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

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

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:20:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CADjV5jfsuQPadRNYzaLRnFtbC9RQoNMi1+F5BsvT6=jQijw-YQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Karen, all,

Would that be roughly equivalent to dcterms:isFormatOf [1] ("A related
resource that is substantially the same as the described resource, but in
another format.")?

Whose meaning might be easier to grasp if it was called e.g.
"alternateFormat", and was a symmetric property.. (Since
dcterms:ifFormatOf/dcterms:hasFormat might otherwise kind-of work like
exampleOfWork/workExample, albeit more narrow than our intentions are with
the latter pair.)

I believe that there is value in having all of isBasedOn, exampleOfWork and
alternateFormat (or something like it, like the more general
commonEndeavor). Or at least a similar constellation, and as long as the
terms are clearly differentiated. The goal being to be general enough and
cover a gamut of varied use cases, some using notions of generalizations,
some representing chains of derivatives, and some building clusters of
formats which represent the same content.

(For comparison, I believe that isBasedOn would be (more or less) a
superproperty of dc:isVersionOf [2] and roughly equivalent to dc:source and
prov:wasDerivedFrom [3]. See also some interesting in-depth comparisons at
[4]. I prefer to explicitly relate to existing terms, if possible.)

By the way, I think it'd be good to have the domain of exampleOfWork (and
the domain and range of alternateFormat) explicitly include Product as well
as CreativeWork. As we've seen in related threads, the more specific a
work, the likelier that is is a tangible product of some sort, rather than
the more general notion of the work (or, granted, being both).

Cheers,
Niklas

[1]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/isFormatOf
[2]: http://purl.org/dc/terms/isVersionOf
[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#wasDerivedFrom
[4]: http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dc/


On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:15 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net> wrote:

> Martin, library cataloging has the concept of "other formats" -- the same
> thing in a different format. This has the advantage that you don't have to
> decide which thing was adapted from which other thing, only that they are
> the same content with different technologies.
>
> I don't have a snappy name for it, but "other formats available" seems to
> me to be the right concept.
>
> kc
>
>
> On 10/7/13 11:44 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>
>
Received on Monday, 7 October 2013 23:21:10 UTC

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