Update principals fixes #199

[clapierre]

Added new Publisher Metadata ecosystem from Rick Johnson.

[rickj]

The details appear correct, however, do we need a problem statement at the beginning? Something like:
To solve the problem of displaying the accessibility metadata in a human readable form, vendors will determine the correct statement to display (from the User Experience Guide) by using the appropriate Display Techniques document to parse the metadata.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I am going to merge this and then work on the other language changes assigned to me.

There is an H4 inside the details. IMO this seems incorrect. The extended description is not part of the overall structure of the document.

[GeorgeKerscher]

Rick, I put your language in before the flowchart image in that section. It is in a PR I just posted.

[gregoriopellegrino]

Some comments:

• I think the diagram should have a header for itself and maybe an introduction paragraph, because right now it's inside the section "2.1 Why is this information important for accessibility?" which doesn't seem right to me
• in the chart: I don't like the division between "EPUB" and "PDF (and other) Files", can we unify naming them "digital publication"?
• in this way we can split accessibility metadata between embedded in the file (EPUB Accessibility) and metadata that travels down the supply chain (ONIX, MARC, etc.)

[rickj]

Something like this?

[chrisONIX]

This is a good image. Just one thing about the block that mentions ONIX. If we put code list 196 - that excludes the important values that are conveyed elsewhere - list 81, 143 and 175 especially. Maybe it should say “accessibility metadata in ONIX” or something inclusive like that?
thanks

[rickj]

I struggled with how much detail to include in the ONIX box, and actually had code list 81 also included initially. You comment convinces me that this is something needing change. The crosswalk lists elements from codelists 03, 04, 05, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 143, 144, 175. Do we need to include all of those, or just reference the crosswalk?

Give that this document from EDItEUR only references codelist 196 would this work?

[gregoriopellegrino]

Thank Rick for updating the chart. I would say that EPUB Accessibility 1.1 Metadata is not only schema.org, but also conformance metadata :)

[rickj]

I would say that EPUB Accessibility 1.1 Metadata is not only schema.org, but also conformance metadata

Is there value in having the chart reference schema.org, or should it just reference the spec?

[gregoriopellegrino]

I think for both cases (EPUB metadata and ONIX) we may just reference generically to the accessibility metadata available in the standards, in this way we don't have to mention code lists, schema.org, ecc.

[rickj]

A simplified version to evaluate:

[chrisONIX]

I think referencing the ONIX accessibility metadata is the best.
The list you give in your reply is the actual codes from list 196 - not the code list numbers - and then three other code lists (143, 144, 175.) The crosswalk and the ONIX documentation take care of the detail - the broad heading works here.
thanks

[chrisONIX]

I like the simplified version

[clapierre]

Once we have consensus, I am happy to update the image in the principals document and modify the extended description to match this new version.

[gregoriopellegrino]

Fine for me

[clapierre]

Currently the new version has a W3C logo in the top left corner. Should we keep that? @avneeshsingh

[rickj]

Here is a version without the logo, should the decision be to use that.

[avneeshsingh]

W3C logo is already on the document, so we do not need to repeat it in the image.