Restore schema.org properties to accessibility specification

[mattgarrish]

This pull request restores the discovery metadata section to the way it was in the IDPF 1.0 version -- directly referencing the schema.org properties instead of using prose labels.

@iherman should we merge this while we work to ensure the normative references are respected, or wait until we get a green light? Seems to make the most sense to make our preference clear and undo later if rejected.

• Accessibility preview
• Accessibility diff

[iherman]

What about setting up the maintenance CG asap, with some basic rules and registry content to make the situation clear? It may not be o.k. to merge this as is, we should have that process going (and a green light).

@plehegar @swickr

[mattgarrish]

What about setting up the maintenance CG asap

Working on that.

we should have that process going

Ya, but we're kind of stuck in limbo right now. If it's not sufficient to describe the properties and it's not acceptable to reference the properties, then shouldn't we opt for the better of the two for now?

[iherman]

What about setting up the maintenance CG asap

Working on that.

we should have that process going

Ya, but we're kind of stuck in limbo right now. If it's not sufficient to describe the properties and it's not acceptable to reference the properties, then shouldn't we opt for the better of the two for now?

I am not sure what you mean. I believe that, if the CG is set up, and it has a description saying this is the community that maintains the schema.org accessibility terms (and here is what they are) then we can merge imho. We still have to clarify the situation with schema.org/danbri, but I do not think that is a major issue.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-09-30

List of resolutions:

• Resolution No. 2: Merge PR 1808, leave issue 1799 open until schema issue is resolved

View the transcript

3. Schema in EPUB Accessibility

See github issue #1799.

See github pull request #1808.

Matt Garrish: we started off listing the schema.org properties, then we went to the ISO version of the document where schema.org is not considered very normative, so we referred to the techniques document... so we have to prove that schema.org is a stable and valid reference
… we need to show there is a method for maintaining the vocabularies. Need to work with W3C; it is an ongoing conversation. Still in limbo until we have a proper home for the metadata.

Dave Cramer: can we merge the pull request?

Matt Garrish: would like to get a formal ok first from Ivan

Dave Cramer: we should merge it instead of leaving it hanging as we seek horizontal reviews, etc.

Wendy Reid: we reference schema elsewhere

Matt Garrish: we have a mapping file in those cases

Murata Makoto: can we use living document?

Wendy Reid: there are procedures for using living documents

Dave Cramer: can we propose to merge the PR?

Matt Garrish: it's been referenced in other standards, yet we need to show stability even though it's been allowed elsewhere
… need a repository and issue tracker to show that we maintain it properly

Murata Makoto: Registries are considered a back door for extending international standards; that's why ISO doesn't like it. Also there are fees associated.

Matt Garrish: it's a gray area. It's part of the web and we have to work with it.

Murata Makoto: Let's make Ivan's life interesting!

Proposed resolution: Merge PR 1808, leave issue 1799 open until schema issue is resolved (Wendy Reid)

Dave Cramer: +1

Shinya Takami (高見真也): +1

Murata Makoto: +1

Matt Garrish: +1

Wendy Reid: +1

Toshiaki Koike: +1

Masakazu Kitahara: +1

Dan Lazin: +1

Ben Schroeter: 0

Resolution #2: Merge PR 1808, leave issue 1799 open until schema issue is resolved