack mgarrish 13:27:47 ack laudrain 13:27:52 Luc: EPUB 2 is a business depending on EPUB. 13:28:01 +1 to Luc (business dependency on EPUB) 13:28:37 … Should be in #1, with hope to move to EPUB 3. 13:29:26 mateus has joined #pbgsc 13:29:50 … Need to careful with “business” — some stuff could be free; should be included? 13:29:53 present+ 13:30:02 dauwhe_ has joined #pbgsc 13:30:16 … “business needs” needs to fit in. 13:30:18 q? 13:30:27 ack RalphS 13:30:27 RalphS, you wanted to mention desktop apps [user-generated content] 13:31:16 RalphS: Longer term vision will be more succussful if we condier what folks do with dekstop apps (current usage of PDF). 13:31:25 q+ 13:31:48 … PDF is so easy, that’s a driver. 13:32:05 … “Save as EPUB” could/should be just as easy. 13:32:12 scribe+ mateus 13:32:15 scribe: mateus 13:32:21 q+ 13:32:45 ack Avneesh 13:33:18 Avneesh: creation of PDF is one thing, but even more, the reading of PDF may be done anywhere... 13:33:38 ... i want to emphasize the reading side... this is something that has to be discussed while making a roadmap for the future... not a question for today 13:33:44 +1 to Avneesh; and I include that as part of what I consider "on the web" 13:33:50 q+ 13:34:08 ... maybe there is no right way to use EPUB on the web today, to replacew PDF 13:34:14 s/replacew/replace 13:34:19 ack laudrain 13:34:33 laudrain: wondering if in the target beneficiaries, it would be useful to have sector descriptions 13:35:06 ... some sectors would benefit more from Web Publications ... i was confused because i thought WP would be the perfect goal for scholarly publishers... 13:35:22 ... similar to audiobooks, who don't have a standard today 13:35:49 +1 to Luc 13:35:53 ... i would add more on sectors... PDF publishers already have a means of publishing and distributing their publications 13:36:16 ... we could enrich the beneficiaries by pointing out the plusses for each sector 13:36:24 ... i also don't see anything about reading systems 13:36:42 q+ 13:36:44 q? 13:36:48 good point regarding reading systems 13:36:52 ... when we wrote this document as is, we say that reading systems are not beneficiaries... are we ok with that? 13:37:00 jeff: +1 to reading systems 13:37:04 ack jeff 13:37:16 ... there's another category, which is end users, and underneath them, the a11y community 13:37:22 ... critical that we pull them out as focus areas 13:37:28 +1 to accessibilty community 13:37:46 ... for the parking lot, we can also talk about how publishers have published in languages that are not popular on the web... not latin character set for example 13:38:03 ... they require some love, probably not a major focus for today 13:38:07 ack wendyreid 13:38:19 wendyreid: in response to laudrain re reading systems... i think they are represented 13:38:24 q+ 13:38:34 ... they fit in category 1 because their businesses depend on EPUB 3 13:38:49 ... we did leave that in the dark, which is where we get the confusion... so we can clarify 13:38:50 q? 13:38:54 ... also agree about end users 13:39:02 ["consumers"] 13:39:03 ack Avneesh 13:39:23 Avneesh: thinking the same about reading systems in category 1... but it should be more explicit 13:39:55 ... regarding end users... the target beneficiaries here are about the work we do in W3C... and users are the ultimate beneficiary... but they get the benefit through these groups we are identifying 13:40:04 ... we don't have membership for users in W3C 13:40:38 Rachel: re adding target beneficiary for end users, any other thoughts on that? 13:40:40 +1 to end users 13:40:42 +1 13:40:42 +1 13:40:43 q+ 13:40:43 q+ 13:40:46 +1 13:40:46 q- 13:40:53 +1 13:41:02 q+ 13:41:04 Avneesh: i would suggest to add them as the ultimate beneficiary 13:41:09 ack Avneesh 13:41:30 ... whatever we do in W3C, through these target beneficiaries, the benefits should end up targeting the user 13:41:31 ack jeff 13:41:40 q+ 13:41:43 q+ 13:41:50 jeff: Avneesh mentioned we don't have membership for users in W3C, but the a11y community is an example counter to that... 13:42:22 ... not identifying that those communities are beneficiaries is missing a critical part of the world 13:42:23 q? 13:42:48 +1 to known truth 13:42:51 laudrain: was wondering if this is not a known truth? that the users are the ultimate beneficiaries 13:42:57 ack laudrain 13:43:31 ... maybe we can add it to the known truths... reading for all, access for all... adding something that we had started on with IDPF and EPUB 3... 13:43:44 ... it is a known truth that we work for reading for all, and for inclusivity and a11y 13:43:57 ack George 13:44:15 q+ 13:44:35 George: certainly agree with that... thinking of readers, students, young students... reading and writing tends to be paper oriented... there has to be a translation of the concept that a paper is a published document... 