One of the results of the busy TPAC F2F meeting of the DPUB IG Interest Group (see the separate reports on TPAC for the first and second F2F days), the group just published a new version of the Portable Web Publications for the Open Web Platform (PWP) draft. This draft incorporates the discussions at the F2F meeting.
As a reminder: the PWP document describes a future vision on the relationships of Digital Publishing and the Open Web Platform. The vision can be summarized as:
Our vision for Portable Web Publications is to define a class of documents on the Web that would be part of the Digital Publishing ecosystem but would also be fully native citizens of the Open Web Platform. In this vision, the current format- and workflow-level separation between offline/portable and online (Web) document publishing is diminished to zero. These are merely two dynamic manifestations of the same publication: content authored with online use as the primary mode can easily be saved by the user for offline reading in portable document form. Content authored primarily for use as a portable document can be put online, without any need for refactoring the content. Publishers can choose to utilize either or both of these publishing modes, and users can choose either or both of these consumption modes. Essential features flow seamlessly between online and offline modes; examples include cross-references, user annotations, access to online databases, as well as licensing and rights management.
The group already had lots of discussions on this vision, and published a first version of the PWP draft before the TPAC F2F meeting. That version already included a series of terms establishing the notion of Portable Web Documents and also outlined an draft architecture for PWP readers based on Service Workers. The major changes of the new draft (beyond editorial changes) include a better description of that architecture, a reinforced view and role for manifests and, mainly, a completely re-written section on addressing and identification.
The updated section makes a difference between the role of identifiers (e.g., ISBN, DOI, etc.) and locators (or addresses) on the Web, typically an HTTP(S) URL. While the former is a stable identification of the publication, the latter may change when, e.g., the publication is copied, made private, etc. Defining identifiers is beyond the scope of the Interest Group (and indeed of W3C in general); the goal is to further specify the usage patterns around locators, i.e., URL-s. The section looks at the issue of what an HTTP GET would return for such a URL, and what the URL structure of the constituent resources are (remember that a Web Publication being defined as a set of Web Resources with its own identity). All these notions will need further refinements (and the IG has recently set up a task force to look into the details) but the new draft gives a better direction to explore.
See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)
Following the discussions on PWP identifiers last week a task force has been set up, led by Bill Kasdorff. There were some discussions on the call as for the goals of the task force (this has to be cleaned up), but the general ideas are:
- The task force should concentrate on locators (as opposed to identifiers) both for the PWP level as well as on the individual resources’ level
** I.e., dealing with identifiers (ISBN-s of different sort, ISTC work, DOI-s, etc) is out of scope, as well as the issues around fragment identifiers, hence also the name of the task force
- The task force should dig into the addressing/identifier work described in the PWP document, should flesh out the details, possibly have some mock-up implementation, and identify if and what of this work would require a targeted Recommendation/Standardization work (either at W3C, or at IDPF, or in a joint group)
- The task force should also provide input to the IDPF EPUB3.1 work, which is looking at a “browser friendly manifestation” of EPUB. The goal of EPUB3.1 work, in this respect, would be to be forward compatible with an eventual PWP work
There were also some technical discussion, emphasizing the fact that a PWP can be a collection of very different resources from all over the place, where the order of the resource access (reading) can be different from one PWP to the other even if they share resources. The locator structure should make this possible (e.g., via a manifest).
There is a need for a more generic planning on where the PWP work ought to be going. The terminology-state-identifier-locator discussion has resulted in a more stable bases, and the task force on locators will dig into the details. What else? Ideas that came up:
- Looking at the library and archiving community. A focussed work will be pursued to see what specific needs that community may have and whether what is in the PWP document is adequate or not, whether it has to be extended, etc.
- The presentation control issue needs further work
- Other issues listed in the PWP draft should also be checked.
- Some sort of a proof-of-concept implementation is necessary to identify the necessary missing bits
For the last issue: Dave Cramer has recently created a simple mock-up based on the earlier discussion with, and work of Jake Archibald. (The repo of Dave is also available for cloning.) This is a tremendous start, and it has been agreed that Dave would give a more detailed overview on what is happening there on one of the next calls.
The Interest Group has agreed to publish the next version of the PWP document as a formal Interest Group Draft. Should be out on Thursday the 26th.
The group has been reminded on the need of having better CSS examples, and some further ideas did come up.
At the end of the Vietnam War, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese and Cambodians fled political chaos and physical danger in their homelands. Between 1975 and 1979, some 300,000 of these refugees were admitted to the United States through Presidential action. The law at the time restricted refugee admissions, and many members of Congress wanted to establish a more regular system of immigration and resettlement.
The Refugee Act of 1980 raised the annual ceiling for refugees to 50,000, created a process for reviewing and adjusting the refugee ceiling to meet emergencies, and required annual consultation between Congress and the President. The law changed the definition of “refugee” to a person with a “well-founded fear of persecution,” a standard established by United Nations conventions and protocols. It also funded a new Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and an Office of Refugee Resettlement and built on already existing public-private partnerships that helped refugees settle and adjust to life in their new country.
View all pages of the Refugee Act of 1980 on the National Archives’ Flickr account: https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnational
Today Senator Murkowski used Facebook to announce her call for a moratorium on the admission of Syrian refugees to this country. At 10,000, we’re only proposing to accept a tiny sliver of the FOUR MILLION seeking refuge. I think this moratorium is wrong and wrote the following message to Senator Murkowski:
Dear Senator Murkowski,
It was with sadness that I read your statement urging a moratorium on admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. I’m very disappointed that you turned a deaf ear to our faith community who urged you not to turn away the innocent. You claim you do not support such a thing, but an indefinite moratorium is the same as turning people away. It feeds the impression that “that the American people are no longer sympathetic or welcoming.” You have joined hands with 26 governors and every single Republican Presidential candidate who reject welcoming people at their time of need. Even your own Facebook page now has a number of comments from constituents who have equated all refugees with terrorists.
