- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 07:15:56 +1000
- To: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>
- Cc: "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Richard, I think it is no longer necessarily the case that we will be using hasAdaptation etc any more - that belongs to a model that I think is discredited now... Liddy On 02/10/2013, at 11:24 PM, Wallis,Richard wrote: > It is great to see the progress on the accessibility front. I am > supportive of most of the proposals. > > I would have liked to participate in the call(s) next week but can > not, due to travel/speaking commitments. There is an issue that I > would have raised if I could attend. > > The term adaption has specific meaning in the accessibility context > where the properties hasAdaption & isAdaptionOf make sense. However > in the academic & bibliographic domains adaption has an established > and different meaning. Those property names would also make sense > to a librarian, but for different reasons. > > On the one hand we are describing, as an adaption, something with > essentially the same content that has been adapted for accessibility > reasons; on the other we are describing something which has had its > content adapted to provide a different [literary] view. > > Librarians 'know' what they mean by adaption, as will accessibility > oriented professionals will know what is meant in their domain. > However going for an undifferentiated property name, such as > hasAdaption, will lead to ambiguity and confusion further down the > line with accessibility/bibliographic oriented softwares having no > certainty as to what type of adaption is being referenced. > > Checking out the wikipedia disambiguation page for adaption, > highlights that this could be a problem for more that just two > communities. > > In an earlier accessibility threads, Karen Coyle suggested the use > of 'hasAdaptionForAccess' & 'isAdaptionForAccessOf' I have a > preference for the slightly shorter 'hasAccessibilityAdaption' & > 'isAccessibilityAdaptionOf'. > > Of course this then raises the question of what property names we > would use for the bibliographic domain - something to go on the > agenda of the next SchemaBibEx Group meeting methinks! > > > > ~Richard >
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2013 02:15:32 UTC