>>> Why not define an ontology for use within CC/PP ...
>> I'm afraid that I must disagree here. This is the 'holding the
>> wrong end of the sword' problem I discussed yesterday. With this
>> statement, we are taking a technology and then saying "we must
>> represent things in it". It is important that we think about what
>> we want to represent, and then implement it in some technology or
>> markup language (one of which might be CC/PP). Also, this has
>> implications beyond just web resources, but also any digital
>> resources, or indeed non- digital resources.
>
> OK, how about if I rephrase that suggestion as "Why not define an
> ontology and use it in various ways, including within CC/PP"?
> Clearly the ontology should be developed to represent what we/you
> want it to represent. Thanks to the wonder of XML Namespaces ;-) it
> can then be used within an RDF context such as CC/PP without loss or
> distortion of information about the user's preferences.
>
> I take your point about non-web resources (and an ontology for user
> preferences expressed in say RDF could certainly be used in such
> settings), but it seems to me that CC/PP is the W3C-approved place
> to make statements about user preferences for the purpose of content
> negotiation, and therefore it makes sense to use it for that
> purpose. Am I wrong about this?
>
I'm sure that once we understand the requirements of the authors in
the field, then this would be possible.
> Also, to have this information in a CC/PP user profile is not to
> mandate how that information is used; the CC/PP Recommendation
> specifically states that more work is needed to specify protocols
> for actually applying CC/PP profiles [1]. I could, off the top of
> my head, think of two different ways that the user preferences
> within CC/PP could be applied:
>
> - "just in time" by a browser plugin, to amend the HTML delivered by
> the server;
> - on the "origin server" itself, to control what is delivered in the
> first place
>
> Clearly the second option is preferable, but the first might be a
> good place to start.
>
These are the two approaches that we are exploring in EU4ALL (the e-
learning project). The first is commonly called transcoding in the
research/practice domains while the second is substitution (or
misnamed 'personalisation').
> Yes, that's the direction my "generalized markup" thoughts were
> taking. Maybe we can have a conversation offline about that?
>
I'm sure that would be fine.
>>> How nice it would be if the pages just came up bigger without my
>>> having to tweak browser controls.
>> Again, this is adaptation in terms of how we deliver the content,
>> not in the content itself.
>
> True, though presumably it's all of a piece in relation to the
> accessibility issue? (I was thinking of WCAG 2.0 section 1.4.4.)
>
Certainly it is related to personalisation. But it can be far more
than accessibility (such as your iPhone example).
>
> Thanks: that background is very useful. My impression was formed
> from finding a five-year-old standard, with little evidence (from a
> quick Google search) that anyone was actively working with it.
The TILE project is another one that I thought of in education. They
did automatic transcoding of web pages as you mentioned.
Cheers,
CP
****************************************************************
For mcg information visit the mcg website at
http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk
To manage your subscription to this email list visit
http://www.museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email.shtml
****************************************************************
|