RE: Re: programaticallylocated.doc

> > 1. To what extent, if implemented, would this concretely benefit
> >    people with cognitive disabilities?

To me, if a page is inaccessible  if someone can theoretically
understand the concepts in a page, but can not because of the page
presentation/ format.

Many people could theoretically understand the concepts behind a page
but can not understand  because they have a reading . word/  language
related disability.

Symbolic makes it accessible to them. 
A lexicon enables symbolic.
Hence lexicon enables accessibility...

QED

> > 2. The proposal only addresses word (sometimes called lexical)
> >    meaning, not sentence meaning. Are there any testable strategies
> >    available today or in the near future that can help to clarify or
> >    disambiguate larger components of a text?

Sentence ambiguity (synaptic ambiguity) is normally coursed by a word
ambiguity.

E.G., take the sentence " tighten the draw with the leaver. "
If the word "with" means "using" the sentence has one meaning.
If "with" means "connected to"  the sentence has a second meaning.
Resolve the word ambiguity , resolve the sentence ambiguity.

In putting together SWAP I did consult with word linguists such as
Daniel Berry, who's' expertise is in defining the different forms of
ambiguity found in natural language.

I would  more  conclusive research to be done on it. But that will
always be.
We should not run from what solves a problem 90% because we are not all
the way there yet.

Note: This does not address implied meanings such as sarcasm. For that,
SWAP allows an annotation /RDF statement were you can explicitly state a
secondly or implied meaning , and give it a type (like sarcastic)

I would be happy to see that type of stuff included too, especially for
semantic pragmatic disorder .
What we are really doing is more important , we are generalizing the
concept of an equivalent, away from text equivalent to different types
of equivalents for different types of content and content sections.
Where different types include literal equivalent , text equivalent ,
detailed descriptions, summary, secondary meaning....

All of which is what RDF is made for. 




> > 3. From Gregg's proposal it appears that the author is 
> specifying the
> >    dictionaries. However, as a user I might want to take control of
> >    this, for example to select dictionaries that offer translations
> >    into my preferred language. It is important that if user 
> agents or
> >    assistive technologies implement this, they provide override
> >    facilities.
err -user agent can do what it likes, but it will help the agent to know
what was meant.

> > 4. Is there a reasonable range of online dictionaries out there for
> >    various languages?

> SWAP: A commercial product made by UBAccess - 
> http://www.ubaccess.com -  
> which is what Lisa Seeman does as 
> a day job.

Yes - when I am not volunteering for the W3... 

Importantly - look at Wordnet in Princeton has a great lexicon (and is
in RDF :)

We at ISOC IL (Israel accessibility) are building a Hebrew one with
vowels, and pronunciation for accessibility.

With the right system any lexicon can be used.

> Babylon: http://www.babylon.com
etc etc...

Received on Sunday, 8 August 2004 12:19:48 UTC