I believe your stance is a betrayal of the principles in Matthew 25 and of the compassion for immigrants and refugees advocated by Pope Francis. But I understand you cannot govern the country by Catholicism or Christianity. Unlike the leaders of Daesh, we have separation of Church and State.
However, your actions, along with the actions of all others calling for the barring of refugees or making the assumption they are a major security risk are playing in Daesh’s hands. Daesh tells all Muslims that the West is against them. That Muslims will be treated as potential terrorists in the West. That in the end, there is a clash between Islam and Christianity. By giving into the fears of some of your constituents, you have endorsed Daesh’s propaganda.
I’m sorry to sound harsh, but the modest security gains (if any) from the moratorium you are calling for are more than swamped by the propaganda victory for Daesh. Please reconsider your position, especially in view of so many things, including gun violence and auto accidents that take more lives than 9/11 did every single year.
Filed under: alaska, politics, Uncategorized, war
Changeset provides short-term project management services to free and open source software projects. Need to expedite the releases of new versions of software, write developer onboarding and user documentation, triage and respond to bugs, clean out the code review queue, or prioritize tasks for upcoming work? Changeset Consulting lightens the load on your maintainers.
Details about the services I offer, my past work, and useful resources I've made are at http://changeset.nyc. I'm seeking new clients and would love referrals.
For now the shop is just me, but I'm aiming to have enough income and work by summer 2016 to hire an intern or apprentice, and to eventually hire full-time staff. We'll see how it goes.
I highly recommend Galaxy Rise Consulting, the firm I hired to design my website. Much thanks to Shauna Gordon-McKeon, and to all the friends and family who encouraged me on my way here!
See minutes online for a more detailed record of the discussions. (The headers below link into the relevant sections of the minutes.)
Note that we experienced telco problems which cut some of the discussions a bit short and slightly chaotic…
As agreed on the last call, the IG is supposed to collect CSS examples on typesetting issues the community has. This is an ongoing effort; participants were reminded on this. Some new volunteers came forward on the call.
The ARIA technology has two parts
- The definition of the ARIA terms proper for which, in the digital domain, there is now a (soon to be updated) working draft
- Mapping of the ARIA terms on the various Assistive Technology Interfaces available today; this makes it possible to use the aria terms with those technologies.
Richard Schwerdtfeger has edited a draft for the mapping of the DPUB ARIA terms. That should be complement of the DPUB ARIA term specifications themselves. The DPUB IG was asked to approve the publication of that draft (formally done by the ARIA Working Group). The approval was voted on at the meeting.
Ivan Herman gave an overview of some of the proposed changes on the PWP draft. The new, proposed draft introduces changes based on the various discussions at the Sapporo F2F meeting.
Some of the proposed changes are minor: reinforcing the importance of manifests, or raising issues on how files on the local file systems should be handled by service workers. The major changes relate to the role and usage of identifiers, based on the specific session at the meeting (introduced by a slide set for the discussion). There are several aspects listed below; it has been agreed to provide more comments and issues on the draft and try to publish a new, official draft soon.
What type of identifiers do we have
The previous discussions included references to the fact that identifiers may have several usages (the work, a particular copy, a particular edition, etc.) and each would have to have several identifiers. However, it was also emphasized that the DPUB IG, or a future formal PWP specification, cannot decide on these issues. On the other hand, a clear locator, to uniquely ‘find’ a PWP on the Web, is essential. The proposal is therefore to include, in the document both an identifier and a locator; the identifier is stable, can be any kind of URN (i.e., can be a DOI, an ISBN, etc.), whereas a locator should be unique, and should be a HTTP(S) reference on the Web. Subsequent discussions made it clear that (a) the two URI-s may coincide and (b) it may be possible to have several identifiers. The PWP level metadata may include some extra relationships (e.g., on provenance) between those two URI-s, but, at this moment, those are not specified.
If one dereferences the canonical URL, what is returned?
Essentially, a manifest: either directly, or via
<link> element or a
LINK: header in the HTTP return. The role of the manifest, beyond containing additional metadata, is to “represent” the PWP as a whole.
What is the URL of the constituent Resources within a PWP
The URL of the PWP as a whole establishes some sort of a “context” for URLs. Ie, if the URL of the PWP is
http://example.com/2, then the constituents may be
http://example.com/2/index.html. Ie, everything is interpreted with the scope of URL as the base.
This is a simple approach, though the Resources may be spread over the Web, so this may not be enough. An idea is to have some sort of a mapping within the manifest to map this view onto “real” URI-s in that case
What about fragments?
Fragments should not be defined by and for PWP. With this approach, the fragment identifiers are “simply” those that are defined by the community at large for the specific media type.
Cooperation with the IDPF EPUB 3.1 effort on identifiers
The EPUB 3.1 effort also looks at the issue of identifiers in a possible approach of “forward compatibility” with en eye on PWP. Details of this should be discussed. To be picked up on future meetings.
“You know what pissed off Islamist extremists the most about Europe? It was watching their very humane, moral response to the refugee crisis. Seeing Europeans line up to help and embrace Muslim refugees infuriated and shattered the worldview of so many Islamist extremists. The Islamist extremist worldview says that we’re separate, different, hate each other and are eternal enemies. Wanna shatter the Islamist extremist worldview? Show them we aren’t separate or different and don’t hate each and can be eternal friends.”
Interesting article about how a struggling Daesh/ISIS may be using attacks in Europe to get the West to support their view of a binary world. Let’s not give them what they wish for.
Filed under: current events, war