Re: Refining enumerations -- is slash still appropriate?

Any feedback on this from schema organizers or experts?

Thank you in advance.


On 12/9/15 10:21 AM, "Madeleine Rothberg" <>

>Previous participants in the Accessibility Metadata project [1] which
>proposed the accessibility properties now part of [2] are
>working on some additional proposals to improve metadata for accessible
>ebooks. We will provide a proposal for an additional property shortly.
>Today my question is about "extending" enumerations. The older,
>slash-based extension mechanism contains guidelines for extending
>properties, classes, and enum items [3]. However, the extension mechanism
>published in May 2015 covers only properties and classes [4]. How should
>extensions to enum items now be handled? For clarity, I suggest we call
>these "refinements" rather than extensions to avoid clashing with the
>concept of "extending" when we instead intend to "refine the
>meaning of an enum item."
>One specific refinement we would like to adopt is an enumeration of kinds
>of braille. Currently, the property accessibilityFeature has 29 expected
>values, and while this may increase, we prefer that it increase as slowly
>as possible. There are many types of braille, and as we look at use cases
>for accessible books, we'd like to have a notation such as:
>And so on. This has the advantage of keeping the list of "core" expected
>values shorter as well as the advantage described in the older schema
>documentation [3] that tools that aren't aware of the full range of
>braille types "can at least partially understand [the] markup and use the
>data appropriately."
>Is this an appropriate notation to add to the enum items of a property? If
>not, is there a recommended way to do this for In either case,
>what is the best process for getting these approved for addition to the
>WebSchemas page [2]?
>Thank you,
>Madeleine Rothberg
>Senior Subject Matter Expert
>National Center for Accessible Media at WGBH

Received on Friday, 11 December 2015 14:13:14 UTC