Re: github repository for the personalisation

Hi LiddyFirstly I think we all completely agree that the personalisation should be useful for everyone. We also agree resolved that final terms for personalisation   should be about functional requirements , not disability. However we also need to know what we are talking about at this stage. So a mapping is in order.
 
As you know I am a huge fan of RDF. However there are also barriers to entry that does not happen with JSON. 
Anyway, my 2 cents is we  should review  accessforall, but we need to do it quickly. (Review of existing approaches was last years work)


Is there a relationship between  AccessForAll and GPII or is this independent? Our resolution with GPII was that we should be independent but compatible.  Also, worth noting that the meta data proposal is separate from the in page personalisation proposal in github.




All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 22:52:25 +0300 Liddy Nevile<liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote ---- 

Hello Everyone. 
 
I am nervously asking myself why the personalisation for coga would be any different from the personalisation for anything else? 
 
Working with ISO and others, we have been developing metadata to describe the components of resources (services, interfaces, etc) so that a person can specify their particular functional requirements for resources and these can be matched to mirrored descriptions of resources. 
 
Here is an example: I want a resource using a limited vocabulary so I add metadata such as text=vocab1000 to my request. Someone publishing a resource has described the resource as having limited text ie text=vocab1000. A search engine can then decide that this resource will be suitable for me. 
 
In the ‘AccessForAll’ approach we call the functional requirements ‘needs and preferences’ and we say that the needs are essential but the preferences are also good, if possible. 
 
This is the approach being taken by schema.org for things like large font etc so I cannot see why it would not work for coga. Of course, there are other things one might want to say about a resource, especially the subject or the author or something like that. So accessibility metadata can be mixed with other metadata that specifies the subject etc. For this reason, the metadata needs to be interoperable. For many of us, that means it should be RDF triples. The work to make this possible has been done and can be re-used in the coga context. 
 
The exciting thing, for me, is that Google and Yahoo and Bing and Yandex are already indexing a huge number of resources with this sort of metadata. 
 
The other exciting thing for me is that if a resource is not in the required form, say not limited vocab, someone or a robot can make a limited vocab version and that can be connected with the original resource by metadata. Similarly, if the original resource provider does not provide metadata, someone else can. 
 
If I am in the wrong ball-park, please feel free to tell me! 
 
If you want to look at more of this…I hope I can help. 
 
Liddy 
 
> 
> Hi all, 
> We opened a github repository for the personalisation at: 
> https://github.com/ayelet-seeman/coga.personalisation/ 
> 
> If you have any students who would like to contribute, upcoming hackathons, or just anyone interested in contributing, they are more than welcome! 
> 
> regards, 
> Ayelet Seeman