DPUB module: role statement

[pkra]

As per yesterday's DPUB ARIA call, I'm creating this issue to document the discussion that happened on the DPUB ARIA and DPUB lists a while ag -- see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpub-aria/2015Feb/0007.html and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-dpub-aria/2015Feb/thread.html for the latest thread.

I'm sorry if I'm not yet able to phrase this in spec-terminology -- please let me know what needs improving.

To quote my last post (though I still wasn't sure if that's anywhere close to what the spec needs).

"A declaration or remark of formal/"outstanding" character, such as a
presentation of opinion or position, an experimental
hypothesis/setup/result, a jurisprudential ordinance/ruling/statute, a
mathematical definition/example/theorem."

For the record, I never got feedback from on the thread on this attempt --so hopefully this can continue here. Maybe a bit tighter:

A declaration or remark of formal or "outstanding" character (e.g., a presentation of opinion or position; a definition or example; a scientific hypothesis or result; a jurisprudential ordinance or ruling, a mathematical theorem.)

Trying myself at the formal aspects of the spec:

• Superclass Role:section
• Related Concepts: NLM/JATS/BITS <statement> element (But to be extra clear, nobody is suggesting an HTML element -- this is about a role in the DPUB ARIA modules.)
• Name From: author

(Don't quite understand the rest yet.)

To summarize the rest of the discussion here as well:

• A statement is minor structural division in a work, typically encapsulated in a major division.
• is part of the overall flow (i.e., not an aside)
• is often distinguished from the surrounding content (often typographically but sometimes just semantically, e.g., when inside a paragraph)
• is nota duplication (i.e., not a pull quote)
• will often be referenced elsewhere (in particular, often comes with a heading, id etc).
• is often aggregated in some form of index (similar to table of figures, table of tables).
• is similar to figures except it's more textual and not floating.
• Use cases:
  • law (judicial ruling, statute, ordinance, etc.)
  • sciences (hypothesis, experiment, result, example, ansatz)
  • standards publishing (e.g. marking up formally defined terminology)
  • mathematics (example, definition, theorem, proof, lemma, corollary)
  • humanities (opinion, position, postulate).
• In an HTML5 context, I'd expect this role would typically be applied to <section>,<p>, <div>,<span>.

I'd add after yesterday's discussion that the testing roles (learning-outcome, learning-objective, question, answer etc.) seem to be cases of statement which hopefully strenghtens the case for it.

[TzviyaSiegman]

Thank you for the detailed write up. We will likely need to defer this, along with the learning-related roles, beyond the initial release. While statement is likely a good candidate for role, we need to defer additions until we are able to discuss requirements with the community that will use it. For example, we know that the education world will require "learningobjective". Similarly, it is conceivable that "theorem" will need to stand apart from "statement". We will keep this very useful write up for future modules. Thank you.

[pkra]

We will likely need to defer this, along with the learning-related roles, beyond the initial release.

Huh, that's surprising.

Similarly, it is conceivable that "theorem" will need to stand apart from "statement".

I don't follow. Theorem-like statements come with a variety of names which will usually be given by titles, headings etc. Similarly for all other use cases of statement mentioned above.

We will keep this very useful write up for future modules.

Why close this then? (And why was the suggestion to move this here?)

[mattgarrish]

I'm okay with leaving this open, but agree with Tzviya that in the interests of simplifying the initial set of terms and ensuring that semantics are addressed holistically by the groups that will use them that we should defer this addition for the same reason we've now scaled back and are removing the learning-* and assessment terms.

Is there a particular reason why this wasn't opened for the edupub vocabulary? Deferral isn't a comment on the potential usefulness of the term (there are lots we aren't adding at the outset), and it seems most appropriate in educational/academic publishing.

I hope you don't mind, but I've added it for consideration with a pointer to this proposal;
http://code.google.com/p/epub-revision/issues/detail?id=532

[pkra]

in the interests of simplifying the initial set of terms and ensuring that semantics are addressed holistically by the groups that will use them that we should defer this addition

It would be good to spell out what kind of support from relevant groups might eventually be considered enough.

Is there a particular reason why this wasn't opened for the edupub vocabulary?

No.

Deferral isn't a comment on the potential usefulness of the term

Sure. And yet closing issues leaves a certain impression. Anyway, it seems to me, it was simply a bad idea for the TF to suggest that this should be posted here. This tracker is not really used this way.

it seems most appropriate in educational/academic publishing.

Note the use cases from law and standards publishing.

[mattgarrish]

Note the use cases from law and standards publishing.

Sure, adding through the edupub work won't make it exclusive. All terms are added to the core structure vocab - the edupub "vocab" is more a recommended list of terms to use than an actual new epub vocabulary.