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

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

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:14:31 +1000
Cc: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>, 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: <27687B3D-585B-4B54-978E-F1976256820F@sunriseresearch.org>
To: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
I think Karen was wanting to avoid duplication and confusion - and I  
don't see why we need to know that something in an alternative format  
is an adaptation, and sometimes it will come first, so that will be a  

I think we avoid the duplication and confusion by simply using other  
metadata that identifies an alternative....  and as Charles N said, we  
probably don't need the reverse anyway.


On 04/10/2013, at 3:09 PM, Charles Myers wrote:

> 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 408-889-3038 http://linkedin.com/in/cmyers4 
>  @c_myers4
> On Oct 4, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@bell.net>  
> wrote:
>> What property from 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, 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> ; 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> 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, 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>  
>>>> 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> 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.
>> 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.
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 05:25:01 UTC

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