Meeting minutes
The principles and technique documents are being updated based on the feedback received.
<AvneeshSingh> Principles: https://
<AvneeshSingh> EPUB metadata techniques: https://
<AvneeshSingh> ONIX metadata techniques: https://
George: about the principle document. Updated comment about negative claims when publishers do not provide metadata and distributor makes a statement. It's still problematic and we should adress it. Except from hasard, there is no way for a publisher to say I did not check.
<gpellegrino> gautierchomel: speaking about visual adjustment
<gpellegrino> ... what is displayed is "appearence modifiability not known"
<gpellegrino> ... the French Publishers' Association has no concerns about "unkwon" statements
<gpellegrino> ... I can double check with them
<gpellegrino> ... what is worst: to have "no information about visual adjustments from the publisher" or "appearence modifiability not known"?
George: vital source website states something like "there is no information, please contact the publisher".
mgarrish: simple string seems to me clear to it refer to a missing metadata, we should not complexify the reader experience.
mgarrish: "no information available" is less misleading i guess.
George: so the proposal is to change all unknown statements to "no information available". Looks like a consensus.
George: Pre recorded audio clarifies "pre recorded audio"
George: Rich context is a rename of Chart, diagrams, formulas. It became a bigger area with different types of maths, rewording of chemistry to chemical formulas and also accessibility of videos and audios.
George: we need an additional final statement that no information is available
gautierchomel: this one is different because we check presence of rich contents and then check if a corresponding accessibility metadata exist.
George: so we know that rich content exists but may not know the accessibility part of it.
Chris_ONIX: we provide ONIX guidance to say that if a content is present but not the accessibility related field, then it's a negative claim.
Chris_ONIX: so the actual statement is correct, but probably we could say "not known" instead of "not accessible"
gautierchomel: the formulation is neutral (not identified as being accessible) so seems fine.
gautierchomel: but maybe that "not identified..." statement should be said for each content type (here math, chemical, chart, diagram, video, audio, etc.)
JonasLillqvist: the list here have a heading that duplicates the section heading. Same applies to navigation.
George: should we take out those headings in examples ?
George: probably we should generate exemples from the technics to be sure it's consistent
gautierchomel: actual heading structure results in a lot of duplications (headings with only one element under).
mgarrish: do we have such granular level definition for rich contents in schema.org?
<gpellegrino> 1+
madeleine: no
JonasLillqvist: another comment about Charts, diagrams, figures, and graphs have extended descriptions. How does this relates to epub metadata. I don't think there is a way to express that a long description corresponds to one or another type of content.
George: correct. extended description can apply to any kind of content, even a markedup table.
George: the only thing we can say is that rich content has extended description
JonasLillqvist: compact statement of it is less problematic because it has less details.
George: should I change the AND here in a OR? It would be more technically precise.
ccarr: this issue of specifying content exists in the mapping. For use ONIX is less defined than schema.
<AvneeshSingh> acl mext
Chris_ONIX: to clarify, we joined chart diagram graph because internationaly, each word has a different meaning and one can mean another in some languages.
Chris_ONIX: too much ambiguity to separate terms. Unlike type of images (photos, etc.) that are clearly identified in different cultures.
Madeleine: I don't remember why we detailed in schema.
ccarr: what the user wants to know is probably which of those contents has extended descriptions.
George: we cannot detail that in any technique.
AvneeshSingh: no call on 26th nor the second. See you on january 9th