Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: Accessibility for schema.org Re: Updated Wiki to cover proposal

On 19 November 2013 00:10, Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote:
> There is a registry proposed in a project run by Gregg Vanderheiden et al
> but also, at ISO we are setting up a registry - the proposition has been for
> that to be the same as Gregg is talking about but it has not happened...
> I hope what we have for ISO is the same as the schema.org stuff in the end
> so would like to have a single registry, for sure..

Although sometimes it's a pity to create confusion by specifying two
ways of doing something, in this case I suggest we allow either a)
URLs (e.g.. into a registry, which could use RDFa+SKOS to handle
multllingual labels, simple hierarchy) b) simple inline Text.
Schema.org already has the convention "sometimes when we expect a
'Thing' we half-expect to find a Thing, and we'll do our best with
that...", so this isn't entirely unprecedented. Or as
http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html puts in (see under Conformance),
""" We also expect that often, where we expect a property value of
type Person, Place, Organization or some other subClassOf Thing, we
will get a text string. In the spirit of "some data is better than
none", we will accept this markup and do the best we can. """".

BTW the parallel discussion here about handling SKOS data in
schema.org shouldn't affect things much. Most likely it means at some
point we might say that these properties have an expected type of -
say - "Topic" instead of 'URL", which would be our way of saying that
they're not just links, but links into an organized system of
identifiable concepts as typically written using SKOS.

Dan

Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 07:42:59 UTC