Minutes – Z39.86 Advisory Committee Conference Call

Attendees

Advisory Committee:

• George Kerscher, Advisory Committee Chair – DAISY Consortium and Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
• Marisa DeMeglio – DAISY for All Project
• Tom McLaughlin – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
• Michael Moodie – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
• Lloyd Rasmussen – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
• Ole Holst Andersen – Danish Library for the Blind
• Markus Gylling – DAISY Consortium and Swedish Library of Talking Books and Braille
• Dave Pawson – Royal National Institute of the Blind

Participating Experts:

• Neil Bernstein – National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped
• Werner Krebs – Design Science
• Chris Wilder-Smith – CAST
• Neil Soiffer – Design Science

Apologies:

• Thomas Kjellberg Christensen – Danish Library for the Blind
• Dominic Labbé – VisuAide
• James Pritchett – Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic

Agenda

The agenda was distributed to the Advisory Committee's list on 15 February 2005. there were no amendments in advance of the call.

There were no additions to the proposed agenda.

3. Confirmation of Date and Time for Next Call

From the February 2 minutes, the next calls are on March2 and April 6 at the same time.

Manifest in 2005 version of Z39.86

This issue was raised on the last conference call. Extensive email discussion followed. Also, extensive discussion on this call. The major issues evolve around modular extensions and the possibility of foreign media types not supported in the standard, such as video or PDF, etc.

Decision: The language will stand as is.

Recommendation: It is up to the producer to inform the user via audio and/or text of the presence of foreign media types (referenced by external link). Content should also be provided in alternative form, which is also a recommendation from the WAI. It will be this committee's responsibility to advise the modular extension working groups that form of this requirement. It is expected that the first modular extension that uses foreign media types would develop this technique. It was further mentioned that a player that did not support the extension would be able to present the equivalent content (as much as this is possible) through the media types supported in the standard.

The committee agreed that this is an acceptable interim solution, given that for the next spec revision the issue of declaring foreign media and grammar type presence is revisited, tentatively resulting in a centralized extensible metadata based solution.

Section 8.4.1 Non negative value instead of positive for page normal.

The committee agreed that this was an error in the 2002 version of Z39.86.

Work Plans, areas of focus

George provided the list of projects below. There was agreement that division of the work in this way is a reasonable approach to get the work completed. The suggestion was made to divide the work into that relating to the implementation of the existing specification, and the work relating to developments of the next revision of the specification.

three additional projects were mentioned:

• Grammar and Schema development
• Migration of specification to something other than XHTML.
• An Issues tracking database, which also answers the question below.

1) Support for the implementation of Zed 2005
2)  Work on Zed 2007

Proposal to chunk the work into project areas. Ask that a person from the Zed Committee lead, or liaise (participate, track, and report back to the Zed committee). These include:
Project: DRM working group, lead: Neil Bernstein
Project: ZedVal working group, lead: Markus
Project: Sample reference content lead:xxx?
Project: DMFC Lead: Markus
Project: Supporting documentation (Structure Guidelines, XML training materials,  Sample content), lead: xxx?
W3C SMIL Collaboration Project lead: Marisa DeMeglio
Project: Communications (messaging about Zed 2005, publicize work plans, announcements),lead: xxx?
Project: DAISY Application Program Interface specification and Software Development (DAISY API) Lead:xxx?
Project: Specification maintenance (issue tracking, errata, spec issues) lead: xxx?
Project: Mathematics Working Group lead:xxx?
Project: Video Working Group, ?lead:xxx?
Question- Issues tracking  do they all fall into one of the working groups? Should we make it the responsibility of the various working groups to claim the issues?