Making Abstract abstract, instead of introduction

[TallTed]

pulled from #1554

---

Preview | Diff

[TallTed]

I do not think that the existing "Abstract" is an abstract, and I would rather see no titular "Abstract" than have it be persisted here as such, especially given that its text is also found in toto as the first paragraph of the "Introduction".

I can see no justification for using the same paragraph both as the document's "Abstract" and as the first paragraph of the "Introduction". I have found no example of similar in any other W3 spec (and if such surfaces, I would strongly advise that WG or its successor to change it).

An abstract ("a short form of a speech, article, book, etc., giving only the most important facts or ideas") has a different purpose than an introduction ("a short speech or piece of writing that comes before a longer speech or written text, usually giving basic information about what is to follow").

In my experience of Abstracts in other fields, and even in this field outside of W3C specifications, they generally assume that their readers are more than passingly familiar with the subject matter. Perhaps this is because they are largely found in academic papers that are destined for a conference of subject matter experts.

I will readily grant that my suggested abstraction is imperfect. I said when I first suggested it that I used ChatGPT to produce the start of it, though I did make some edits to what ChatGPT provided (which I regrettably did not preserve in its original form).

We're trying to say: "This technology enables people to take their physical credentials into the online world but with better security and utility than traditional physical credentials."

I think it's overly simplified, but that quoted sentence is better than the existing "Abstract", and I would not object to using a slightly adjusted version of that quoted sentence instead of my big paragraph:

The technology specified herein enables people to take analogs of their traditional physical credentials into the online world, while providing better security and utility in the new online credentials than may be found in the old.

[msporny]

@TallTed wrote:

I can see no justification for using the same paragraph both as the document's "Abstract" and as the first paragraph of the "Introduction".

I agree, so can we change the introduction to something else?

they generally assume that their readers are more than passingly familiar with the subject matter. Perhaps this is because they are largely found in academic papers that are destined for a conference of subject matter experts.

Yes, and I find this approach in academic literature quite obtuse (and lazy) and is one of the reasons why many scientists struggle with conveying why their ideas are important to the world. This is a global standard, that's open to the public. The public, presuming a minimum of a high-school level of education, should be able to read our Abstract and understand what the document is about. I'd go a bit further and argue that they should be able to read just about everything in the Introduction and get a good idea of what this ecosystem is about and how we achieve what we achieve (and we're increasingly failing to do this in the specification, IMHO).

The technology specified herein enables people to take analogs of their traditional physical credentials into the online world, while providing better security and utility in the new online credentials than may be found in the old.

^ Yes, but that's what the current Abstract text is basically saying, isn't it... only, in a way that is better than the text above (which is an improvement, in some areas, and not in others -- it's too vague, IMHO).

I'd like to see more opinions on what we should try to do here. I think we need more than a sentence, but less than what's been proposed. Three to four sentences feels adequate (which is kinda-sorta what we have now), with some word smithing.

[wip-abramson]

I tend to agree with @msporny on this.

I think the current abstract is okay, but there is room for some minor wordsmithing.

I agree with @TallTed that the abstract should not be repeated in the introduction. So we should remove that text from the introduction and propose some new text there that introduces the sections and content of the specification. I think @TallTed the paragraph you propose in this PR is in that direction.