W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2013

Re: is/hasAdaption

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:15:56 +1000
Cc: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <C930CEF6-4794-479C-996B-4872D94FADC9@sunriseresearch.org>
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
I think it is no longer necessarily the case that we will be using  
hasAdaptation etc any more - that belongs to a model that I think is  
discredited now...

On 02/10/2013, at 11:24 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote:

> It is great to see the progress on the accessibility front.  I am  
> supportive of most of the proposals.
> I would have liked to participate in the call(s) next week but can  
> not, due to travel/speaking commitments.  There is an issue that I  
> would have raised if I could attend.
> The term adaption has specific meaning in the accessibility context  
> where the properties hasAdaption & isAdaptionOf make sense.  However  
> in the academic & bibliographic domains adaption has an established  
> and different meaning.  Those property names would also make sense  
> to a librarian, but for different reasons.
> On the one hand we are describing, as an adaption, something with  
> essentially the same content that has been adapted for accessibility  
> reasons; on the other we are describing something which has had its  
> content adapted to provide a different [literary] view.
> Librarians 'know' what they mean by adaption, as will accessibility  
> oriented professionals will know what is meant in their domain.   
> However going for an undifferentiated property name, such as  
> hasAdaption, will lead to ambiguity and confusion further down the  
> line with accessibility/bibliographic oriented softwares having no  
> certainty as to what type of adaption is being referenced.
> Checking out the wikipedia disambiguation page for adaption,  
> highlights that this could be a problem for more that just two  
> communities.
> In an earlier accessibility threads, Karen Coyle suggested the use  
> of 'hasAdaptionForAccess' & 'isAdaptionForAccessOf' I have a  
> preference for the slightly shorter 'hasAccessibilityAdaption' &  
> 'isAccessibilityAdaptionOf'.
> Of course this then raises the question of what property names we  
> would use for the bibliographic domain - something to go on the  
> agenda of the next SchemaBibEx Group meeting methinks!
> ~Richard
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 02:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC