- From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
- Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:46:07 +0100
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:31 1/11/2005, Lisa Seeman wrote: <blockquote> change: A mechanism is available for finding definitions for all words in text content. to: A mechanism is available to determine the meaning of each word or phrase in the content The difference is that the user can pinpoint the intended definition, and not just point to a set of possible definitions. Ambiguous words are a big problem for people with cognitive disabilities, pointing them to a set of definitions doesn't help them and only puts more of a burden on the author. If we do want to include a SC about finding definitions of words, it should be about the exact definition and not a set of definitions. </blockquote> At 18:42 1/11/2005, John M Slatin wrote: <blockquote> I'm concerned about requring a mechanism to "determine the meaning" of words or phrases in the content. I don't think it's testable, especially with respect to phrases. My training is in literary studies. There are certain phrases whose meaning literary scholars and critics have been arguing about for centuries. Those arguments will go on forever because the phrases in question are metaphorical-- the metaphor *is* the meaning. </blockquote> I agree that determining the meaning of words or phrases is a very hard requirement for certain types of text. As John mentioned, the meanings of certain phrases have been debated for centuries. Additionally, it is sometimes unclear what the intended words (as opposes to meaning) were in many older texts, as in Shakespeare's Othello: "Like the base Indian/Judean threw a pearl away / Richer than all this tribe" (and many other "textual cruces" in Shakespeare and elsewhere). Even when the intended words are clear, the meaning can be intentionally ambiguous, for example in wordplay: There once was a fellow named Hall Who fell in a spring in the fall 't Would have been a sad thing Had he died in the spring But he didn't, he died in the fall. If the techniques that Lisa proposes can handle ambiguity or mark up phrases as being ambiguous (can they?), we would be one step closer to helping people with the proposed success criterion, but that is a big proviso. Regards, Christophe Strobbe -- Christophe Strobbe K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on Document Architectures Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM tel: +32 16 32 85 51 http://www.docarch.be/ Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2005 15:47:33 UTC