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

Re: is/hasAdaption

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:24:42 +1000
To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Message-Id: <06AF00B3-B283-48B8-8538-D4945FB640F8@sunriseresearch.org>
Cc: "Madeleine Rothberg" <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>, <public-vocabs@w3.org>, <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Matt

I think we will give advice on how to use the metadata and am sure  
that it will include using some from other places with our  
accessibility module - things such as date, publisher, subject, etc  
will most probably be useful ... I would suggest showing people how to  
do this and giving them the appropriate links to the relevant  
namespaces...

Similarly, for the ISO application profile I would like to show people  
how to include schema.org/ISO accessibility metadata with their other   
ISO 'Metadata for Learning Resources'.

Liddy

On 04/10/2013, at 1:51 PM, Matt Garrish 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 05:25:18 UTC

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