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

Colleagues,

I have no intention of changing anything but how does it help a user  
or search engine to know that there are some accessModes that can be  
combined to provide the complete resource but it is not stated which  
ones.

For example, if the accessModes are video, text, auditory, how would  
we know what is required to get all the content and how would I know  
if I will be OK with just video and text or even just text? I  
discussed this with Charles Nevile because I was curious about it and  
heard little from the group.

I  am pleased that at last there is a focus on this issue and suggest  
that I am not doing anything new. Given the table as I have it, I  
believe we are getting close to a minimal version of what we all talk  
about, respect the principles, and have something implementable.

I believe some are anxious about asking the metadata authors for the  
resource to do some work in defining the combinations. I think that  
most of the metadata on resources will either be written by experts or  
derived and so this is not such a big problem as not providing the  
user with a clear way of saying what they want.

It is very important to have accessMode as a useful property; to have  
accessFeatures so that users can think in terms of what they need; to  
be able to make metadata-writing wizards that are easy to use; to have  
clear rules for search/matching systems, etc and that all the time we  
respect the user's individual choices.

I have spent a lot of time trying to finess the tables - I was  
surprised, for example, that if we have 'text' as I have it now, we  
don't have to worry about the size or colour of the text, whereas for  
captions printed on video etc, that is important.

I really do welcome comments - so I am not being defensive but rather  
wanting to know how to make this the best we can make it ...after so  
many years of work.

Liddy

On 08/11/2013, at 12:33 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:

