IRC log of dpub-loc on 2016-03-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:55:27 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #dpub-loc

13:55:27 [RRSAgent]

logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-dpub-loc-irc

13:55:31 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #dpub-loc

13:55:45 [ivan]

Meeting: DPUB IG Locator TF call

13:55:56 [ivan]

Chair: Ben De Meester

13:56:00 [ivan]

rrsagent, set draft public

13:56:00 [RRSAgent]

I'm logging. I don't understand 'set draft public', ivan. Try /msg RRSAgent help

13:56:10 [ivan]

rrsagent, set log public

13:56:45 [ivan]

Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-digipub-ig/2016Mar/0087.html

13:57:26 [ivan]

rrsagent, draft minutes

13:57:26 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-dpub-loc-minutes.html ivan

13:59:28 [bjdmeest]

bjdmeest has joined #dpub-loc

14:00:04 [rdeltour]

rdeltour has joined #dpub-loc

14:00:42 [bjdmeest]

Present+ Ben_De_Meester

14:01:15 [rdeltour]

present+ Romain

14:01:27 [ivan]

Present+ Ivan

14:01:29 [lrosenth]

lrosenth has joined #dpub-loc

14:02:21 [lrosenth]

testing

14:03:33 [ivan]

REgrets: Bill

14:03:47 [ivan]

Present+ Leonard

14:05:22 [bjdmeest]

scribenick: bjdmeest

14:05:45 [bjdmeest]

scribenick: rdeltour

14:06:02 [rdeltour]

topic: issue #22

14:06:05 [bjdmeest]

https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/22

14:06:38 [rdeltour]

ben: this is about manifest retrieval from the package. For now there is a note.

14:06:49 [rdeltour]

ivan: right. I think we can close it.

14:07:31 [rdeltour]

ben: OK, issue close.

14:07:39 [rdeltour]

topic: issue #9

14:07:42 [bjdmeest]

https://github.com/w3c/dpub-pwp-loc/issues/9

14:07:49 [rdeltour]

ben: we shouldn't make things more complicated than they are.

14:07:58 [rdeltour]

ben: maybe we can just remove that section.

14:08:22 [rdeltour]

ivan: I agree

14:08:31 [rdeltour]

leanard: right, just remove it

14:08:44 [rdeltour]

ben: ok great, let's close this.

14:09:00 [rdeltour]

ivan: ben, will you take care of the editing?

14:09:03 [rdeltour]

ben: yes

14:09:16 [rdeltour]

topic: use cases

14:09:27 [rdeltour]

ben: we identified some issues, haven't put them on github yet

14:09:52 [rdeltour]

ben: romain, I can go through the minutes and just add them to the github tracker?

14:10:31 [bjdmeest]

scribenick: bjdmeest

14:10:40 [bjdmeest]

rdeltour: some discussion, not yet clearly defined

14:10:49 [bjdmeest]

... maybe we can define them within our group?

14:11:03 [bjdmeest]

ivan: this group could contribute to that effort

14:11:10 [bjdmeest]

... of the general pwp issues

14:11:31 [bjdmeest]

rdeltour: there is some overlap, e.g., the ones from leonard and nick

14:11:46 [bjdmeest]

ivan: if there are overlaps, I don't think that is a problem

14:12:07 [bjdmeest]

... several use cases that lead to similar requirements, re-enforces those requirements

14:12:49 [bjdmeest]

rdeltour: in terms of process: ben, you can go over the minutes and aggregate all mentioned use cases in one document

14:13:36 [bjdmeest]

... to the mailing list or as a new issue

14:13:47 [bjdmeest]

ivan: issue tracker might be better

14:14:16 [bjdmeest]

rdeltour: maybe all current use cases can be merged into one bigger ues case

14:14:28 [bjdmeest]

... that's up to you

14:14:41 [bjdmeest]

... we can possibly merge smaller use cases into bigger ones

14:16:09 [bjdmeest]

ivan: if you can try to abstract the use cases from the previous discussion, then that would be a big help

14:16:47 [bjdmeest]

scribenick: rdeltour

14:16:58 [rdeltour]

topic: breadcrumbs

14:17:00 [bjdmeest]

http://w3c.github.io/dpub-pwp-loc/#breadcrumbs

14:17:31 [rdeltour]

leonard: interesting idea, but it makes an assumption that you can change a PWP

14:17:51 [rdeltour]

