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: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 09:04:48 +1100
Cc: a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com, public-vocabs@w3.org
Message-Id: <A3257789-B236-40C3-BC4B-F7D94D42966C@sunriseresearch.org>
To: martin.quiazon@gmail.com
good idea ...I think it is an important principle that as there can be  
many forms  (combinations of components) that make up the resource as  
i is delivered to or used by a user, it is usually not necessary to  
privilege one combination over another.

Liddy

On 08/10/2013, at 5:44 AM, martin.quiazon@gmail.com wrote:

> For what it's worth, a little background on our experience trying to  
> describe the accessibility of our resources on Bookshare.org: When  
> we first tried to generate metadata for the Learning Registry over a  
> year ago, we started from Dublin Core but found that there wasn't a  
> commonly-used way to express these kinds of content relationships.  
> It was Liddy's work on the Dublin Core accessibility module that led  
> us to import isAdaptationOf from the AfA vocabulary, so it seemed a  
> good fit to carry over into the a11y spec. If we didn't import  
> isAdaptationOf/hasAdaptation we'd probably have needed to formulate  
> something similar.
>
> Since schema.org does have a wider charter, I'm all for a term  
> that's more universally applicable, but none of the existing  
> schema.org terms really seems to satisfy the need here. isBasedOnUrl  
> seems more properly applied to new works that build/expand upon the  
> referenced resource. For example, at Bookshare, our books aren't  
> derivative or expanded works, they're alternatives that provide  
> print books via a different access mode. If I understand the  
> definition of sameAs, then I don't think it's appropriate either,  
> since (for example) a transcript of a recorded speech is not the  
> same thing as the speech.
>
> Using workExample/exampleOfWork is an elegant solution, since it's a  
> good general-purpose property not limited to accessibility. Anything  
> that's useful to a wider range of publishers is going to be more  
> widely-adopted, which is a huge plus. If acceptance into schema.org  
> is expected, then I'd be thrilled to use workExample/exampleOfWork  
> instead.
>
> On Friday, October 4, 2013 9:52:00 AM UTC-7, matt.garrish wrote:
>>> and I think we would do better to wait on the exampleOfWork
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd agree to this approach over using the existing properties. I'd  
>> initially
>>
>> read it as grouping manifestations of a single work, but spotted this
>>
>> sentence rereading:
>>
>>
>>
>>> allowing for any schema:CreativeWork description to reference other
>>
>>> CreativeWorks that it is an example/instance of
>>
>>
>>
>> There is also a need to know which specific manifestation is being  
>> adapted,
>>
>> not just that there is a collection of related manifestations to  
>> which the
>>
>> current belongs. The obvious case being pagination in an ebook,  
>> braille or
>>
>> large print book. Bookshare, for example, probably doesn't want to  
>> just tell
>>
>> its clients that here is a manifestation of an overarching work,  
>> but here is
>>
>> a representation of this specific manifestation containing its  
>> pagination
>>
>> markers.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the "work" can be a "manifestation" in this model, as appears  
>> above, all
>>
>> the good.
>>
>>
>>
>> The ultimate usability will hinge on commonality of identification.  
>> Provided
>>
>> something easy like an ISBN for the user to search on, alternatives  
>> could be
>>
>> found, but if the reference is a fragment identifier within a page  
>> probably
>>
>> not so much. But then the existing property has that limitation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 7 October 2013 22:05:25 UTC

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