Open llemeurfr opened 5 years ago
related
is a common relation for referencing such resources and could be used in the context of resources
specifically for that.
related
is a generic name, as sort of see also
. Doesn't a "booklet" deserve a more precise token?
IMO it's a little too specific to be widely useful.
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
I'm in agreement with @HadrienGardeur here. cover
is special because every book has one. I don't think we have a single book with a booklet
(plenty of maps
, images
and worksheets
though 😄 )
plenty of maps, images and worksheets
@geoffjukes so do you think this list represents the most useful types of resources in web publications, for which we will define well-known rel
values? if yes what would be their definition? what kind of publication (e-book, audiobook ...) are they attached to? if no what is, in your opinion, the best list we can create?
I do not have a problem with the original issue proposal, but we may want to have a better look at how we do this.
At this moment, the spec says, for the value of rel
:
One or more relations. The values are either the relevant relationship terms of the IANA link registry [iana-link-relations], or specially-defined URLs if no suitable link registry item exists.
what this issue may lead to is a series of extra terms that are not in the IANA registry, i.e., we may end up with a whole lot of URL-s as possible values. While this may be o.k. if we have only a few of those, this may become a serious user issue if we have a large vocabulary for those. I am not sure what exactly the best way would be to go ahead, just raising a red flag...
Note that cover` is represented as "rel": "https://www.w3.org/ns/wp#cover" ("cover" is not part of the IANA values set in https://www.iana.org/assignments/link-relations/link-relations.xhtml).
Having wpub sepcific vocabulary will lead to updates of the spec as we will have new terms to add. There may be a way to call for additions to IANA registry. Asking them to add "cover" would be a good test.
@laudrain to be precise, new terms will require an update of the Web Publication Manifest Ontology document, where "cover" should be defined (it is not yet).
@laudrain: not absolutely sure we would need an update to the spec. The WG, or whoever takes its place later, can update the ontology (as @llemeurfr says) and the WP spec itself would simply refer to the ontology. If we have some other registry-type approach (like the IANA registry) then a similar mechanism may apply.
(E.g., the rel
attribute is defined in the HTML spec, and 'just' refers to the registry for possible values.)
@llemeurfr
"cover" should be defined (it is not yet).
You missed it:-), see the penultimate definition in, say, https://www.w3.org/ns/wp.ttl
@llemeurfr To answer you question of me - no, that list is just the tip of the iceberg, which is kind of my point.
Publishers the extra resources whatever they want. We call them "Bonus Material". Others call it "Supplemental Material".
For Blackstone, audiobooks with "extra resources" (and they are in the minority) rely on a 'label' datapoint to drive what is displayed to the user, and the file is referenced by filepath.
This issue was discussed in a meeting.
RESOLVED: Postpone discussion of Audiobooks #7 (Rel values) until we receive more feedback
This is important if audiobooks is used as a single file.
There is already a rel="cover" value (https://www.w3.org/TR/wpub/#cover) defined in the spec for referencing a cover from the list of resources. Other values already defined in the WP model are "pagelist" and "contents" (the ToC).
Audiobooks may have useful extra-resources, like a "booklet".
Which are the most useful rel values that should be defined by this group? Should it be part of the model (i.e. standardized) or expressed as best practices?