13:44:45 ack mgarrish 13:44:49 ... i see that as very important as well 13:45:21 mgarrish: i can also see users in the benefit category as well... not all about what publishers want... what benefits the end user here depends on decisions we make... it also comes to decision making and how we formulate the specifications 13:45:31 q? 13:45:33 ... the end user is certainly a beneficiary of these specs 13:46:39 Rachel: seems we have a proposal to add to the known truths that we will continue to support a broad audience in publishing, including a11y; and to include in the target beneficiaries that the ultimate beneficiary is the end user... is that accurate? 13:46:39 +1 13:46:43 +1 13:46:43 +1 13:46:47 +1 13:46:48 +1 13:46:58 +1 13:47:59 Rachel: it seems we do have time to identify additional examples within the target beneficiaries... can we name some examples? 13:48:04 q+ 13:48:28 ack George 13:48:57 George: one of the things we talked about was the reading systems, making sure there is a default reading system on every platform so that people can open EPUB very easily... thinking about EPUB on Edge going away... once that's gone, we don't have anything 13:49:29 q+ 13:49:33 Rachel: we have reading systems under entities whose business models depend on EPUB 3, but maybe they also belong in point 2 13:49:35 may not be in no.2 13:49:40 ack liisamk 13:49:57 q+ 13:50:04 +1 to Liisa 13:50:04 ack Avneesh 13:50:06 liisamk: don't think we can put them in #2... don't think they would see themselves as believing in power of web platform and that more publishing can happen on the web 13:50:25 Avneesh: want to highlight that we know #1 very well, #2 maybe, and #s 3 and 4 need more discovery 13:50:36 ... we can't move forward unless we know the needs of the targets 13:50:49 ... we should identify the people we need to reach out to 13:50:55 +1 to Avneesh 13:51:15 ... maybe we can put things more concretely where we know them, and stick to higher levels in 3 and 4 13:51:27 Rachel: do you think it's not worth pointing out examples? 13:51:51 Avneesh: we already talked about some examples, like audiobooks, but at least we should add what we know, and we can add more after this call 13:52:18 q+ 13:52:26 q+ 13:52:35 ack Avneesh 13:52:35 Rachel: we do still have this in the parking lot... i am a little concerned that we're going into identifying objectives and trying to identify who the beneficiaries are for those objectives... 13:52:36 We know Audiobooks, DigitalVisualNarrtive, Sholarly Publishing, Education 13:53:03 ack liisamk 13:53:06 Avneesh: this informs us which objectives can be or can't be completed at this time... we will know what we need more definition or to reach out to the market 13:53:08 s/Sholarly/Scholarly/ 13:53:31 And Trade Publisher as 1, thanks Liisa 13:53:35 lissamk: i was headed in the same direction as laudrain... let's bucket what we know 13:53:46 +1 to Liisa 13:53:48 q? 13:54:06 Rachel: are you asking that we put in more examples or that we should move on? 13:54:33 lissamk: we should put the ones we know... in addition to laudrain's list, I add trade... 13:54:39 q+ 13:55:01 ack laudrain 13:55:03 Rachel: do we know that this list is true? aren't we better off sticking to more general identifiers like EPUB 3 users, EPUB 2 users, PDF users...? 13:55:38 laudrain: answering to Avneesh's proposal to know the beneficiaries... we do know some, e.g., point 1 includes trade publishers... we know how educational publishers work... 13:55:56 ... Pearson is moving fully to digital-first publishing 13:56:20 ... we think we know, but we should keep in mind that things change and we should reach out to each sector to know their needs properly 13:56:36 audio books: 4 13:56:40 Rachel: we have a few minutes, let's give this a try... audiobooks, where do they go under? 13:56:51 wendyreid: 4 13:56:58 Rachel: DigitalVisualNarrative? 13:57:00 laudrain: 3 13:57:21 ivan: some of them may fall under 4... that's the problem... the categories are not exclusive to one item... 13:57:31 ... some may be published as PDF, and that would be 4 13:58:13 laudrain: the idea is authors create narratives directly on the web... of course there is a big audience of publications in PDF, but DigitalVisualNarratives is for the web 13:58:44 q+ 13:58:47 ivan: ok, but the point is that some categories are not specific... some scholarly publishers publish PDF, but there are some that are fully HTML and don't do PDF or do PDF on the side... 13:58:55 ack Avneesh 13:58:57 ... so scholarly publishing doesn't fall into one category 13:59:03 Avneesh: i think it's ok to have overlap 13:59:37 ... approaching publishers in cat 4 would be a different approach from a publisher in cat 3, who may already be participating in W3C or some working group, so approaching them would be easier 13:59:51 Rachel: keeping scholarly in mind, where would that appear? 14:00:08 laudrain: 3 and 4? 14:00:17 ivan: we know that we have them in 3 and 4... 14:00:40 Rachel: next on the list, education? certainly have them in 1, and in 4... 