Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: accessibility RDFS write-up

On 07/11/2013 08:58, Liddy Nevile wrote:
> Andy,
>
> as I have not made a new property, I am not sure what you are agreeing
> with - I also agree that there should not be a new one???? Did you
> manage to look at what I have worked on?

Yes I have read your AccessMode proposal and made detailed arguments 
about it explaining why I think AccessMode should remain as it is now 
and represent modalities physically present without any calculus 
relating those modalities in that field (but that such a calculus could 
be in some other field with some other name).
I am agreeing with all of the detail in Madeleine's post in the quoted 
text below and all of the detail in Matt's response to that, which is 
also in the text below.
I agree with their arguments on this and have made very similar 
arguments myself.  I don't know how to make this point clearer without 
again visiting the detailed proposal of yours and my belief is we did 
that until the cows come home (in your case that's literally, being in 
Oz in the night ) and I can't see a reason to do so again. I'm saying I 
think its decision time and I believe there is a consensus about this 
around keeping AccessMode as it is and not need for further debate which 
will only muddy the waters more.

Hope that clarifies my position. The arguments I have put on it are in 
earlier emails on this group.

andy


> Liddy
>
>
> On 07/11/2013, at 6:00 PM, Andy Heath wrote:
>
>> I agree with Madeleine and Matt.  I can't type long arguments on this
>> but they have been made many times and at this point are probably in
>> my view a distraction of focus. There is certainly in my opinion a
>> majority of the IMS AfA 3 contributors/editors in favour of
>> maintaining the status quo on AccessMode, and knowing the views that
>> Jutta has expressed I believe there is a majority of 24751 editors
>> also. I propose we close the issue on changing AccessMode. That does
>> not prevent discussion of additional fields for computed values or
>> author-intended-uses at this or any later point.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On 7 Nov 2013, at 05:01, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with Madeleine. This alteration makes it difficult to
>>> understand/parse when an access mode has been inferred, or when it
>>> reflects the actual nature of the content. For optimized discovery
>>> and rendition selection from metadata in the epub package document,
>>> we were looking for the unambiguous representation of the nature of
>>> the content that accessMode was designed to give.
>>>
>>> It also directly changes an IMS property without changing its name,
>>> which is worrisome. Where we have changed properties previously
>>> (accessFeature combining properties), we've used different names to
>>> avoid confusion.
>>>
>>> The whole +'ing of access modes is also lacking any explanation in
>>> the given definition, which doesn't seem helpful for someone trying
>>> to implement the property.
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>> -----Original Message----- From: Madeleine Rothberg
>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:19 PM
>>> To: Liddy Nevile
>>> Cc: Madeleine Rothberg ; Dan Brickley ; Charles Myers ;
>>> a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com ; public-vocabs@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: accessibility RDFS write-up
>>>
>>> I think (and I believe others agree) that this is a new field,
>>> computed from accessMode plus accessFeatures. The previous definition
>>> of accessMode should remain in place, and the new field you have
>>> suggested needs a more specific name.
>>>
>>> Madeleine
>>>
>>>> On 2013-11-06, at 10:39 PM, "Liddy Nevile"
>>>> <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> correct!
>>>>
>>>> I have put in what Charles Nevile and I understand to be what is
>>>> wanted - and what he thinks will work (as far as I can tell) -
>>>>
>>>> but didn't we discuss this and agree in a meeting last week? I do
>>>> remember checking it ...because I was not sure ...
>>>>
>>>> I said something about it being a repeatable property but we had to
>>>> know that we could stop the sets being concatenated and Charles N
>>>> said that could be done with a 'blank node' .... and this was in
>>>> email too...
>>>>
>>>> Liddy
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/11/2013, at 2:32 PM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The group has not agreed to the changes in the definition of access
>>>>> mode
>>>>> included here.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Madeleine
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/6/13 10:16 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your write-up is slightly outdated because we have decided that
>>>>>> accessFeature is a better name for the property than
>>>>>> mediaFeature...this aligns better with accessMode, we think...
>>>>>> and we
>>>>>> have also accessHazard and accessControl, I think.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have refinements of these, and for some we have controlled vocab
>>>>>> values - but I am assuming that these are not what you need now???
>>>>>> (below I have given the write-up a go...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Liddy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 07/11/2013, at 3:46 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sounds like you've been very busy! Will someone who is following
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> closely be in a position to produce an updated version of the draft
>>>>>>> RDFS configuration file we'll need for schema.org? If not, let me
>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>> if you need help (presumably once the revised spec is out). The
>>>>>>> current version I've drafted is at
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext/accessibilit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> y.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1 <html>
>>>>>> 2 <head>
>>>>>> 3 <title>Accessibility vocab</title>
>>>>>> 4 </head>
>>>>>> 5 <body>
>>>>>> 6
>>>>>> 7 <div>
>>>>>> 8 <h1>Accessibility Vocabulary</h1>
>>>>>> 9 <p>See <a href="http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/
>>>>>> Accessibility">wiki</a> and <a href="http://
>>>>>> a11ymetadata.org/">a11ymetadata.org</a> for details.</p>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 10 <div typeof="rdf:Property"
>>>>>> resource="http://schema.org/accessHazard">
>>>>>> 11 <span property="rdfs:label">accessHazard</span>
>>>>>> 12 <span property="rdfs:comment">A characteristic of the described
>>>>>> resource that is physiologically dangerous to some users.</span>
>>>>>> 13 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>>>>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>>>>>> 14 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>>>>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>>>>>> 15 </div>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/
>>>>>> accessFeature">
>>>>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessFeature</span>
>>>>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">Access features of the resource
>>>>>> commonly used as accessible alternatives, such as signLanguage (used
>>>>>> in visual assessMode).</span>
>>>>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>>>>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>>>>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>>>>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>>>>>> 21 </div>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property"
>>>>>> resource="http://schema.org/accessMode">
>>>>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessMode</span>
>>>>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">A set of sensory modalities through
>>>>>> which all the intellectual content of a described
>>>>>> resource or component is communicated, such as visual + auditory;
>>>>>> text; etc. </span>
>>>>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>>>>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>>>>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>>>>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>>>>>> 21 </div>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/
>>>>>> accessControl">
>>>>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessControl</span>
>>>>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">Content features of the resource,
>>>>>> such as fully controllable using only keyboard.</span>
>>>>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>>>>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>>>>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>>>>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>>>>>> 21 </div>
>>>>>> 22 </div>
>>>>>> 23
>>>>>> 24 </body></html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>>> Groups
>>>>>> "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>>>>> send an
>>>>>> email to a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>>>>> a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com.
>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>>> send an email to a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to
>>> a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>




andy
andyheath@axelrod.plus.com
-- 
__________________
Andy Heath
http://axelafa.com

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 12:25:47 UTC