On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 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?
At this stage, I'd be happy just to get a feel for what the rest of the UB
thinks? If everyone else thinks it is a good definition, then fine - I'll
shutup.
FWIW, (which isn't very much) I tried my little experiment on UKOLN staff.
Unfortunately, the 3rd person to respond copied her reply back to the
list, which rather spoiled it! But here are the 4 responses I've got so
far
1 something to do with user configurability
2 usability
3 usability, accessibility or something to do with DRM
4 something to do with audience
Oh, and one more just in...
That is unbelievably fuzzy as a definition. I couldn't guess on the basis
of that... so it probably is a description of accessibility :-)
(but this was after having seen response 3))
Totally unscientific I know!
Andy.
> 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/
>>
>
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/
|