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

Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: is/hasAdaption

From: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 05:09:31 +0000
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
CC: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <453FAF50-9864-4389-A2BC-437143ED2D9C@benetech.org>
Just a quick note from an airport.

Karen coyle, as noted in the issue list on the w3c page, noted that adaptation has multiple meanings from other contexts , and suggested that we use a term that has  "access" in it.  Seems that this is the same issue on naming..

Maybe we should go to "isAccessAdaptationOf"

Read http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#isAdaptationOf_and_hasAdaptation_property_names_should_declare_that_they_are_for_accessibility

As well as the issue before that.

Charles Myers c.myers@computer.org<mailto:c.myers@computer.org> 408-889-3038 http://linkedin.com/in/cmyers4 @c_myers4

On Oct 4, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@bell.net<mailto:matt.garrish@bell.net>> wrote:

What property from schema.org<http://schema.org> are you proposing replaces these, Liddy?

I understand the hesitation about using a name like "adaptation", given the broad nature of schema.org<http://schema.org>, but we aren't moving off into the realm of telling people they have to incorporate external vocabularies, are we?

I would note that by having a property at the simpler level of indicating that one has a relation to the other in terms of differing access modes, media features, etc. (which is more directly what our proposal is about) we avoid the potential stickiness of delving into the nature of the relationship of the content itself (which many relationship properties are concerned with).

Matt

-----Original Message----- From: Madeleine Rothberg
Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:28 PM
To: <public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>> ; a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: is/hasAdaption

Ah, OK. You are saying that generic "is related to" metadata can be used,
and that we don't need accessibility-specific versions of those
relationships.

I guess I would leave this to the search engines participants to weigh in
on -- does it improve search to know more specifically that this is an
accessibility adaptation of that, or is it fine to know they are related,
and then go dig through other metadata to figure out the relationship? To
be fair, a "has adaptation" link may not say much about what kind of
adaptation is at the end of the link. But "is adaptation" metadata is
probably accompanied by some details about what kind of adaptation this is.

-Madeleine

On 10/3/13 8:39 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org<mailto:liddy@sunriseresearch.org>> wrote:

mmm...

Madeleine

I am not saying that we cannot point to other resources/components). I
think that we agreed that there are metadata schema that describe the
relationship between resources and point from one to another. I am
saying that where you want to point or relate resources, that metadata
(already part of schema.org<http://schema.org>, eg.), should be used.

I am not sure of what I see as the other part of what you are saying:

Suppose I have a resource that has a number of redundant components so
that it will be available to a user in a range of forms, and those
bits and pieces have different locations. This is very likely to be
the case where a new alternative is added. In the original resource,
there can easily be a pointer to the alternative and I expect HTML 5
to cater for that - is this the case, Charles (N)???.

Otherwise, I assume that if the alternative is covered by metadata it
will be identified as  an alternative and used?

I am not sure I see the problem.....

Liddy


On 04/10/2013, at 12:31 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:

(Adding the a11y list, in case there is anyone on that list who is not
also on public vocabs.)

Liddy,
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.

-Madeleine

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

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<mailto: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








--
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<mailto:a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 05:10:03 UTC

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