... in the first case (teacher adding annotations) there is potentially changes to the PWP

14:18:01 [rdeltour]

... inside of what we consider the PWP

14:18:19 [rdeltour]

... I think we have to assume that we can't, that a PWP is unmodifiable

14:18:27 [rdeltour]

... everything needs to be done externally

14:18:43 [rdeltour]

ivan: I think it's not an assumption

14:18:57 [rdeltour]

... I agree that there are cases when this is not impossible

14:19:12 [rdeltour]

... there is a possibility that the manifest itself is outside the PWP

14:19:46 [rdeltour]

... there has to be a note that the mechanism relies on the fact that the manifest can be modified

14:19:51 [rdeltour]

leonard: yes

14:20:27 [rdeltour]

ben: I was wondering if we had to limit this to the fact that the PWP shouldn't be changed

14:20:33 [rdeltour]

ivan: you don't change a PWP, you create a new

14:20:47 [rdeltour]

leonard: but it's predicated on the fact that you have the right to do that

14:21:08 [rdeltour]

... but really you only need to modfiy the manifest without touching the PWP

14:21:31 [rdeltour]

ben: for instance a publishers create a PWP with embedded video and you want to modify this PWP to reference to youtube video

14:21:41 [rdeltour]

... you create a new PWP but maintain the breadcrumbs

14:21:50 [rdeltour]

ivan: I think we all agree here

14:21:55 [rdeltour]

ben: ok

14:22:26 [DanielWeck]

DanielWeck has joined #dpub-loc

14:22:58 [rdeltour]

ivan: if we don't have anything left on the agenda I'd like to discuss something

14:23:08 [rdeltour]

... at some point we should discuss how we see the evolution of this document

14:23:17 [rdeltour]

... I have the impression we're close to an end.

14:23:29 [rdeltour]

... it's not clear to my mind what to do with this document when it's finalized

14:24:05 [rdeltour]

... we have 3 interrelated documents: PWP, UC&R, locators

14:24:14 [rdeltour]

... I'd like to head how do you see that

14:24:24 [rdeltour]

... that may lead to editorial work

14:24:37 [rdeltour]

leonard: I agree that at some point we have to figure out that problem

14:24:45 [rdeltour]

ivan: should I share my views?

14:24:49 [rdeltour]

leonard: yes

14:25:11 [rdeltour]

ivan: my feeling is that we should converge to have 2 docs, one is the UC doc and the other is PWP

14:25:18 [rdeltour]

... on the long term

14:26:00 [rdeltour]

... that means that you should take over the use cases part of PWP into the UC document

14:26:11 [rdeltour]

... then the PWP doc becomes a more technical document

14:26:20 [rdeltour]

... includes what we did for locators

14:26:37 [rdeltour]

... and the section we have on SW (reworded to make it more agnostic)

14:26:41 [rdeltour]

leonard: makes sense

14:27:04 [rdeltour]

romain: I like the approach

14:27:39 [rdeltour]

ivan: when you and Heather start editing the UC doc, we have to start working on ripping off the PWP document

14:27:50 [rdeltour]

leonard: maybe bring the discussion to the larger group?

14:28:23 [rdeltour]

ivan: ben you'll probably be asked to summarize our TF work to the larger group, we should propose it at this time.

14:28:49 [rdeltour]

ivan: if the locators work is "done", the next big thing is to look at what is the manifest and what information is needed there

14:29:06 [rdeltour]

leonard: I do agree on that

14:29:27 [rdeltour]

... but I'm wondering how we address the manifest without addressing the package issue.

14:29:41 [rdeltour]

... but otherwise I do agree that the next big thing is the manfiest

14:33:54 [DanielWeck]

bye!

14:33:55 [bjdmeest]

rrsagent, draft minutes

14:33:55 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/23-dpub-loc-minutes.html bjdmeest

14:35:19 [rdeltour]

rdeltour has left #dpub-loc

15:34:06 [dauwhe]

dauwhe has joined #dpub-loc

15:58:31 [dauwhe_]

dauwhe_ has joined #dpub-loc

16:07:52 [Zakim]

Zakim has left #dpub-loc

16:12:11 [ivan]

rrsagent, bye

16:12:11 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items