agreed!
Liddy
On 29/08/2007, at 2:05 PM, Diane I. Hillmann wrote:
>
> Sorry--I neglected to change the "TO:" when replying ... Diane
>
> --- begin forwarded text
>
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:43:30 +0800
> To: Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
> From: "Diane I. Hillmann" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: DC-Ed and Accessibility: was DC-Education Application
> Profile: update + feedback requested
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> X-Attachments:
>
> Liddy:
>
> I certainly agree with Sarah that this work is very interesting and
> useful, but I don't see the strong connection with the education
> profile work that would be required for us to consider making
> recommendations for its use with the DC-Ed AP. The new emphasis on
> description sets, which we are relying on in our thinking about the
> modular aspects of the DC-Ed work, makes it possible for us all to
> consider how that point of view empowers us to explore various
> kinds of descriptions that can be combined in a description set for
> the consumption of applications.
>
> While I think we all support the idea that accessibility is an
> important aspect of all kinds of resources, it doesn't seem to me
> that we advance either the goals of the DC-Ed Community or the DC
> Accessibility Community by attempting to combine our work at this
> stage. Rather, I hope that we can fully explore the possibilities
> of these modular APs and how they might be usefully combined as
> description sets.
>
> Diane
>
>> Robyn
>> the AccessForAll work is all about metadata to describe resources
>> and services and lots of other things for education and general
>> contexts. IMS and now ISO have adopted the AccessForAll approach
>> and DC has adopted it for general situations.
>> The IMS work was done first and published earlier but is now being
>> revised. The ISO work followed the work done for IMS and acted as
>> both an internationalisation and revision exercise and will be
>> published soon - by ISO JTC1 SC36. At the same time as we did the
>> IMS and ISO work we have done the DC version work - so all three
>> are compatible. The DC work is not a DC recommendation but is
>> ready for use.
>> So, whatever scheme of metadata you are working in - you can adopt
>> the AccessForAll approach.
>>
>> I suggest you look at the DC Accessibility site where I have
>> explained all these bits in detail and esp at the current docs
>> that are on the DC Accessibility wiki to see how DC does
>> AccessForAll.
>>
>> See http://dublincore.org/groups/access
>> and
>> http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki
>>
>> I hope this helps...
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 29/08/2007, at 12:52 PM, Robyn White wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hi Liddy
>>>
>>> I need to read some more around this, though not because I am
>>> unconvinced of
>>> the need!
>>>
>>> As a slight aside to the current discussion I note that you
>>> mentioned the
>>> 'ISO version'.
>>>
>>> I recently provided feedback on the 'ISO/IEC CD 19788-2 - ITLET -
>>> Metadata
>>> for learning resources - Part 2: Core elements' document and one
>>> of the
>>> things I mentioned was that there is no element that allows for
>>> information
>>> about the accessibility of a resource, a core consideration for
>>> learners
>>> with diverse needs or disabilities.
>>>
>>> Did I miss something in this document or are you referring to
>>> something
>>> else?
>>>
>>> robyn
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: DCMI Education Community [mailto:DC-
>>> [log in to unmask]] On
>>> Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 29 August 2007 2:11 p.m.
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: DC-Ed and Accessibility: was DC-Education
>>> Application Profile:
>>> update + feedback requested
>>>
>>> Sarah
>>> we are sitting in the same room and I have seen you and heard you
>>> but
>>> no, we have not yet caught up!
>>>
>>> The metadata for accessibility is new but it is available in both
>>> the
>>> IMS and the DC world and it is currently being implemented in many
>>> major locations - so you have not seen a lot of it yet but it is
>>> coming!
>>>
>>> The DC version is considered at length on the DC accessibility pages
>>> so that is where you find what I am talking about. The IMS (LOM)
>>> version is available from IMS, and there is the ISO version which is
>>> about to be published by ISO (BTW, BSI is deeply involved in this
>>> for
>>> the UK, eg).
>>>
>>> I hope we can meet and talk in the next couple of days!
>>>
>>> Liddy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 29/08/2007, at 11:01 AM, Sarah Currier wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Robyn, et al,
>>>>
>>>> Many thanks for your comments and feedback. It's all extremely
>>>> useful and doesn't need much discussion (from me anyway- everyone
>>>> else go ahead!); the only bit I think I need to respond to right
>>>> now is the comment on accessibility, and I'd like to start a new
>>>> thread on this. Thanks also to Liddy for her previous email re
>>>> accessibility: I had meant to catch up with Liddy in person re this
>>>> here at DC-2007 in Singapore but haven't managed it yet, and in any
>>>> case, it is important to also discuss on the list. We are also
>>>> having our DC-Education AP meeting this afternoon, where I will
>>>> raise the issue. Anyway:
>>>>
>>>>> Accessibility - The application profile should provide for
>>>>> information about the accessibility (or adaptability) of a
>>>>> resource for those with special requirements in educational
>>>>> settings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Back when I first started working on the DC-Ed AP last year, Liddy
>>>> emailed us re this issue and I responded that I didn't know of any
>>>> education-specific properties of resources related to
>>>> accessibility, and asked to be pointed in the right direction of
>>>> any work in this area. I'm still not sure what "special
>>>> requirements in educational settings" might be, over and above
>>>> accessibility requirements for using any type of resource. I am
>>>> *very* keen to get some clarity on this as it is extremely
>>>> important, but it is not my area of expertise, so would be grateful
>>>> if someone out there could point the DC-Ed community in the right
>>>> direction, or advise us directly.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If we are to use elements already in existence this could be
>>>>> addressed in IEEE LOM 9.1 Classification Purpose, although the
>>>>> existing value space of "accessibility restrictions" may not be
>>>>> the best way to think of it. Discussion with Liddy and the
>>>>> accessibility group will add much clarity to this thinking!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree, this is likely not an ideal solution, and hasn't been
>>>> used much in the LOM community as far as I know. The LOM
>>>> Classification elements do not sit easily with DC anyway- not sure
>>>> how the LOM/DC Task Force are approaching this one, hopefully will
>>>> find out later today. We may need to propose a new element but I
>>>> am hoping, with all the accessibility work that's been going on
>>>> around the world for years, that we can reuse someone else's, i.e.
>>>> one from another metadata schema.
>>>>
>>>> I emphasise again, to be within scope for the DC-Ed AP, any
>>>> accessibility property would need to be specific to the educational
>>>> nature, attributes or context of a resource.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes to all from Singapore,
>>>> Sarah
>>>>
>>>> -- Sarah Currier Co-Moderator, Dublin Core Education COmmunity
>>>> Product Manager, Intrallect Ltd. http://www.intrallect.com 2nd
>>>> Floor, Regent House Blackness Road Linlithgow EH49 7HU United
>>>> Kingdom Tel: +44 870 234 3933 Mob: +44 (0)7980855801 E-mail:
>>>> [log in to unmask] --
>
> --- end forwarded text
|