Shadi
thanks for your response.
I will comment in situ...
> It is great to see new progress on this topic.
>
It has been a long haul, but ISO has now published the first version
of the AccessForAll standard which, I hope, will be revised to comply
with the forthcoming MLR.
> As discussed before, this idea of a term to describe the
> accessibility of resources is highly important. It is also great to
> see an intention for harmonization with existing work by ISO/IEC,
> JTC-1, and W3C/WAI.
>
As you know, the work was done all along in parallel, simply the
different metadata models meant differences but now that both IMS and
ISO are working towards the forthcoming MLR, compatible with DC, the
stars can finally be aligned (I hope!!!).
> Unfortunately I still have trouble understanding the model and
> concept of this proposal despite substantial research of the wiki
> resources. I also note that several links to ontologies and
> namespaces did not work or were rather empty placeholders (for
> instance [1], [2], and [3]).
>
The model that I am considering is on the DCMI wiki - the Usage Board
was working on an old version that is no longer available and the
links are to documents of theirs, so I cannot help. I consider that
the wiki version is the most likely candidate... http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki/NewElementProposal
You will notice that matches the definition in WCAG 2.0
> While I support and welcome this important work by DCMI, would like
> to better understand how this proposal works in detail and how it
> relates to existing metadata vocabularies. Specifically, there are
> significant relationships to W3C Protocol for Web Description
> Resources (POWDER), W3C Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) and
> other vocabularies (some of which are already mentioned on the wiki).
>
The AfA work is considered to be complementary to other work done by
W3C, esp. and others. I think this is explained on the wiki too - see http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki
and for a longer explanation see http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki/AccessForAllFramework
As soon as I know if there is to be any further work done on this, eg
submission of the current version of the term to the DC Usage Board, I
will let the community know.
Liddy
> Have I missed a concise summary of the proposal that includes links
> to the relevant schemas and namespaces somewhere on the wiki?
>
> [1] <http://www.ozewai.org/afa-namespaces/afa.xml>
> [2] <http://purl.org/afa/terms/>
> [3] <http://purl.org/afa/terms/accessibility>
>
> Regards,
> Shadi
>
>
> Liddy Nevile wrote:
>> Tom
>> thank you for this posting.
>> I point out to the community that after the meeting with the Usage
>> Board in Berlin in 2008, the definition for the term was changed to
>> match that in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines version 2.0
>> so the UB's decision was a formal decision related to a term that
>> was no longer being proposed by the community.
>> Little has been done publicly in the DC Accessibility Community
>> because we have been waiting for a decision from the Usage Board,
>> expecting it to be based on the proposed term as set out on the
>> wiki at http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki/NewElementProposal.
>> It seems there has been some confusion with respect to what is
>> proposed and what is being considered.
>> In the meantime, ISO/IEC has finally published ISO/IEC N24751:2009
>> Parts 1, 2 and 3. Perhaps more interestingly, the ISO/IEC group
>> responsible, JTC1 SC36, have worked to redefine metadata for
>> learning resources (MLR) and are close to finalising with a new
>> model that is almost identical to the Dublin Core Abstract Model.
>> This probably means a revision for the ISO/IEC N24751 to be fully
>> MLR (and therefore DC) compliant,
>> There will not be a meeting of the DC Accessibility Community in
>> Korea at DC 2009 but hopefully there will be some fruitful
>> discussions that will advance the needs of those trying to work
>> with metadata to enable people with disabilities to discover
>> resources they can use.
>> If you are not familiar with the DC Accessibility wiki, you might
>> like to have a look at it as that is where most of the work is
>> reported. See http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki
>> Liddy
>> On 07/10/2009, at 7:18 PM, Thomas Baker wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> The Usage Board has taken a formal decision on a proposed
>>> "accessibility" property. In the decision text below, we
>>> outline our reasons for not accepting the proposal as submitted.
>>>
>>> We hope that this summary may prove useful as input to the
>>> ongoing search for robust metadata solutions for accessibility.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom Baker, Chair
>>> DCMI Usage Board
>>>
>>> As proposed in [1,2], pp. 32-34:
>>>
>>> Property: accessibility
>>> Definition: Characteristics of the resource that affect how
>>> it can be modified for users or agents.
>>> Comment: An Accessibility statement might be used to match
>>> a (digital or physical) resource to a
>>> description of user or user agent needs and
>>> preferences.
>>>
>>> Decision: Reject
>>>
>>> Reasons:
>>>
>>> -- The proposed definition defines the property by how it can used;
>>> rather, a definition should directly say what the property means.
>>> The proposal does not explicitly say what it means to "modify" a
>>> resource, nor does the proposal explain how the use of the
>>> proposed property will enable such modification.
>>>
>>> -- The proposal says that the property has "been carefully
>>> re-modelled from the ISO/IEC version". However, the proposal
>>> does not provide a reference to or explanation of the
>>> ISO/IEC property of which the proposed property is a
>>> re-modelled version (other than a general reference to
>>> ISO/IEC N24751); the reasons or experience that led to the
>>> re-modelling, i.e., what problems were identified; the
>>> process that was applied in the re-modelling and how
>>> the identified problems are resolved by the proposed
>>> property.
>>>
>>> -- The proposal refers to the "use of the new term in
>>> combination with other descriptive information" as enabling an
>>> "AccessForAll process". However, the proposal does not
>>> explain or illustrate the AccessForAll process, so the Usage
>>> Board has no basis for judging whether the proposed term can
>>> lead to useful results.
>>>
>>> -- The proposal does not specify the range of the property. At
>>> a minimum, the description of a property should specify whether the
>>> intention is that the property is to be used with literal
>>> values or non-literal values, or both.
>>>
>>> -- The proposal describes the discussion of a "stand-alone
>>> new term" since 2001. However, it does not say who was
>>> involved in developing the term as now proposed, nor does it
>>> document any support or endorsement of the term, as proposed,
>>> from experts in the cited ISO/IEC and W3C communities.
>>>
>>> For the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that a
>>> subsequent version of this proposal was discussed by the Usage
>>> Board in 2009 [3] though never formally submitted for
>>> a decision.
>>>
>>> [1] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2008/09/berlin/2008-09-18.berlin-packet-revised.pdf
>>> [2] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2008/09/berlin/2008-09-18.accessibility-proposal.pdf
>>> [3] http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2008/09/berlin/2009-10-04.accessibility-proposal-revised.pdf
>
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ |
> WAI International Program Office Activity Lead |
> W3C Evaluation & Repair Tools Working Group Chair |
|