 |
 |
As I understand it, we would think of the content of that certification, and maybe use an EARL statement, but the problem to which i alluded is one to do with expecting people to lay themselves open to liability if their assertion is not correct - apparently not everyone is prepared to do that - personally I think it would certainly make people cautions about making assertions and that might be a good thing! Actually, the assertion would contain the date, not the certification part - that would be used to say who made the assertion etc - evidence of factors that go towards one's ability to trust the assertion. Liddy On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 04:50 PM, Andrew Arch wrote: > Liddy suggested: > "we will also want a refinement dc:relation:conforms-to:certification > that > will identify the person or organisation (or agent) that made this > assertion." > > Might we also like to know the date of the certification? I know I > would > want this - especially if we were certifying someone as we don't know > what > changes they might make next week/month after we have certified them.. > > Andrew > _________________________________ > Dr Andrew Arch > Manager Online Accessibility Consulting, Vision Australia Foundation > Ph 613 9864 9222; Fax 613 9864 9210; Mobile 0438 755 565 > http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/webaccessibility | > http://www.it-test.com.au/ | http://www.dc-anz.org/ > > Member, Education & Outreach Working Group, > W3C Web Accessibility Initiative > http://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/ > > > > > > Liddy Nevile > <[log in to unmask] To: > [log in to unmask] > ET> cc: > Sent by: DCMI Subject: > 'conforms-to' > Accessibility Group > <DC-ACCESSIBILITY@JISC > MAIL.AC.UK> > > > 05-04-2003 06:56 AM > Please respond to DCMI > Accessibility Group > > > > > > > An interesting problem has just been brought to my attention. > > It seems that it would be good to be able to use the > dc:relation:conforms-to refined element to record that a resource > complies with a particular accessibility rating or standard, but it is > assumed that anyone wanting this information might also want to know > who made this assertion. For this reason, we have been assuming that we > will also want a refinement dc:relation:conforms-to:certification that > will identify the person or organisation (or agent) that made this > assertion. > > In the US, s 508 in particular is relevant here. Most of what is in s > 508 can be tested pretty objectively, automatically perhaps. There can > be liability attached to failure to comply with s 508. > > So the problem is that adding information about the certification > process, or person making the assertion, is a way of providing > information about who should be liable if the assertion is incorrect. > There is some reluctance in some corridors, I hear, to allowing this to > happen. > > It would be very helpful, I suspect, if the community could pay some > attention to this problem. Please give it some thought and let us know > what you think about it. > > Liddy >