perhaps bear in mind, Charles, that we are not proposing a statement
of the type "x is accessible" or otherwise...but rather, "X has
variable font size" or "X is not controllable by keystrokes alone"
Liddy
On 08/02/2007, at 5:20 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:54:25 +0530, Liddy Nevile
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Emmanuelle
>> have you been able to read the metadata terms we are working on -
>> theyreflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give much
>> moreflexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and they
>> are aboutto become an ISO standard at least for education....
>>
>> The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough useful
>> informationabout the resource..so we have added a few qualifiers
>> and one new term
>
> But the big question is whether you can state that something is not
> accessible (which
> is different from not stating that it is) - the use case is for
> examples that
> are showing how not to do things.
>
> There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins the
> semantic web, a
> lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so on). Broadly
> speaking, a
> statement is expected to be true. If something is going to change
> state, that is
> problematic, but there are ways around it.
>
> The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way of
> managing both
> trust, and changes in actual status fo the thing under discussion.
> If, instead
> of saying "foo is accessible" you say "fred says foo is accessible"
> then you don't
> make RDF and other monotonic systems crash if you add a statement
> "jo says foo
> is not accessible". (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you can
> use OWL to
> explain that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen to
> anything that
> meets WCAG-A, for example. You can then define
> "isAnInaccessibleExample" as test
> for EARL and make statements about it.
>
> As I understand it, you could then use that approach for DC metadata.
>
> So, as far as I know, there is no direct way of saying something is
> inaccessible,
> but it is easy enough to define a slightly indirect one.
>
> If anyone has a better approach I would love to hear it...
>
> cheers
>
> Chaals
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
> [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
|