Added an editors' draft for the separate Structural Semantics Vocabulary WG Note #1847
Conversation
|
@mattgarrish an editorial note: any change on biblo.js triggers a new publishing round on all documents, which is a bit of a drag. The question is: do we really need biblio.js? Afaik, only the Overview document uses extra bibliographic entries for the history part (and some of those may actually be in specref), and otherwise it may be unnecessary. Just to reduce the load... WDYT? |
It's used by more than the overview. I did a quick test and stripping it from the core spec resulted in 14 broken references. I know the accessibility specs will also break without it, and almost certainly the rs spec if the core breaks. Maybe we should make per-specification biblio files so we know what's being used where? It would also avoid triggering every spec on a change. It's not like we add to it very often anymore, and additions now would most likely be restricted to one document. |
I would be happy with that, too. |
|
Actually, in some cases, 1-2 entries would suffice, which does not even warrant a separate file. I will take a stab at the Overview for a start and see where it goes. I will also remove it right away from this ssv draft. |
|
I have carried over the effects of #1848: no reference to the common biblio file from the ssv note, and picked up the new version of the |
|
The readable version of the new note is here. |
|
The only weird thing is giving it a version number, as it was intended as a living document. That said, I don't think there's any way to go back through all the old iterations, so it's not really a blocker to me. |
|
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-10-14 List of resolutions:
View the transcript1. Publication of Structural Semantics Vocabulary as Working Group NoteSee github pull request #1847. See github issue #1763. Dave Cramer: last week we resolved on separating SSV into a wg note
Murata Makoto: the link in Ivan's message doesn't work, so I can't see the note
Murata Makoto: does this document have to do with the IMS Global Consortium? Do they need to see this? Matt Garrish: no, i think this originally came from DAISY Murata Makoto: what about the content under sec. 10? Matt Garrish: this is all stuff that came from us, we don't have dependence on any other party
|
Following WG Resolution.
Few practical notes:
In order to make a reference to the new document, and avoid invalid links that might create problems in the publication process, I have
biblio.jsgithub.ioURL for the documentBoth of these should be settled once the note is published, ie, the proper reference becomes part of specref.
I have used the version number 1.1 to differentiate from the IDPF document. One practical reason is that the EPUB-SSV is part of specref referring to the IDPF document and, for historical reason, I do not think we should modify this. Also, we may want to change something on the vocabulary, so it is better to keep this one separate.
The readable version of the new note is here.
Fix #1763
Preview | Diff