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

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

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 17:55:50 +1000
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>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Jason Johnson <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Message-Id: <6FE1371E-4A7E-472A-A513-25EA7CE9B4B3@sunriseresearch.org>
To: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
I am not sure that the analogy between 'isPart' and 'hasPart'  and  
isAdaptation and hasAdaptation is straight forward. We have been  
modeling vocabs and where multiple permutations of a single resource  
are available, but there is another resource that also has the same/ 
similar content, it is worth pointing to the other - but just as it  
does not seem nec. to know the original (except where that makes a  
difference and one could use other work and FRBR etc to make the  
associations), it should not be necessary to tell the user this  
resource  isAdaptation of that one.

In earlier AfA work we distinguished between adaptation and equivalent  
-  I think is useful.

To associate a resource that is an adaptation, particularly an  
adaptation of a part, one can use isPart and hasPart and has version  


On 09/09/2013, at 2:13 AM, Charles Myers 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]
> 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
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 07:59:04 UTC

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