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 17:51:38 +1000
Cc: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4E31DFA8-D202-4679-966D-FF7DBA6D39AA@sunriseresearch.org>
To: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
Madeleine,

as I understand it - there is not much point in having to specify the  
is/has adaptation - there will be multiple format combinations  
available and I think we infer from the choice of a user for captions  
that they do not need audio (might get it but need text alternative  
(captions) whenever there is audio).

As we have abandoned the idea of 'original version' of a resource  
(except for where this is identified using appropriate, other metadata  
based on FRBR or the equivalent), it is not necessary to specify all  
the alternatives as such - instead I thought we'd agreed to specify  
the set of accessMedia that would give complete access to the  
resource. Is that not right ???

Liddy

On 03/10/2013, at 1:48 PM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:

> Liddy,
>
> In what discussion was is/hasAdaptation discredited? I am not aware  
> of that change in direction.
>
> Madeleine
>
> On 2013-10-02, at 10:16 PM, "Liddy Nevile"  
> <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote:
>
>> Richard,
>> 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...
>>
>> Liddy
>> 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 07:52:12 UTC

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