Meeting minutes
Graham++
Status of IDPF
Rick: we've had two meetings with Seth to update him on where things stand
<Graham6> OK, I can take over
Rick: he will update the W3C Board
After he outlined the model, Rick asked for questions
George: D&O insurance would continue to be paid by W3C, since IDPF would remain separate board
Bill K: Seth acknowledged continued support for things like EPUB check
Bill K: Rick noted that addition of W3C representatives to IDPF board is 'effectively' what the aim of the original merger was
Tzviya: asked for a summary
Rick: summarised
BG to CG?
Rick: next topic - changing the Business group into a community group. Consensus not to do that at last meeting
Rick: so will not take that idea forward
Participation in the various {C,B,W}Gs
Rick: would it help our focus if other consolidation of groups took place?
George: questioned how to get broader participation in incubation ideas within the community groups
Wendy: careful what we mean by 'incubation". Means in our context that there has been experimentation, tests, discussion etc. Need to be careful on the specifics of what we are exploring, particularly prior to re-chartering
Wendy: don't want to prevent incubation, by allowing innovation within a community group
Avneesh: while using working group for finalisation of recommendations
Avneesh: while CG can be flexible, Was need to be focused
*WG = WG
Avneesh: WGs need some resourcing
Wolfgang: CG needs new ideas.
Rick: calls for ideas to drive new activity within the CG
Rick: new item
<wolfgang> +1 to Rick!
Publishing Maintenance WG chairs
TPAC summary
<wendyreid> w3c/
Wendy: successful day at TPAC, lots of energy. discussed webtoons, accessibility, etc. Came to conclusion that the rechartering was needed
Wendy: now working on new charter, which will enable future work on an update to EPUB
Wendy: and annotations
Wendy: and annotations, and HTML serialization
<Bill_Kasdorf> Does the annotations work include addressing the locators issue, I presume?
George: some ideas for new charter – improving accessibility for FXL, interactivity and interoperability (eg with QTI in education)
Is there anything we should/could add on TDM? #29
Liisa: Should we fold in TDM? Wendy: TBM cannot currently be referred to as it is a community note
Publishing Maintenance WG charter issues
Wendy: some work envisioned to refine FXL. TPAC discussion also surfaced some more fundamental issues in structure that cannot be addressed in EPUB 3 because they would break back-compatibility. Need to be addressed in EPUB next version
Wendy: Doesn't preclude refinement of accessibility in EPUB 3, but incubation of new ideas for EPUB next should go to CG
Add feature Get Citation to the charter #22 [discusses "annotations" vs "citations" vs "locators"]
Wendy (responding to Liisa): needs some guidance from BG to CG to guide work on annotations. Needs people from (eg) education as well as trade. George agreed.
George: Is FXL accessibility a big (enough)problem that it needs fixing quickly (based on ADA Title.2 deadlines)
Rick: there are publishing partners that can be brought into this discussion about FXL accessibility
Next topic
Liisa: meeting soon to pull together work to put to BG, re question around whether DRM prevents (or reduces) accessibility.
Rick: funding for EPUBcheck needs to be considered during rechartering. Do we still think this funding mechanism belongs to the BG?
Rick: or should it be pushed to W3C?
Christina: Returning to TDM – very relevant for AI, so important. Returning to DRM, EAA mandates that any DRM must not impede accessibility
Christina: Adobe treat DRM (and Indesign) as cash cows, so might be difficult to persuade them to make any changes
Liisa: If Seth acknowledged need to support EPUBcheck, can we begin to move responsibility for support to W3C itself.
Liisa: noting lack of updates to ADE, meaning limited accessibility
Wendy: What does BG want to do with TDM note? Is the goal to put it on the rec track?
Liisa: BG would like TDM on rec track
Bill: EAA problematic for ADE
George: it's a mess, and publisher's often have to provide DRM-free alternatives for education purposes
<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to ask a followup
Wendy: need charter to put TDM on rec track. If we do this, a range of solutions will need to be considered. Ans what is the expected behaviour of reading systems in response to TBM
TDM
[I think Wendy is asking "what is the user agent behaviour that TDM expects?"]
Christina: TDM is an instruction to AI training systems, not specifically to reading systems
<Zakim> liisamk, you wanted to answer what the goal of TDM is
<Zakim> wendyreid, you wanted to point out some potential user impacts
Liisa: we expect reading systems to note presence of the opt-out (and presumably prevent it being passed to AI systems)
Wendy: there are user features (eg translation, summarisation) that might have to be blocked by reading systems
Christina: publisher contracts with author, and the author may not want content to be used for AI
<Zakim> still, you wanted to comment on TDM
Leslie: TDM is about opting out of training, not out of other uses of AI
Leslie: should communicate our adoption of TDM because there ARE other methods (and we don't want multiple methods of options out
(Graham: agree with Leslie –must differentiate between use of content for training, and use of content as source data (for summarisation eg)
Ralph: Good discussion.
Ralph: Sylvia Cadena, our newly hired chief development officer will be responsible for building funding streams other than membership
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on epubcheck support
Rick: community group
Publishing Community Group Chairs
Wolfgang: see a lot of activity in the task forces, A11Y, anti-counterfeiting etc. But again, these groups need BG input.
BillK: three active task forces is exactly how CGs should work.
<Ralph> [+1 to getting the TDM CG to present to the Publishing CG]
Leslie: TDM needs more discussion in the community group
BillK: could generate more activity in CG
Text and Data Mining Reservation Protocol Community Group
Liisa: if BG puts TDM on the agenda, then it can be taken forward
Wolfgang: agree this is a good idea. CG should incubate ideas that are business-relavant
Rick: AOB?
Shinya: conference today in Tokyo. Should regions reports be a regular topic in these meetings? [is that right? my audio is poor)
Rick: thanks. Closed themeeting