mmmm... I realise I sort of agree with Phil!
It is my opinion that the accessibility module should just sit beside
the ed one but I would not like to support a situation in which the
ed profile stood alone without the accessibility module. How do we
ensure that does not happen?
Liddy
On 29/08/2007, at 7:31 PM, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> Hello all, hope those of you in Singapore are having a great time.
>
> Liddy Nevile wrote:
>>
>> We refer to the AccessForAll DC metadata not as an application
>> profile for accessibility but as an application profile module so
>> that it is clear the same module can be plugged into DC govt, DC
>> education, DC tools, etc application profiles.
> Either I misunderstand what the DC-Ed working group is doing, or I
> don't understand why this conversation (important though it is) is
> happening here. As I understand it, the DC-Ed work likewise is also
> not developing an application profile for education but rather an
> application profile module that can be plugged into generic
> metadata element sets (together with AccessForAll) for resource
> description in education contexts. I don't see the lack of
> accessibility metadata in the current draft DE-Education AP any
> more of a problem than the lack of title, description, author or
> identifier.
>
> [Aside: "application profile module" seems to me to be a better
> term than "modular application profile" for this sort of work,
> unless I'm wrong in my understanding of what the DC-Ed working
> group is doing.]
>
> So, to go back to Sarah's question, are there any access/disability
> issues that are specific to education? Supplementary questions: are
> these so specific to education that they are not covered in the
> AccessForAll profile, or are they covered there but more important
> in education than other contexts?
>
>
> Phil
>
|