clarification of usage (terms) as a rule use case?

Comment on

RIF Use Cases and Requirement
http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/ucr/draft-20060323

In the WAI we have long struggled with how web media could better serve those
with disbilities that interfere with reading.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/usage/languageUsageAndAccess.html

At the moment I am focused on a narrower objective -- isolating best 
practice techniques
for meeting Success Criterion 3.1.3 of WCAG 2.0 (Work in Progress)

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20060317/Overview.html#meaning-idioms

One general plan for how to clarify these things is to have some sort
of a gloss or 'interpretation sheet' with interpretation rules. I say
'rules' because one doesn't want to mark all occurrences of a
clarified term, but would prefer to isolate them with some sort of a
selector expression.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-xtech/2004Aug/0007.html

A rough hack at a rule format for this would be an XSL fragment that
matches some pattern of markup such as

<span class="term oed:refuse_1">refuse</span>

and has a right-hand side that injects some RDF/A with SKOS terms to
the effect that when the oed:refuse_1 token is present in the bag of
class tokens, one should interpret the term as defined in

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/refuse_1

This has the right sort of functionality, but it lacks your expertise
in the range of rule languages and the best way to fit into a
community of interoperable rule utterances.

Would the RIF WG consider that this is a use case which is
under-served at present and should be included in the RIF Use Case
collection?

Or if you believe that there is stable prior art that works the
problem well, what would you suggest that is?

Al

Received on Wednesday, 29 March 2006 21:29:02 UTC