- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 15:14:31 +1000
- To: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
- Cc: Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>, Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
I think Karen was wanting to avoid duplication and confusion - and I don't see why we need to know that something in an alternative format is an adaptation, and sometimes it will come first, so that will be a problem! I think we avoid the duplication and confusion by simply using other metadata that identifies an alternative.... and as Charles N said, we probably don't need the reverse anyway. Liddy On 04/10/2013, at 3:09 PM, Charles Myers wrote: > Just a quick note from an airport. > > Karen coyle, as noted in the issue list on the w3c page, noted that > adaptation has multiple meanings from other contexts , and suggested > that we use a term that has "access" in it. Seems that this is the > same issue on naming.. > > Maybe we should go to "isAccessAdaptationOf" > > Read http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#isAdaptationOf_and_hasAdaptation_property_names_should_declare_that_they_are_for_accessibility > > As well as the issue before that. > > Charles Myers c.myers@computer.org 408-889-3038 http://linkedin.com/in/cmyers4 > @c_myers4 > > On Oct 4, 2013, at 5:51 AM, "Matt Garrish" <matt.garrish@bell.net> > wrote: > >> What property from schema.org are you proposing replaces these, >> Liddy? >> >> I understand the hesitation about using a name like "adaptation", >> given the broad nature of schema.org, but we aren't moving off into >> the realm of telling people they have to incorporate external >> vocabularies, are we? >> >> I would note that by having a property at the simpler level of >> indicating that one has a relation to the other in terms of >> differing access modes, media features, etc. (which is more >> directly what our proposal is about) we avoid the potential >> stickiness of delving into the nature of the relationship of the >> content itself (which many relationship properties are concerned >> with). >> >> Matt >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Madeleine Rothberg >> Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2013 9:28 PM >> To: <public-vocabs@w3.org> ; a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: is/hasAdaption >> >> Ah, OK. You are saying that generic "is related to" metadata can be >> used, >> and that we don't need accessibility-specific versions of those >> relationships. >> >> I guess I would leave this to the search engines participants to >> weigh in >> on -- does it improve search to know more specifically that this is >> an >> accessibility adaptation of that, or is it fine to know they are >> related, >> and then go dig through other metadata to figure out the >> relationship? To >> be fair, a "has adaptation" link may not say much about what kind of >> adaptation is at the end of the link. But "is adaptation" metadata is >> probably accompanied by some details about what kind of adaptation >> this is. >> >> -Madeleine >> >> On 10/3/13 8:39 PM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> wrote: >> >>> mmm... >>> >>> Madeleine >>> >>> I am not saying that we cannot point to other resources/ >>> components). I >>> think that we agreed that there are metadata schema that describe >>> the >>> relationship between resources and point from one to another. I am >>> saying that where you want to point or relate resources, that >>> metadata >>> (already part of schema.org, eg.), should be used. >>> >>> I am not sure of what I see as the other part of what you are >>> saying: >>> >>> Suppose I have a resource that has a number of redundant >>> components so >>> that it will be available to a user in a range of forms, and those >>> bits and pieces have different locations. This is very likely to be >>> the case where a new alternative is added. In the original resource, >>> there can easily be a pointer to the alternative and I expect HTML 5 >>> to cater for that - is this the case, Charles (N)???. >>> >>> Otherwise, I assume that if the alternative is covered by metadata >>> it >>> will be identified as an alternative and used? >>> >>> I am not sure I see the problem..... >>> >>> Liddy >>> >>> >>> On 04/10/2013, at 12:31 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote: >>> >>>> (Adding the a11y list, in case there is anyone on that list who >>>> is not >>>> also on public vocabs.) >>>> >>>> Liddy, >>>> Saying that we want to calculate the set of access modes that can >>>> provide >>>> full access to a resource does not take away the need to locate the >>>> supplementary resources that make those sets possible. If the >>>> transcript >>>> for an audio file is in a different location than the audio file, >>>> one way >>>> to find it would be to have a direct indication in the metadata >>>> that >>>> it is >>>> the transcript for that audio file over there (and/or vice versa, >>>> if >>>> the >>>> audio file's metadata author is aware of the transcript). Perhaps >>>> really >>>> good search engines can figure that out from other metadata on >>>> the two >>>> resources, but the search will be easier if the explicit link is >>>> provided. >>>> People who are purposely creating access features and adding a11y >>>> metadata >>>> to them will be motivated to provide that link. >>>> >>>> We also imagine cases where a search engine will turn up useful >>>> equivalents that were never intended to provide an access feature >>>> to a >>>> particular inaccessible resource, but have enough metadata to be >>>> identified as such. And that's great, but it doesn't take away the >>>> value >>>> of encoding those relationships when we do know them. >>>> >>>> -Madeleine >>>> >>>> On 10/3/13 3:51 AM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Madeleine, >>>>> >>>>> as I understand it - there is not much point in having to >>>>> specify the >>>>> is/has adaptation - there will be multiple format combinations >>>>> available and I think we infer from the choice of a user for >>>>> captions >>>>> that they do not need audio (might get it but need text >>>>> alternative >>>>> (captions) whenever there is audio). >>>>> >>>>> As we have abandoned the idea of 'original version' of a resource >>>>> (except for where this is identified using appropriate, other >>>>> metadata >>>>> based on FRBR or the equivalent), it is not necessary to specify >>>>> all >>>>> the alternatives as such - instead I thought we'd agreed to >>>>> specify >>>>> the set of accessMedia that would give complete access to the >>>>> resource. Is that not right ??? >>>>> >>>>> Liddy >>>>> >>>>> On 03/10/2013, at 1:48 PM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 Friday, 4 October 2013 05:25:01 UTC