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

Re: is/hasAdaption

From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 14:31:18 +0000
To: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <F40281431C2E4746837AD2D349E72F1128AB87D9@WSMBX1.wgbh.org>
(Adding the a11y list, in case there is anyone on that list who is not
also on public vocabs.)

Saying that we want to calculate the set of access modes that can provide
full access to a resource does not take away the need to locate the
supplementary resources that make those sets possible. If the transcript
for an audio file is in a different location than the audio file, one way
to find it would be to have a direct indication in the metadata that it is
 the transcript for that audio file over there (and/or vice versa, if the
audio file's metadata author is aware of the transcript). Perhaps really
good search engines can figure that out from other metadata on the two
resources, but the search will be easier if the explicit link is provided.
People who are purposely creating access features and adding a11y metadata
to them will be motivated to provide that link.

We also imagine cases where a search engine will turn up useful
equivalents that were never intended to provide an access feature to a
particular inaccessible resource, but have enough metadata to be
identified as such. And that's great, but it doesn't take away the value
of encoding those relationships when we do know them.


On 10/3/13 3:51 AM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote:

>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 ???
>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 14:31:58 UTC

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