Re: meta data support

Hi LiddyThanks for getting back to us.
Would you be able to join a coga call to discuss if we should use an RDF design or the approach in the draft. 
If not I am happy to call you at a more convenient time

All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter





---- On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:26:47 +0300 Liddy Nevile<liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote ---- 

I just had a look at the metadata proposal.
I think it is easy to do - you basically just need to decide what it is that makes a difference for people and then provide a set of terms that can be used easily. We usually go for RDF metadata in triples and so whatever you have as your starting set can be added to and extended. The value of working this way is that something that happens to work for me may not be what most people with my particular problem want to use but it is for me - so I want what suits me.


I think metadata can work well in a few ways:
People often think of metadata as describing resources but they forget that it also is used in searches so effectively it can describe user’s individual functional requirements (which we have been calling needs and preferences). The only difference is that the metadata that is published to describe a resource will tell you what resource is being described but the metadata that is the matching functional requirements will not be limited to a single resource - it may be a module of requirements that are used on particular occasions.
People often think that a user will have the same needs and preferences each time they do something. This is not always the case so using different metadata modules of functional requirements is a way to deal with this. People with the same problem may like to use what has worked for other people, or not. Nice thing is, the metadata does not describe the person, only a set of functional requirements they choose to go with.
I like to think about metadata as being something that can be added by a third party. So when a resource is not well described, that is not the end of it - someone can make a description of it. Similarly, when a resource does not have a usable from for someone, one can be generated and associated with the resource by metadata. This means to me that metadata makes cumulative, crowd-sourcing of increased accessibility possible! I love that idea.
I personally suggest picking a few areas for terms, then working on them by adding refinements - plain language>limited vocabulary (5000)>limited vocabulary 1000> … or something like that.

I am happy to work on this with people….but comments would be good too…


Liddy

On 14 Jul 2015, at 7:37 am, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote:

Hi Liddy

We had a first draft at meta-data  for enabling people to find different accommodations in alternative versions

See https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meta_data_support

Could you take a look and tell us what you think?


All the best

Lisa Seeman

Athena ICT Accessibility Projects 
LinkedIn, Twitter




============ Forwarded message ============
>From : Ayelet Seeman<ayelet.projects1@gmail.com>
To : "public-cognitive-a11y-tf" <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Date : Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:03:35 +0300
Subject : meta data support
============ Forwarded message ============
Hi all,
This is far from finished, but here is the first piece for support for alternative content:

https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Meta_data_support

regards,
Ayelet Seeman