W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > wai-xtech@w3.org > October 2002

RE: WAI Common Glossary -- include UAAG

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:00:32 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI Cross-group list <wai-xtech@w3.org>, Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
cc: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@earthlink.net>, "'Harvey Bingham'" <hbingham@acm.org>, Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0210311552530.8812-100000@tux.w3.org>

sent to Xtech with permission so people can follow the discussion.

We are trying to clarify and pin down the scope and goals of the glossary.

On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

>Charles,
>awesome. I was going to draft something similar.
>
>Katie and I had a quick chat about the original goal of the project:  to
>harmonize the use of terms between WAI documents.  It has grown beyond that
>scope.  e.g. why is the svg definition of "arc" in the WAI glossary?
>However, it is useful to see how other groups (NISO, Daisy, etc.) define
>accessibility and how our definitions compare.  I have concerns that the
>scope and goals might still be too broad, and I've made comments below.
>
CMN1
>>Scope: This document provides a glossary for terms used in WAI
>>specifications.
>
WAC
>This is a bit ambiguous.  I think where a term is defined in another spec
>we don't need an entry in the WAI glossary.  e.g. "arc" as defined by
>SVG.  If a WAI document uses the term "arc" it should refer to the SVG
>spec's definition not the WAI glossary.  Perhaps:
>Scope: This document provides a glossary for terms use in WAI
>documents.  When a term is  defined in another (non-WAI) W3C specification,
>WAI documents should use and reference that definition.
>
CMN2 Agree that we should not make up a different term. That was the idea of
tracking divergent meanings, as suggested below. I'll add something to the
bit below - the purpose is so that groups see the problem and fix it in early
draft stage.

CMN1
>>Goals: For any term actually used in a WAI specification, the glossary should
>>have a single entry. This entry should be agreed and used by any group using
>>the term in their specification.
>>
>>There should not be two different terms used for the same thing in two
>>different specifications.
>>
>>This will help people to read and understand specifications where they need
>>to use more than one (as is required by several WAI specifications). It will
>>also help with translation - for example the group SIDAR tries to maintain a
>>translation of this glossary in order to ensure that translations o terms in
>>specifications is consistent.
WAC
>It will also help other organizations referencing WAI documents or looking
>for definitions of terms that they use (e.g., INCITS V2).
>@@Katie, does this address the point you made? The one that Gregg had
>mentioned?
CMN2 Agree
CMN1
>>This glossary should be consistent with any glossary produced by the QA
>>activity of W3C.
>>
>>In addition, it is helpful if the glossary source document notes divergent
>>uses of the same term in other W3C specifications.
WAC
>You mean if one of the WAI documents were to use "arc" differently than in
>the SVG spec, we would define it in the WAI glossary and refer to the
>SVG-spec definition?
CMN2 I think we should note that it is used differently in the SVG spec to
the usage which would get into the WAI glossary. Hopefully this could be used
to prod the relevant groups into harmonising their definitions at draft
stage.
WAC
>
>I would add a section:
>Communication and Process:
>
>The work on this glossary will occur on the wai-xtech list.
>
>It is the responsibility of each Working Group considering using a new term
>to first check the glossary for a definition. If a definition does not
>exist, the WG should submit a proposed definition to the xtech list for
>consideration.  Once consensus is reached, the editors will add the
>definition to the glossary.
>
>@@what role does CG play? (leave that for them to decide?)
CMN2 Hopefully they won't have any work to do. I guess they are the place for
escalation if two groups cannot agree on a definition, but that should be
unlikely...

I like the idea of a process section. I would add a bit about what to do wher
a group wants to edit an existing definition - they should at least make a
proposal to xtech, and advise any group that already uses the term, so there
is some way of checking that an updated definition is compatible with
existing usage.

Cheers

Chaals
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 16:00:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 13:15:37 GMT