Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: is/hasAdaption

> Right now there is isBasedOn

It's description doesn't seem to suggest such a good fit, though: A resource 
that was used in the creation of this resource. I thought this property was 
introduced by LRMI to identify resources that were pulled into making a new 
resource (e.g., open textbooks). I'd be hesitant to lift the name and 
ascribing a new interpretation to it, which is why I noted below it's best 
to stay away from the minefield of metadata that has other applications.

> and sameAs

I'm not sure this applies, either: URL of a reference Web page that 
unambiguously indicates the item's identity. At least based on my often 
meagre understanding of owl, this property is focused on establishing a 
shared identity (e.g., variations in name), not pointing that one resource 
is equivalent but differently adapted to another (and not for parts of a 
whole).

I'm certainly not wedded to any one approach, but I'd like to make sure that 
there is at least one unambiguous way to express this relationship before we 
drop it as unnecessary. The people who think about these things haven't 
suggested that our use case already has a functional equivalent, only that 
its name collides with another meaning, so I'm still inclined to think there 
is value in what we're trying to establish with these properties.

But, right, my follow up question if the reference was abroad was whether we 
were willing to limit the metadata to RDFa implementations. Glad to hear the 
discussion hasn't moved that far.

As far as bidirectionality of linking goes, I'm not wedded to any one 
approach. For republishing of ebooks, there's typically only one direction, 
after all. But if a relationship can go one way, it can go back the other 
(rel/rev, among many other bidirectional relationship mechanisms springs to 
mind).

Matt

-----Original Message----- 
From: Charles McCathie Nevile
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 9:50 AM
To: Madeleine Rothberg ; public-vocabs@w3.org ; 
a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com ; Matt Garrish ; Wallis,Richard
Subject: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: is/hasAdaption

On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 04:51:30 +0100, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
wrote:

> What property from schema.org are you proposing replaces these, Liddy?

Right now there is isBasedOn which applies to CreativeWork and sameAs
which applies to any Thing, including CreativeWork.

The former is like "isAdaptation", but generic, so the resource might have
accessibility metadata - or there might be third-party accessibility
metadata available for the resource.

sameAs is a bit trickier. It identifies "things that are the same" but is
unclear whether that means "Alice in Wonderland" the eBook is the sameAs
the annotated "Alice in Wonderland" (2nd edition) from OUP in 1993.

> 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?

No, we need to use properties that are in schema.org (inter alia, because
microdata is too limited to do anything else).

We *expect* schema.org to adopt stuff from the bibex group, which is
proposing
http://www.w3.org/community/schemabibex/wiki/CreativeWork_Relationships to
handle this. Note that librarians have spent years thinking about this
question, and their assumptions include things that other people don't
consider (so may not understand easily). But their development is driven
by use cases, including ones similar to ours (find a version of this
CreativeWork that works on my device).

> 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).

Indeed.

cheers

Chaals

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>


-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

-- 
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 11:52:54 UTC