- From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 03:48:23 +0000
- To: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- CC: "Wallis,Richard" <Richard.Wallis@oclc.org>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Liddy, In what discussion was is/hasAdaptation discredited? I am not aware of that change in direction. Madeleine On 2013-10-02, at 10:16 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote: > 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 03:48:55 UTC