I completely agree that the use of controlled vocabs is fine and to be
encouraged.  But I'm suggesting that they are used with a small number
of properties (perhaps 4) rather than with one single uber-property.

So instead of having one property (a4a:adaptability) with one big
controlled vocab (or 4 smaller controlled vocabs) as I think you are
currently suggesting, we should instead have 4 properties (along the
lines of a4a:perceptionMode, a4a:controlMode, a4a:structuralFeatures,
a4a:functionalFeatures but note that I don't understand this space well
enough to know if these are correctly named), each with an associated
controlled vocabulary.

Is that clearer?

Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Accessibility Group 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
> Sent: 10 March 2006 00:23
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Liddy's comments in the wiki (long and techie comments)
> 
> Andy
> 
> you wrote
> 
> >  the problem here is
> > that we are looking at a fairly broad range of characteristics - 
> > perceptionMode, controlMode, structuralFeatures, functionalFeatures 
> > (or somesuch).
> >
> > It is much better to separate out these characteristics 
> using several 
> > properties - not least because doing so will make the semantics of 
> > each much clearer.  Otherwise we get into what I tend to 
> think of as 
> > the "DC Format problem".  Very different kinds of values lumped 
> > together in the same property.  This makes machine processing very 
> > difficult or impossible.
> >
> I think these characteristics are independent of each other 
> but all related to adaptability. There could be groups of 
> them, for sure, eg control, display and presentation as we 
> want for disability/ accessibility, ...
> 
> I think we'd prefer them to come from a controlled vocab and 
> am sure the implementers want that ... (so the ISO version 
> includes such a vocab).
> 
> I am not sure what you are suggesting by your comment?
> 
> Liddy
>