For some reason, my first attempt at sending this didn't seem to get
through, so resending...
> Picking up the discussion of [1], I think we should focus first on
> defining the "range" (i.e., characterizing the nature of the value
> associated with a described resource using the "accessibility"
> property) before we turn back to the definition.
>
> I also think we need to distinguish between saying that the range of
> the property is "a statement" and saying that the property is used to
> "make a statement" (in the DCAM sense).
Yes.
> As I understand [1], I do not think we mean the former (i.e., that the
> range of the property is actually a statement) but the latter.
Yes, that seems to be the case. The range is some class of concepts
(which we have to narrow down).
> If that is the case, then the proposed definition is correct in not
> defining the property in terms of being a "statement about" something
> (e.g., a statement about a characteristic of the resource...).
Yes, agreed.
> I think we made some good progress on the call by focusing on
> auditoryOnly. To recap from [2], here are some proposed meanings for
> auditoryOnly as a value:
>
> the notion that the resource is limited in accessibility
> to auditory mode (Tom)
>
> the notion that the resource is accessible within
> the limitation of auditory mode (Tom)
>
> the notion that access to the resource requires
> the sense of hearing (Pete)
>
> The resource contains some significant content available
> as sounds only. (Andrew citing Zimmermann)
>
> If the last interpretation is the closest to the one intended, how
> might that be paraphrased? Perhaps:
>
> the notion that the resource presents itself primarily
> to auditory capacities
Given that it comes from the proposers, I kinda like the idea of trying
to stick as close as we can to the Zimmermann formulation.
But as you say below, the way they are formulated (auditory, olfactory
etc) focuses on the capability of a "consumer": given the use scenario,
perhaps that's necessarily so? I'm not entirely sure.
> You may catch at my struggle here to see qualities such as "auditory",
> "haptic", and "visual" as characteristics inherent to the resource as
> opposed to characteristics with respect to human capacities.
>
> In order to get further with this, we should be able to fill in the
> following blanks:
>
> auditoryOnly - limited to auditory, which means...
> hapticOnly - limited to haptic, which means...
> visualOnly - limited to visual, which means...
> brailleOnly - limited to braille, which means...
> tactileOnly - limited to tactile, which means...
> olfactoryOnly - limited to olfactory, which means...
> hazard - limited to ???
Pete
|