PWG Weekly Telco — Minutes

Date: 2019-07-8

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log


Present: Tzviya Siegman, Wendy Reid, Dave Cramer, George Kerscher, Ric Wright, Jun Gamou, Franco Alvarado, Ben Schroeter, Gregorio Pellegrino, Garth Conboy, Romain Deltour, Avneesh Singh, Brady Duga, Matt Garrish, Joshua Pyle, Laurent Le Meur, Deborah Kaplan, Benjamin Young

Regrets: Ivan Herman, Tim Cole, Luc Audrain, Rachel Comerford


Chair: Wendy Reid

Scribe(s): Nick Ruffilo, Wendy Reid


Wendy Reid:

Wendy Reid: Minutes from last week - any comments, questions, or suggestions?
… Minutes approved

Resolution #1: Last week’s minutes approved.

1. UCR document

Wendy Reid: The first agenda item - regarding the UCR document. We spent some time clearing up most of the issues, it is time to talk again. We wanted to raise it again.

Tzviya Siegman: Even though we’re changing directions, it will still live on…

Wendy Reid: We should still keep things up to date and accurate

Franco Alvarado: A Web Publication should be able to express the access control and write protections of the publication.

Franco Alvarado: We have one outstanding issue - it’s a pull request - rephrasing the language for issue #213 - Essentially the previous requirement was (pasted into IRC)

Franco Alvarado: A Web Publication should allow for the application of access control and write protections of the publication.

Franco Alvarado: It has been updated to (pasted into IRC)

Nick Ruffilo: Minor, “should allow for access control”? Feels a bit awkward but might be misreading
… I was reading application as Web app not “apply this to”, should we review this?

Nick Ruffilo: “should allow for application of access control…”

Franco Alvarado: A Web Publication should allow for application of access control and write protections of the publication.

George Kerscher: +1

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Laurent Le Meur: +1

Garth Conboy: +1

Wendy Reid: Everyone OK with merging that revision and accepting?

Geoff Jukes: +1

Nick Ruffilo: +1

Joshua Pyle: +1

Gregorio Pellegrino: +1

Ben Schroeter: +1

Franco Alvarado: +1

Resolution #2: Merge PR #225 of the UCR document.

Wendy Reid: Pull request 225…

Proposed resolution: Publish the latest draft of the UCR Document (Wendy Reid)

Wendy Reid: +1

Joshua Pyle: +1

Deborah Kaplan: +1

Franco Alvarado: +1

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Wendy Reid: The proposal is to publish the latest draft because it hasn’t been done in a month or so. This is a vote +1s in chat

Nick Ruffilo: +1

Garth Conboy: +1

Geoff Jukes: +1

Brady Duga: +1

Romain Deltour: +1

Tzviya Siegman: Ralph said he’s be able to work on this to publish it in Ivan’s absence.

Jun Gamou: +1

Resolution #3: Publish the latest draft of the UCR document.

Wendy Reid: Resolved. We will contact Ralph and get that ball rolling.

2. Fate of the WPUB document

Wendy Reid: The next agenda item is to have a quick update on… We had a discussion last week with the business group about the direction we discussed - audiobook will move forward…
… the one thing we were thinking is separating out the web publication manifest as the contents of the note and publish that as a note for hopefully future implementation. Then take what we need to take out of web publications and put it into audiobooks as a formal specification for that format. What we are also going to be doing with the business group is have a meeting soon…

George Kerscher: +1

Wendy Reid: to talk about the future of publishing activity - what we’re going to do with epub and what might web publications might turn into. Still up in the air.

Tzviya Siegman: I want to add to that. One thing we want to leave open and wasn’t clear - is that future profiles (even though i don’t like the word) we are still leaving the opportunity to have new profiles…
… we have heard interest within scholarly and manga to build off the work we did in audiobooks. Assuming the manifest stays in place, there’s still room to work off that. We can work with things like canonical ID which we haven’t really determined how it will work…
… so we’re leaving it open in the future. We’re preventing cutting it off directly and preventing future work from being done. The meeting wendy is referring to is mostly with the steering committee that exists because we realize that…
… there’s a lot of discussion around epub that we haven’t discussed yet. There is eagerness in some groups to move forward, but we need to figure out what happens next.

George Kerscher: I want to clarify that when we pull out from the manifest what we need for audio publications, the audio publications are intended to become a rec. The note which may change - be picked up as rec later in the future - does that conflict with what we pulled out for audiobook?
… I’m trying to understand that relationship between the audiobook rec and what we might make in the future?

Wendy Reid: It shouldn’t conflict - we’re trying not to create any conflict and I think we’ve done a good job of it, but we’re trying not to conflict…

Dave Cramer: Do we need to make this decision before the steering committee meets and talks about the big picture? It feels unsettled if we want to split the web publication spec into just a manifest that can be used by audiobooks or other profiles…
… it sounds like we’re still discussing or are we further along than I realized?

Avneesh Singh: I think one of the questions is - if we have audiobooks specification based on something from web publications - can it go to rec track when it’s based on a WG note?
… If it cannot, then it would be better to come up with a plan to pull out things from WP on which audiobook is based… That’s one thing to think about. I’m concerned about Dave’s question…
… What is the depth of the decision we are making today? Moving ahead on the spec, or moving ahead with the PR?

Wendy Reid: I’ll answer one thing - YES, the audiobook can be based on a note. I believe that was answered last week by Ralph.

