While possibly a bit cumbersome, I can forward Liddy's comments to the UB
list and don't mind forwarding posts from here to her so she need not
monitor the list archive.
Stuart
On 2/15/05 12:52 AM, "Andy Powell" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Well, I guess I am guilty of having missed the subtle point about matching
> two sets of metadata - though I think this needs to be brought out in the
> comment rather than in the definition.
>
> And, in the general case, this is still also true of other metadata
> properties - it is not the defining feature of accessibility - so I'm not
> convinced that it should be highlighted in this one element. For example,
> my user-profile may state that I prefer PNGs to GIFs and that I work in
> the area of digital libraries, and these preferences may be used by some
> services to filter my search results before I get to see them - which is a
> different example of matching two sets of metadata.
>
> We need to find a way of involving Liddy in this debate, I think?
>
> Two critical questions, IMHO.
>
> Is dcterms:accessibility intended to be applied to all resources (physical
> and digital) or just digital? I think it has to be the former, and that
> the definition must work in the context of the accessibility of, for
> example, a building. If it is the latter, then we need to rename the
> property as something else (e.g. dcterms:webAccessibility).
>
> Isn't accessibility fundamentally about "ease of access for all"?
> Re-casting this slightly into DCMI-speak, what is wrong with a definition
> along the lines of
>
> A statement about the ease with which the resource can be accessed by
> all agents, regardless of the technology being used.
>
> ? (Note: I hate the 'agent' word, but I think we've now lumbered
> ourselves with it). This works in the context of someone accessing a Web
> page using a screen reader, and someone entering a building using a
> wheelchair. Thoughts?
>
> Andy.
>
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>
>> All, I am forwarding an email from Liddy regarding 'accessibility'. She
>> has looked at the discussion here in our archives.
>>
>> Stuart
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
>> [University of Washington, Box 354985]
>> The Information School
>> iSchool Research Commons
>> University of Washington
>> 4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
>> Seattle, WA 98105
>> http://www.ischool.washington.edu
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:12 PM
>>> To: Stuart Sutton
>>> Subject: Re: dc accessibility
>>>
>>> Stuart
>>>
>>> I have read the debate and am very worried. I acknowledge
>>> Andy's point but it misses the main thing - that this is
>>> about matching two sets of metadata - not just matching
>>> resources to users in the vague, 'hopeful'
>>> way it has been done before. That is a critical message and
>>> we should craft a definition that includes it! So while I
>>> buy Andy's idea that everyone should understand the message,
>>> the Usage Board should be first to do that and they don't
>>> seem to. What can we do to fix this?
>>>
>>> Liddy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/02/2005, at 8:55 AM, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liddy, there is nothing to do at the moment. There is
>>> debate going on
>>>> on the UB list regarding the definition. While you can't
>>> post to the
>>>> UB closed list, its archives are open for the reading.
>>> Qestions have
>>>> arisen as to the potential ambiguity of the definition, NOT to the
>>>> basic decision itself. So instead of just wordsmithing the
>>> comment,
>>>> there is some likelihood that the Board will wordsmith the
>>> description
>>>> further.
>>>> Keep an eye on the list since we have a conference call
>>> shaping up for
>>>> the 21st where we'd all like to wrap up accessibility and
>>> some other
>>>> matters. While an awkward process, I'm more than happy to
>>> relay any
>>>> of your thoughts to the UB list. It may mean nothing more than
>>>> monitoring on your part.
>>>>
>>>> Stuart
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Stuart A. Sutton, Associate Professor
>>>> [University of Washington, Box 354985] The Information
>>> School iSchool
>>>> Research Commons University of Washington
>>>> 4311 11th Ave NE, Suite 400
>>>> Seattle, WA 98105
>>>> http://www.ischool.washington.edu
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>>>> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 3:36 PM
>>>>> To: Stuart Sutton
>>>>> Subject: dc accessibility
>>>>>
>>>>> are we making progress???
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you want me to do something?
>>>>>
>>>>> really pleased about the ed work, BTW, and will want to participate
>>>>>
>>>>> Liddy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK
> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell/ +44 1225 383933
> Resource Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
|