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

Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Schema.org accessibility proposal Review...

From: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 07:30:45 +0000
To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
CC: Andy Heath <andyheath@axelrod.plus.com>, Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Alexander Shubin <ajax@yandex-team.ru>, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>, Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>, "Richard Schwerdtfeger" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Jason Johnson <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Message-ID: <6D4BD9F9-70FD-466F-8DC7-22063C250EB8@benetech.org>
The "analogous" is only in the sense of two different proposals saying that there were needs for links both ways, coming at the same time.  The purpose of the links (collections, adaptations).

I do not believe that have links that points both ways are redundant.  This is even more clear for a collection than it is with adaptations.  You can build a collection by describing all of the members. But it would be difficult to have to change each member of a collection for each collection it became a part of.

As for loading all meaning of terms into increasingly long names (adding "for access") as a suffix, it's not clear whether this adds or removes clarity.  These issues are better handled in the description than overloading the name.  But Karen and you are right that the issue needs to addressed.

On Sep 8, 2013, at 2:28 PM, "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org<mailto:Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>> wrote:

On the topic of hasAdaptation and isAdaptationOf and as Charles points out hasPart and isPartOf. I note, from way down the thread, that it was suggested that there is redundancy here (as each is just an inverse of the other).   That would be true if a single site was publishing all the information about the connected resources, or you were running an inference engine over the whole web looking for the inverse cases.

I would suggest that on the distributed web the use cases of:
1. A catalogue of works with links to adaptations made available by other organisations
2. An adaption locally created of a work distributed by another organisation
would not be unusual.  In which case both would be needed.

I am also concerned about the use of 'adaptation'.

As Karen pointed out, in the "academic and bibliographic world that term refers to changes in the *content* not the physical or digital format." This leads me to think of something ugly such as hasAdaptionForAccess & isAdaptionForAccessOf. Otherwise I foresee confusion on the part of data producers or consumers as to assumptions as to the use of these properties.


On 8 Sep 2013, at 12:13, Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org<mailto:charlesm@benetech.org>> wrote:

On the topic of whether we need to have both hasAdaptation and isAdaptationof, I'd like to point out that another proposal just recently came into the proposal list for collections http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Collection and it has both a hasPart and isPartOf.  This is directly analogous to our accessibility.  I believe that one of the issues that http://schema.org/CollectionPage has today... pages can only say what they are part of, not that a collection can point to a set of content pages.  [Note that I am not trying to drag collections into the accessibility discussion: that's an LRMI interest... I am just pointing out analogous issues facing schema.org<http://schema.org/>]

Also, I'll point out that I just started an issues tracker wiki page for the accessibility proposal.  I've not had a chance to edit the discussions down to salient points, and I know I am missing a few issues as well.  But, take a look at the list at http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker and send me mail (either on the list or just privately) or even edit the wiki with the issues (just add issues... I'll do the consolidation of thoughts during the day today... I have a long flight from San Francisco to Chicago and will consolidate comments as I fly).  I also

Chuck Myers

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<mailto:a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 07:31:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:30 UTC