W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tt@w3.org > April 2005

RE: Coments - last call draft (adapt from proprietary source?)

From: Al Gilman <Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 10:23:29 -0400
Message-Id: <p06110401be82d647d9ad@[]>
To: "Glenn A. Adams" <gadams@xfsi.com>, <public-tt@w3.org>
Cc: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>

At 12:19 AM -0400 4/12/05, Glenn A. Adams wrote:
>A few comments inline below.
>>  -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Al Gilman [mailto:Alfred.S.Gilman@IEEE.org]
>  >
>>  supposition:  The DFXP, as an XML format, is the dataset of choice
>>  on which to base this person's browse of what transpired in the
>>  session.  Not just the formal statement of the decisions that were
>  > reached, but the dialog that led to the decisions.
>[GA] Another way to "produce .. as fit an adaptation basis" is to
>generate all permutations of DFXP from an original source, whatever it
>may be (AFXP or something else), in accordance to whatever adaptation
>parameter space applies to the original content.

The usual approach in W3C is to use consensus public formats as a
pivot point so that the author can understand the binding of the
content schema to the lingo of the domain sourcing the content, and
the assistive technology or device independence specialist can
understand how to map the content schema to the presentation
possibilities of one or another delivery context. The content schema
is consolidated through an inter-community negotiation; while the
pool of people engaged in the negotiation need to cover the
stakeholding domains of activity, nobody has to become an expert in
both/all of them.


On the other hand, with the Semantic Web the W3C gives us an alternate
approach with less reliance on standard formats and more reliance on
metadata.  And the WAI seeks creative solutions using any applicable
technology, not simply rote cant.

However, a metadata approach would still require that the content sourcing
activity a) capture and be prepared to share key information such as
speaker identity, where readily achievable, and b) explain the terms
in the way *they* are using [whatever format they are using as the
source or editable form] in terms of well-established public-use
references. The later is a schema reconciliation or data thesaurus.
[There is no policy-free solution, AFAIK.]

The avenue of amelioration that we haven't touched on specifically
has to do with the CR checklist. We should be looking at what
concrete example-use activities during CR would illuminate the issues
we have been discussing so as to make it easier to come to consensus
that the DFXP does about what it should in these directions.

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2005 14:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 5 October 2017 18:24:01 UTC