Tzviya Siegman: I don’t think we’re making a decision today - it’s the beginning of a discussion. The business group continued the discussion and it will continue. We are not moving forward with work - we’re not moving forward yet, just continuing the discussion…
… I agree with dave that it’s not good to move forward until the steering committee meets. We do want your input. This is your opportunity. Tim Cole did send me an email with his opinions, so you can do it that way as well…

Wendy Reid: We want your input. I wasn’t proposing this as a decision today - it’s big and a lot of work.

Tzviya Siegman: Our takeaway last week was that there was some misunderstanding - so if you have questions, please tell us.

Avneesh Singh: It was CR not PR

Laurent Le Meur: I don’t think that we can base the audiobook rec on web publications notes - I don’t think we need it to work. The discussion was to extract from the web publication what works and include it in the spec as a rec…
… I see a problem with that, as i don’t see what we could remove from the web publication spec as it is to fit into the audiobook spec. If there is something missing from the web publication spec that could make it a rec, I don’t see how it would be able to make it as a rec for audiobooks.
… maybe it’s just the distributed resources, but as you spoke about canonical ID - is it mandatory? Optional? It’s the same for audiobooks. I agree that web publications as it is - it’s difficult to make it a rec because it’s generic and some metadata is missing for real life use…
… but still, we will have difficulties and have to work hard to export from the web publication some subset that is OK for audiobooks.

Wendy Reid: Some of the work for audiobooks will involve closing off the references. Almost every section is a reference to web publications spec, so we’d have to close that loop a bit. There are some discussions about processing and what we take from WP to make it work.
… I dont’ think the problem is that WP couldn’t be a rec track doc. We just need to take from it what audiobooks would need to be full.

Tzviya Siegman: My thinking was that - and Ivan’s thinking as well - part 2 of the current web publications document is mostly about the lifecycle and processing model - that would be the part that we would freeze.
… that would be different for different types of publications. We wouldn’t talk about conformance of a note - or primary entry page in a note… That issue would live within the audiobook rec.
… processing the manifest would not be relevant in the note - we don’t deal with processing in a note. The processing model needs to be defined for audiobooks, but not the WP note…

Laurent Le Meur: I think this way - by reorganizing the documents, we still need to have documents split in some parts - and maybe we will be able to do it. We could export the processing model and put it in the audiobook, that could make it work.

Tzviya Siegman: We have a theoretical concept of an identifier, but we didn’t specify. Relative URLs, etc. Packaging is external to all of these, and it was proposed to be a note in itself - maybe we want something specific for audiobooks, but we haven’t discussed or resolved.

Laurent Le Meur: I don’t think we should make anything specific for audiobooks when it comes to packaging, as it should be generic that can be used and shared between recommendations later…

Tzviya Siegman: And that’s something we can discuss later - we don’t have a resolution…

Avneesh Singh: Not right now. The devil is in details.

3. Using Echidna for audiobooks

Wendy Reid: The next agenda item: Ivan mentioned that we are not using the Echidna … he would like us to add it to our process. Does anyone have any concerns?

Proposed resolution: use echidna automatic publishing for audiobooks (Tzviya Siegman)

Nick Ruffilo: Is there a downside?

Dave Cramer: CSS uses it, it works, go for it

Tzviya Siegman: We use it for web publications - it’s the process

Matt Garrish: It’s administrative thing, we have to agree, but i don’t see why we shouldn’t. It means we automate it and it goes to a branch, then goes into the ether - i would say it’s ‘lets do it’

Proposed resolution: Use echidna process for publishing audiobooks specification (like WP) (Wendy Reid)

Nick Ruffilo: +1

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Romain Deltour: +1

Geoff Jukes: +1

Brady Duga: +1

Matt Garrish: +1

Deborah Kaplan: +1

Benjamin Young: +1

Joshua Pyle: +1

Ben Schroeter: +1

Gregorio Pellegrino: +1

Resolution #4: Use echidna process for publishing audiobooks specification

4. audiobooks

Wendy Reid:

Wendy Reid: I want to point to the open Audio issues. We have 5 open issues, one of which is TAG review. The one with the most discussion to have is about the REL attributes for extra resources - please think about that.
… It’s logged against audiobooks, but we did get our first piece of feedback from colibrio when it comes to zip compression for storing media files. That is probably going to be pushed to packaging…
… if you know anyone who wants to give feedback on audiobooks, have them log issues against the github - but I’m sure there are more people with feelings and comments

Ric Wright: Echidna is a spiny anteater, no? Can somebody point me to the spec or explanation of what the echidna process is?

Wendy Reid: next week we will discuss in more depth.

5. ping survey for audiobooks

Wendy Reid: the last thing for today is about the ping survey for audiobooks - just like for WP - we have to do a privacy, security (privacy interest group) someone - we’re looking for a volunteer for filling out the survery for audiobooks… Anyone?

Tzviya Siegman:

Tzviya Siegman: they will work with you, and you’ll learn many new things about privacy and security…

Brady Duga: I think I volunteered for WP - but is that still a thing? Will we need to do that?

Tzviya Siegman: I think we’re not going to do the WP survey just yet because it doesn’t make sense. if you’re offering to do it for audiobooks I think it’s good idea…

Brady Duga: My recommendation is to move the 3 volunteers for WP and move them to Audiobooks if they would agree to be shifted as they already volunteered
… I will take the action item of finding out who the people were. If I can convince the other 2 to do the work, i’ll join in as well.

Tzviya Siegman: I don’t think it’s that time consuming, and we have commitment from the PING people to help you out..;.

Wendy Reid: Next week we’ll talk about audiobooks. Agenda will be sent on time.
… enjoy some extra time - talk next week! Have a good afternoon!

6. Resolutions