14:00:43 ivan: some of them in 3 14:00:45 q+ 14:00:55 ack mgarrish 14:01:20 thanks Wendy 14:01:21 mgarrish: looking at 1 and 2, what is the distinction that we are drawing between someone who is greatly dependent on EPUB 3 and someone who believes in it? 14:01:37 ... i'm confused how we understand the first two categories 14:02:10 q+ 14:02:23 laudrain: the question came from the fact Avneesh pointed out that we know well the entities in 1, we know less the ones in 3, 4, etc... so we can identify how to do outreach 14:02:39 mgarrish: so 1 is someone who exclusively uses EPUB 3? 14:02:42 ack Avneesh 14:03:16 q+ 14:03:27 Avneesh: just to clarify, cat 1 are those who are happy with EPUB 3 and just want to evolve it as it is today, maybe with new features... cat 2 are those who believe that books can exist on the web... they are happy with EPUB 3, but are happy with transition of EPUB 3 to the web 14:03:36 ack Daihei 14:04:09 Daihei: number 1 would be content creators who are simply replicating the current publishing content model... whereas numbers 2 and 4 are more digital native... 14:04:18 ... who create at least part of their content with a more dynamic mode 14:04:36 ivan: 2 or 4, or 2 and 3? 14:04:45 Daihei: you're right, 2 and 3 14:05:07 Rachel: time to move on to identifying objectives section, unless there are other urgent comments re beneficiaries? 14:05:10 Topic: Identifying Objectives (Target Beneficiaries) 14:06:05 ... objectives in the document are aligned to the beneficiaries... our goal is to make sure we have the objectives covered and how we serve beneficiaries 14:06:06 present+ dauwhe_ 14:13:54 Rachel: returning to our agenda... is everyone back from the break? 14:14:30 ... talking about whether we have objectives identified, what's missing... and whether they align to our target beneficiaries 14:14:59 ... the ones we identified so far... i sent them to you yesterday... 14:15:08 ivan: what do the numbers mean? 14:15:16 Rachel: they correspond to the target beneficiaries 14:15:44 ... do we need to read them aloud? 14:15:57 wendy: i'll do it 14:17:52 q+ 14:17:53 q+ 14:17:59 ack laudrain 14:18:00 ... EPUB is critically important... we must maintain it; validation tools are equally important and need maintenance; all EPUBs should be accessible and we coordinate with WAI; we believe in power of Web Platform and need to identify the obstacle thwarting books in browsers; believe in participating in W3C; ensure charters reflect work that publishing industry does; determine business needs versus technical needs; provide pathways for incubation; identify 14:18:00 target beneficiaries 14:18:22 q+ 14:18:49 laudrain: where do we fit the question of adding better support for rendering with CSS... better web platform rendering of CSS... we know there are issues with this, true in the Web, but in EPUB as well... 14:19:25 ... under point 4, that we believe in power of Web Platform... i would note that it is important for beneficiary group 1 14:19:30 q+ 14:19:39 ... same for point 5 14:20:10 q+ 14:20:34 garth: following on what laudrain just said... bringing quality rendering into EPUB would probably fit under 1 or 5; it ought to be a specific goal; EPUB is the standard now... CSS is getting better... we want to continue to focus on bringing the most up to date web stuff to EPUB... i agree with laudrain 14:21:00 ... cautionary note: on bullet 4, that is precisely where PWG got into trouble 14:21:23 ... we acknowledge that the WG spend an awful lot of time spending time on 4... we should be cautious 14:21:25 ack garth 14:21:56 ack ivan 14:22:00 Rachel: yes, at this point we should just talk about our objectives overall and we can talk about that under objective focus coming up 14:22:37 ivan: commenting on both garth and laudrain's notes... under "obstacles working with books" but there are also other publications... we have to be careful what word we use 14:23:05 q? 14:23:15 Karen has joined #pbgsc 14:23:53 ... with all respect to CSS, we have heard from tzviya that in scholarly publishing making precise references in text is essential for that community, and it's a web technology issue... i'm looking for what we had in the Publishing IG years ago, which is to influence other W3C technologies to come on board issues that come from the publishing community... and that should be an objective in some way or another 14:24:06 ... number 5, participating in W3C community, is a bit vague 14:24:17 laudrain_ has joined #pbgsc 14:24:33 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/23-pbgsc-minutes.html RalphS 14:24:33 ack dauwhe 14:24:34 ... we should mention explicitly that we want to influence how other technologies evolve, including CSS 14:25:07 q+ 14:25:12 dauwhe: re CSS, we should clarify that there is a lot that works in browsers that doesn't work in reading systems... that's less an issue of spec, as EPUB references the current spec, but more an issue of reading system implementation 14:25:13 ack Avneesh 14:25:58 Avneesh: my comments are from the process perspective... "we believe" doesn't have a space in the strategy