Hi Todd and Nettie,
Thanks for sharing this, and sorry that I have been unable to participate over the course of the past week or so because of hurricane, vacation schedules, etc.
Having reviewed the deck, and assuming that some of the following may have been discussed or addressed on the call, some initial questions, comments and feedback:
-In addition to what is seemingly a common "overlap" for all of the subgroups — Metadata -- It is not entire clear as to what the expected "outputs" for each WG seek to accomplish or deliver as an end-state deliverable– while each sub-group has defined numerous issues and challenges, with some exceptions, most of the material isn't geared to communicate solutions that can be put into practice –
-There seem to be several major assumptions or conclusions made in each focus area, which in some cases seem to lack validation or are broadly stated without underlying assumptions or dimensions that would serve to validate the assumption, and what the WG's will do to address them as part of an action item —
-for example, slide 16 point: "Publishers may not see value in providing MARC records; outsource the process"…how is "value" being defined? In what context? Using what metrics? Is the action item here to execute a value perception study and/or gap analysis among publishers/libraries that would aim to change this perception and also reinforce value, ID best practices?
-Or another example, "Subject categorization changes can affect sales – how to use keywords?" -- as a potential action item, is the workgroup and its participants going to come up with a framework and pilot study to validate this assumption from an SEO/SEM-to-discovery-to-sale dimension or other dimensions that can be commonly utilized…
-Some of the initiatives (stated as "initial work") seem to require extensive collaboration with other standards organizations, or to be made "valuable" in practice would require "buy-in" from key for-profit stakeholders (Apple, Adobe, Amazon, etc.) who may or may not be represented in the workgroup or aren't NISO members. For example, "ISBN for e-books" - assumes major collaboration with ISBN-IA and Editeur…and assumes alignment across stakeholders on a number of levels…or, "International Standardization of EPUB3"---assumes IDPF collaboration (of course) but is the goal here to establish EPUB3 as an ISO Standard?
"Some Initial Work" (slide 19) suggests that a "charter" for each that communicates goals/objectives, demonstrates outputs, use cases, benefits, gaps, feasibility and expected paths/activities/requirements to accomplish them has been established and agreed on by members and key stakeholders. If that isn't the case, I'd urge us all to consider this approach and assume that each WG head will maintain this responsibility as part of governance and to ensure efforts and contributions are aligned with goals/objectives
Happy to discuss after Labor Day holiday, and wish everyone a great holiday weekend!
All my best,
Andy W.
Andy Weissberg, Managing Partner
Digital Publishing Partners, LLC
344 Walthery Avenue
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
(c): 201.906.2967
(e): andy.weissberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://twitter.com/andyweissberg
http://www.digitalpublishingpartners.com
KMLM List