- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2004 15:20:01 +0300
- To: 'Charles McCathieNevile' <charles@sidar.org>, jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au, 'wai-xtech' <wai-xtech@w3.org>
> > 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