Usage Board telecon - Wednesday 22 April 2009 - report
This report: http://dublincore.org:8080/usage/minutes/2009/2009-04-22.dcub-telecon-report.html
Attended: Tom, Julie, Pete, Akira, Andrew
Regrets: Stefanie
Agenda - http://dublincore.org:8080/usage/minutes/2009/2009-04-22.dcub-telecon-agenda.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment of dcterms:creator
ACTION 2009-04-22: Tom to turn Pete's proposal at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0903&L=DC-USAGE&P=982
into a decision document for finalization on next telecon.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Accessibility properties (Andrew)
Discussed proposal from Andrew
-- https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0903&L=DC-USAGE&P=2658
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0903&L=DC-USAGE&P=3379
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0903&L=DC-USAGE&P=4094
Now up on the wiki as
http://dublincore.org/usageboardwiki/AccessibilityProposal.
Pete: not clear from the definition what the expected range is.
At some point the group was calling it Access Modes - bucket of
things that serve certain functions. We have had problems with
other properties, such as Rights, which we eventually clarified
to be a Statement. I see parallels there.
Andrew: Do not think we can equate vocabulary to modes of access.
Just a statement about characteristics of a resource. Definition
could use the word "statement".
Tom presents his posting at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0904&L=DC-USAGE&P=4264
Sees a parallel with the discussion of whether properties are
"relevant for resource discovery" and asking (as here) whether
characteristics of a resource are "relevant for accessibility".
Why, then, would "language" not fit the definition - or does it
in fact? He understands the point to be that descriptions can
help a user determine whether the resource is one that they can
access and use given limitations in their physical or virtual
capacity to do so. But that characterization still focuses on
limitations in the users capacity, not characteristics of the
resource itself. Could the resource itself be characterized in
terms of "limitations"?
Tom suggests that "auditoryOnly" could be take to refer to "the
notion that the resource is limited in accessibility to auditory
mode". Or: "the notion that the resource is accessible within
the limitation of auditory mode".
Pete suggests: "the notion that access to the resource requires
the sense of hearing".
Andrew cites Zimmermann to the effect that "auditoryOnly" means
that "The resource contains some significant content available
as sounds only."
Tom's phone line dropped and he could not re-enter, so the
meeting concluded with a pointer to the poll for the next
telecon. Discussion of Accessibility to continue on the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next telecon - May
-- See poll at http://www.doodle.com/v6xzawrcdsvgbh33
-- Possible time slots (for discussion):
2100 UTC - 1400 Seattle / 1700 New York / 2200 London / 2300 Berlin / 0600 Tokyo+ / 0700 Canberra+
1300 UTC - 0600 Seattle / 0900 New York / 1400 London / 1500 Berlin / 2200 Tokyo / 2300 Canberra
-- Agenda
-- Accessibility properties (Andrew)
-- dc:creator comment (Pete)
-- Libraries terms (Stefanie)?
--
Thomas Baker <[log in to unmask]>
|