– DRAFT –
(MEETING TITLE)

avneeshsingh: we have some new people, please introduce yourself

Yasmine: I'm Yasmine from IFLA, from the print disability section

<pcalarco> Good day, everyone!

Hong: Hi, I'm Hong from Library and Archives Canada

avneeshsingh: let's start!

Start document for guiding, how to write good accessibility summary

<avneeshsingh> https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues/86

avneeshsingh: we're having a great discussion in the issue tracker

GeorgeK: first question is: do we need an accessibilitySummary?
… now that we have other accessibility metadata displayed in a friendly way
… it sounds that we need it

gpellegrino: summarizing https://github.com/w3c/publ-a11y/issues/86#issuecomment-1077622631
… I'm now sure we need the field as it is now

Bill_Kasdorf: I do a lot of work with accessibility offices in universities, and they use that field a lot
… for telling what they've done

<Naomi_> p+

mgarrish: Should we got back to the EPUB WG for make this field not mandatory?
… since we don't have clear guidance on how to make this text

Gautier: I had a different opinion, publishers are waiting for a guide on how to write this summary
… I now agree with what Gregorio pointed, maybe this information can be put in another place

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to making it optional

gpellegrino: for me it would be good for making this field optional

GeorgeK: do the universities office distribute the files? Do they have a catalog?

Bill_Kasdorf: yes, we have the Frame system that report that field
… for a resource remediated for a specific disability, it is useful to now it
… like "i've only added image descriptions"

MURATA: My collegues in DAISY Japan think that this field is useful, but we may abuse of the field, so we may split the field in two: the summary and other text metadata that doesn't fit

<Bill_Kasdorf> even "may" would be okay with me

avneeshsingh: to summarize: if we want to make it optional or mandatory, I think we need a guidance for accessibilitySumamry
… for matt: I think we should open an issue in the EPUB 3 issue tracker
… for the guidance: it should convey information available in machine readable way, but also other information not available in other metadata

GeorgeK: I think that a guidance is needed in any case
… If we move it to the WG we miss part of the public that we have here (like libraries, ecc.)

Chris: in a library system we have great expectation of metadata, but often accessibility metadata is not displayed, so having a summary is useful

<pcalarco> Chris Oliver is Head of Cataloguing at the University of Ottawa Library (Canada)

<mgarrish> https://github.com/w3c/epub-specs/issues/2116

GeorgeK: yes, I think this is a good point for deciding to maintain it mandatory or not

Charles: if it important for libraries I think we should maintain it mandatory
… it is a requirement of GCA, but some publishers are making it using copy and paste
… if we have a tool that generates the text it would be useful for publishers

avneeshsingh: I think we should postpone this issue

<Bill_Kasdorf> I retract my support for may or should. The library case is compelling.

Michelle_: for libraries the problem to display metadata and making it available to librarians is a big problem
… working closely with the teams that develop these interfaces I think that having this field is useful

avneeshsingh: back to the question: do we need a guidance document for writing the summary?

GeorgeK: yes we need guidance

<Bill_Kasdorf> +1 to George

<CharlesL> +1 to keeping it a Must and starting the guidance doc.

GeorgeK: I think that if we make the field optional, no one will use it

<pcalarco> George, I have not done this work before, but am happy to contribute

avneeshsingh_: maybe George can lead the group for the guidance document for accessibilitySummary

CharlesL: I can help

GeorgeK: ok, we can update the document in the github and then send it to the group

avneeshsingh_: I think you can create a subgroup

<Bill_Kasdorf> I'll be happy to participate

<Naomi_> I'd also love to participate

Gautier: me too

gpellegrino: my colleague Elisa would love to participate

GeorgeK: it is open for other group members that want to partecipate

Work on extending crosswalk of schema.org accessibility metadata and ONIX to MARC

avneeshsingh_: after last meeting let's see the different action items

Chris: I contacted the person in the UNIMARC community, they want to know more
… I've sent them the crosswalk, they'll send back some comments

Gautier: did you receive the document?

Gautier: the document is a list of a subset of accessibility metadata available in Schema.org
… for each field I've put a note
… as a glossary; for each information we have ONIX, Schema.org and MARC
… for UNIMARC it is quite simple to map ONIX 196 codelist to UNIMARC
… instead we have few information from MARC21
… at the end of the document I've put a table with two columns: one for UNIMARC and another for MARC21
… the goal is ot complete the columns and put them in the crosswalk

Chris: thank Gautier, I've share this document with my colleague, we're setting up a discussion group for analyzing the document and give feedback
… we'll have a meeting next Wednesday

avneeshsingh_: where do we put this document?
… maybe in github?

Michelle_: for me github is fine

Chris: for me is unusual, but it is fine

avneeshsingh_: maybe we can put it in a github wiki

gpellegrino: manage tables is complex in wiki

<Bill_Kasdorf> Could somebody provide a link to a Github guide?

Gautier: is there a guide?
… for github

avneeshsingh_: maybe we can identify one or two editors familiar with github
… I think a lot of work will happen in the different MARC working group
… and in the document we only collect the results

Michelle_: I can help in github

Chris: fine for me

<Gautier> There are guide here : https://www.w3.org/Guide/

avneeshsingh_: who can be the editors?

MadeleineRothberg: I can join as a schema representative

Gautier: I can partecipate in the task force
… maybe it would be to have a definition for each metadata
… for mapping and for localization

Hong: I would love to partecipate in the crosswalk, I notice that for most of the metadata is mapped to ONIX, but some links are missed

<pcalarco> MARC reference documentation is at https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/

gpellegrino: I can join for the ONIX part

avneeshsingh_: AOB?

CharlesL: for the definitions are we defining the fields or the values?

avneeshsingh_: I think it will depend
… the group can decide

<CharlesL> https://www.w3.org/2021/a11y-discov-vocab/latest/

avneeshsingh_: I'll open the invite for the task forces to other people, thank you for the work, have a nice day!