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

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

From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:42:25 +0100
To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net, public-vocabs@w3.org, "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Message-ID: <op.w4fpszd8y3oazb@chaals.local>
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 15:04:41 +0100, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>  

> Right, I'm okay with removing the adaptation part if it's just going to  
> cause confusion.
> Is what we're looking for a property like "alternativeAccessIn" that can  
> point in any direction and simply establishes that relationship that  
> there is equivalence of content but potential difference in how it can  
> be interacted with, or what feature set is available? (Whether you  
> choose to point from a richer resource to a more limited one or not, not  
> being something we prescribe.)

What *I* am looking for is a way of saying "this is a version of that".  
Finding out whether the content is the same depends on other metadata - in  
some sense an audioBook cannot have the same content as a book, in another  
sense it certainly does.

I'm fine with dropping the directionality as an accessibility-specific  
datum because I don't know of any way in which it matters to  
accessibility, and because I am aware that it *does* matter to other  
communities who havestudied the problem and are likely to provide good  
solutions. Which we should ust adopt as they become available, if we see  
some need for them.



> Matt
> -----Original Message----- From: Karen Coyle
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:47 AM
> To: public-vocabs@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: is/hasAdaption
> Yes, I was only commenting on the term itself, not the method of
> identifying alternatives.
> If I have understood it properly, I share Liddy's view that it is common
> that there are alternative formats of things, and those formats have
> different affordances. Some of those affordances are specifically
> designed to overcome disabilities, but as we know from the curb cuts at
> our street corners, some adaptive technologies are used by everyone, and
> for a variety of reasons. (Note that the "adaptation" of the DAISY ebook
> has become a mainstream product in Amazon's "whisper-sync" technology.)
> An example that I'm currently struggling with is that of ebooks: ebooks
> come in many different formats and some readers (physical or software)
> are limited in what formats they can read. I suppose you could say that
> a person with a Kindle has a kind of ebook "disability" that requires
> locating an ebook file in a certain format. My preference is to state
> what formats are available, and what specific capabilities are included
> that are not inherent in the file format (e.g. "readaloud=yes"). For
> films, I want to know if there are captions, and in what languages, as
> well as the language of the film's dialogue.
> I think we all want to know what we can and cannot do with the things we
> wish to access, and coding this specifically so that those with
> particular needs can home in on resources is a good thing. Libraries
> code some of this (still visual, moving visual, 3-dimensional object,
> text...) but not to the extent needed to make the kinds of decisions
> that we are talking about here. So I see this as a kind of continuum of
> detail that serves a variety of needs. I can't, however, draw a bright
> line between "adaptive" and "other". I also agree with Liddy that
> requiring the use of "adaptation of" is going to create a dilemma in
> many cases where you do not know which (if any) resources are the
> "adaptation" -- as is the case with ebooks, which are all born
> simultaneously.
> kc
> On 10/3/13 10:14 PM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>> 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  
>> problem!
>> 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.
>> Liddy
>> 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.

Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com
Received on Friday, 4 October 2013 14:43:04 UTC

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