document... "belief" does not exist when it comes to a rational strategy document... we have to be careful with our words 14:26:11 ... regarding outreach, it is something that has to be handled with management 14:26:31 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/23-pbgsc-minutes.html RalphS 14:26:37 ... the idea here is to focus on the objective, not the process for meeting the objective 14:26:57 ... just trying to reframe how we talk about them and how we rephrase these sentences so that they are truly objectives 14:27:11 ack mgarrish 14:27:17 +1 Avneesh 14:27:37 q+ 14:27:46 mgarrish: Avneesh somewhat covered what i was going to say... we need to find out why those not involved are not involved, and that's outreach we need to do 14:27:49 ack wendyreid 14:28:50 wendyreid: secondary to mgarrish's point, first we need to understand why technologies aren't getting used, but also, re the PWG experience, there are people who do want to do this but aren't in the room... there are fan fiction websites, there are people publishing directly on the web, but we don't have their participation 14:29:46 Rachel: there are requests to flesh out objectives... one is the idea that we need better support for platform rendering; another is identifying who should be involved and is not involved... is that accurate? 14:30:15 ... then Avneesh also mentioned rephrasing the objectives so they are less idea statements and more objective statements 14:30:27 ... any objectives are are missing? 14:30:32 "We intend to work with and participate in the larger W3C Community."? 14:30:36 q+ 14:30:47 ack liisamk 14:30:57 lissamk: i think we're missing an objective for implementation and adoption 14:31:11 q+ 14:31:20 Rachel: of Publishing@W3C output in general? 14:31:25 q+ 14:31:37 ack George 14:31:38 lissamk: yes, part of our mission is to get people to implement standards and use them, not just create them 14:32:04 George: along with the outreach... there are segments that don't know how bad what they are doing is, and need others to point out... so it's awareness building 14:32:23 ack laudrain 14:32:28 ... these are folks who we won't be able to bring in, but they just don't know that there's a better option 14:32:53 q+ 14:33:35 q+ 14:33:48 ack mgarrish 14:33:49 +1 to Luc 14:33:51 laudrain: also wondering if we can also add something about identifying issues in reading systems, bugs... and propose best practices, meaning that we know that some EPUB constructs don't work in every reading systems, so we would continue to reinforce better support across the supply chain, in all reading systems.... producing not only specs, but also best practices... not only reinforcing a11y, for example, but also its implementation in existing supply 14:33:51 chain 14:34:09 q+ 14:34:13 mgarrish: in terms of engagement... one thing i don't see are the browsers... we need to do better engagement with browsers if we want this on the web 14:34:15 [what priority would those here give to creating a larger test suite, ala Web Platform Tests ?] 14:34:30 ... we need to get them interested if we want WP or EPUB on the Web... that will be key 14:34:33 ack dauwhe 14:34:56 dauwhe: what i am hearing is that we're describing about fifty full-time jobs for PR, media researchers, lawyers, dev advocates, lobbyists... 14:35:13 ... i worry about once again having objectives that are difficult or impossible for us to achieve 14:35:30 ... we are a small industry trying to convince companies the scale of Google and Amazon to change how they do things... 14:35:31 q+ 14:35:43 q+ 14:35:48 ... we have some evidence that our best practices don't have a huge amount of influence at that scale... 14:35:57 ... concerned that we are setting us up for failure... 14:36:13 ack Rachel 14:36:36 q- 14:36:47 +1 prioritizing objectives is the focus 14:36:56 Rachel: to address some of those concerns, since i set up the agenda... the goal to set up the objectives is not to overextend ourselves, but establish what our focus will be in terms of reframing the works of the different groups going forward... 14:37:27 q+ 14:37:38 ... we are exceptional at getting to existential crises... we excel at disagreeing about our agreements... we need consensus and be able to establish our objectives and how important each of them are to us 14:37:54 ack wendyreid 14:37:55 ... we should do it one step at a time otherwise we will lose our way again 14:38:01 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/23-pbgsc-minutes.html RalphS 14:38:15 ack Avneesh 14:38:20 wendyreid: we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves... let's get the objectives defined then move to the focus 14:39:07 Avneesh: the objectives are not so strong right now... we are asking people to pay 80k membership fees and dedicate technical staff... the objectives should be compelling enough that people justify spending resources on this 14:39:09 +1 to Avneesh 14:39:27 Rachel: anything else to add to the objective statements? 14:39:47