> Liddy,
>
> I am not disagreeing with your work on accessFeature. I agree that  
> it would be useful to have a technical encoding of which accessModes  
> each accessFeature contains and replaces. That is a separate topic.  
> I do not think we will create that encoding in Schema, but we should  
> create it somewhere.
>
> I am disagreeing with the new definition you have written for  
> accessMode. I, and the rest of the group, do not think it makes  
> sense to re-define accessMode to require the metadata author to do  
> the computation of the combinations of access modes possible for a  
> resource and its alternatives. We all feel that accessMode should  
> continue to be defined as it has been. I suggest that a new field  
> could be added called "accessModeCombinations" (or some much better  
> name) that has the definition you have given.
>
> Some metadata authors may be capable of filling out the new field,  
> but others will not. If authors correctly fill out accessMode and  
> accessFeatures, an algorithm can deduce the values for the new  
> field. As new resources are discovered that explicitly or  
> serendipitously augment a resource, the number of ways to use it  
> will grow, but the characteristics of the base resource will not  
> change.
>
> -Madeleine
>
> From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
> Date: Thursday, November 7, 2013 12:16 AM
> To: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
> Cc: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com 
> >, Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com 
> " <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org 
> >
> Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: accessibility RDFS write-up
>
>> Now I understand what is causing the problem.
>>
>> I am NOT inventing a new property --- I was simply organising the
>> accessFeatures so that by stating an accessFeature of interest, it
>> could quickly be seen what accessMode might be affected - ie doing
>> what Chuck was doing but not having so much text in order to do it. I
>> have changed the headings etc on the spreadhseets and think it might
>> be better now - please have a look at this new version of the
>> spreadsheets...
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 07/11/2013, at 4:01 PM, Matt Garrish wrote:
>>
>> > I agree with Madeleine. This alteration makes it difficult to
>> > understand/parse when an access mode has been inferred, or when it
>> > reflects the actual nature of the content. For optimized discovery
>> > and rendition selection from metadata in the epub package document,
>> > we were looking for the unambiguous representation of the nature of
>> > the content that accessMode was designed to give.
>> >
>> > It also directly changes an IMS property without changing its name,
>> > which is worrisome. Where we have changed properties previously
>> > (accessFeature combining properties), we've used different names to
>> > avoid confusion.
>> >
>> > The whole +'ing of access modes is also lacking any explanation in
>> > the given definition, which doesn't seem helpful for someone trying
>> > to implement the property.
>> >
>> > Matt
>> >
>> > -----Original Message----- From: Madeleine Rothberg
>> > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2013 11:19 PM
>> > To: Liddy Nevile
>> > Cc: Madeleine Rothberg ; Dan Brickley ; Charles Myers ; a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com
>> >  ; public-vocabs@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: accessibility RDFS write- 
>> up
>> >
>> > I think (and I believe others agree) that this is a new field,
>> > computed from accessMode plus accessFeatures. The previous
>> > definition of accessMode should remain in place, and the new field
>> > you have suggested needs a more specific name.
>> >
>> > Madeleine
>> >
>> > On 2013-11-06, at 10:39 PM, "Liddy Nevile"
>> > <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> correct!
>> >>
>> >> I have put in what Charles Nevile and I understand to be what is
>> >> wanted - and what he thinks will work (as far as I can tell) -
>> >>
>> >> but didn't we discuss this and agree in a meeting last week? I do
>> >> remember checking it ...because I was not sure ...
>> >>
>> >> I said something about it being a repeatable property but we had  
>> to
>> >> know that we could stop the sets being concatenated and Charles N
>> >> said that could be done with a 'blank node' .... and this was in
>> >> email too...
>> >>
>> >> Liddy
>> >>
>> >> On 07/11/2013, at 2:32 PM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> The group has not agreed to the changes in the definition of
>> >>> access mode
>> >>> included here.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Madeleine
>> >>>
>> >>> On 11/6/13 10:16 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Dan,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> your write-up is slightly outdated because we have decided that
>> >>>> accessFeature is a better name for the property than
>> >>>> mediaFeature...this aligns better with accessMode, we think...
>> >>>> and we
>> >>>> have also accessHazard and accessControl, I think.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> We have refinements of these, and for some we have controlled  
>> vocab
>> >>>> values - but I am assuming that these are not what you need  
>> now???
>> >>>> (below I have given the write-up a go...)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Liddy
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 07/11/2013, at 3:46 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Sounds like you've been very busy! Will someone who is  
>> following
>> >>>>> this
>> >>>>> closely be in a position to produce an updated version of the
>> >>>>> draft
>> >>>>> RDFS configuration file we'll need for schema.org? If not, let
>> >>>>> me know
>> >>>>> if you need help (presumably once the revised spec is out). The
>> >>>>> current version I've drafted is at
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/webschema/file/default/schema.org/ext/accessibilit
>> >>>>> y.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Dan
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 1 <html>
>> >>>> 2 <head>
>> >>>> 3 <title>Accessibility vocab</title>
>> >>>> 4 </head>
>> >>>> 5 <body>
>> >>>> 6
>> >>>> 7 <div>
>> >>>> 8 <h1>Accessibility Vocabulary</h1>
>> >>>> 9 <p>See <a href="http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/
>> >>>> Accessibility">wiki</a> and <a href="http://
>> >>>> a11ymetadata.org/">a11ymetadata.org</a> for details.</p>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 10 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/accessHazard
>> >>>> ">
>> >>>> 11 <span property="rdfs:label">accessHazard</span>
>> >>>> 12 <span property="rdfs:comment">A characteristic of the  
>> described
>> >>>> resource that is physiologically dangerous to some users.</span>
>> >>>> 13 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>> >>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>> >>>> 14 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>> >>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>> >>>> 15 </div>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/
>> >>>> accessFeature">
>> >>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessFeature</span>
>> >>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">Access features of the resource
>> >>>> commonly used as accessible alternatives, such as signLanguage
>> >>>> (used
>> >>>> in visual assessMode).</span>
>> >>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>> >>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>> >>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>> >>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>> >>>> 21 </div>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/accessMode
>> >>>> ">
>> >>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessMode</span>
>> >>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">A set of sensory modalities
>> >>>> through
>> >>>> which all the intellectual content of a described
>> >>>> resource or component is communicated, such as visual +  
>> auditory;
>> >>>> text; etc. </span>
>> >>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>> >>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>> >>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>> >>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>> >>>> 21 </div>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 16 <div typeof="rdf:Property" resource="http://schema.org/
>> >>>> accessControl">
>> >>>> 17 <span property="rdfs:label">accessControl</span>
>> >>>> 18 <span property="rdfs:comment">Content features of the  
>> resource,
>> >>>> such as fully controllable using only keyboard.</span>
>> >>>> 19 <span>Domain: <a href="http://schema.org/CreativeWork"
>> >>>> property="schema:domain">CreativeWork</a></span>
>> >>>> 20 <span>Range: <a href="http://schema.org/Text"
>> >>>> property="schema:range">Text</a></span>
>> >>>> 21 </div>
>> >>>> 22 </div>
>> >>>> 23
>> >>>> 24 </body></html>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the
>> >>>> Google Groups
>> >>>> "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from  
>> it,
>> >>>> send an
>> >>>> email to a11y-metadata-project+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to
>> >>>> a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com.
>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/ 
>> opt_out.
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> > send an email to a11y-metadata-project 
>> +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com
>> > .
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 21:54:47 UTC