Andy, we really don't want to have a duel over who is getting less
sunlight at trhe moment!  In fact, it may not be either of us ...Diane?
I just want to be clear with where we stand.  We clearly are still
wordsmithing the comment and if we need to continue wordsmithing the
description as well, that's fine.  Do we need to pull Liddy back in on
the discussion?

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: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata 
> Initiative's Usage Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On 
> Behalf Of Andy Powell
> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 6:33 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: UB decision on accessibility (draft)
> 
> Stu,
> I agree with your concerns... and I'm not suggesting a 'back 
> to the drawing board' approach.  I fully support the new term 
> - I just don't like the wording of the definition.
> 
> So, IMHO, there is no problem with people having already 
> publically said "DCTERMS.accessibility term has been 
> approved" - only with them having said "DCTERMS.accessibility 
> term has been approved and its definition is 'blah'".
> 
> I was working on the basis that since we were still 
> wordsmithing the comment then we could still wordsmith the 
> definition.  But perhaps I'm out of order?  If so, apologies. 
>  Put it down to sunlight deficiency!
> 
> For the record, I think we'll live to regret it if we allow 
> ourselves to go forward with this particular definition.  But 
> I also accept that we have made the decision and, no matter 
> how bad it might be, we should be prepared to stand by it.
> 
> Andy.
> 
> On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 
> > Just a point of procedure ... are we back to the drawing 
> board on this 
> > after we've already gone public and allowed folks to spread the 
> > results of the decision around.  While I understand Andy's 
> concern, I 
> > think we first have to decide whether we are reopening the decision 
> > and let people know.  If we are, then lets do the work 
> quickly with a 
> > conference call or something after alternatives have been defined 
> > online.  Andy's test makes sense and if we all agree, we 
> should put it 
> > into process so proposers can demonstrate that they have 
> done it.  I 
> > personally do not feel that we can require a ten-person 
> test of name 
> > and semantics with a proposal that has come and gone.
> >
> > 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: A mailing list for the Dublin Core Metadata 
> Initiative's Usage 
> >> Board [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andy Powell
> >> Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 5:48 AM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: UB decision on accessibility (draft)
> >>
> >> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, Andy Powell wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Definition:      A description of the qualities of the 
> resource in
> >>>>                       terms of control, display and
> >> content that can be
> >>>>                       used to match the needs and
> >> preferences of a user.
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm still mulling this over...
> >>
> >> As a rule of thumb, I think we should be able to show our 
> definitions 
> >> (on their own, i.e. without the element name and
> >> comment) to 10 random english speakers and have most of 
> them (say 7 
> >> or 8) guess the name of the element with reasonable accuracy.
> >>
> >> If less than that proportion guess the element name (or something 
> >> close to the element name), then our definition isn't good enough?
> >>
> >> In this case, I'm very tempted to try and find 10 random english 
> >> speakers to try it on?
> >>
> >> Andy
> >> --
> >> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK 
> >> http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
> >> tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask] Resource 
> Discovery 
> >> Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
> >>
> >
> 
> Andy
> --
> Distributed Systems, UKOLN, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 
> 7AY, UK http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/ukoln/staff/a.powell
> tel: +44 1225 383933 msn: [log in to unmask] Resource 
> Discovery Network http://www.rdn.ac.uk/
>