Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: accessibility RDFS write-up

On 7 November 2013 12:25, Andy Heath <> wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 08:58, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>> Andy,
>> as I have not made a new property, I am not sure what you are agreeing
>> with - I also agree that there should not be a new one???? Did you
>> manage to look at what I have worked on?
> Yes I have read your AccessMode proposal and made detailed arguments about
> it explaining why I think AccessMode should remain as it is now and
> represent modalities physically present without any calculus relating those
> modalities in that field (but that such a calculus could be in some other
> field with some other name).
> I am agreeing with all of the detail in Madeleine's post in the quoted text
> below and all of the detail in Matt's response to that, which is also in the
> text below.
> I agree with their arguments on this and have made very similar arguments
> myself.  I don't know how to make this point clearer without again visiting
> the detailed proposal of yours and my belief is we did that until the cows
> come home (in your case that's literally, being in Oz in the night ) and I
> can't see a reason to do so again. I'm saying I think its decision time and
> I believe there is a consensus about this around keeping AccessMode as it is
> and not need for further debate which will only muddy the waters more.

+1 on it being decision time. We don't need to put everything into in one go, but it would be good to have a
roughly-consensual proposal for us to review next week. It's hard to
tell from this latest thread how close you are to agreeing...


> Hope that clarifies my position. The arguments I have put on it are in
> earlier emails on this group.

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 12:29:37 UTC