 |
 |
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:54:25 +0530, Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Emmanuelle > have you been able to read the metadata terms we are working on - they > reflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give much more > flexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and they are aboutto > become an ISO standard at least for education.... > > The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough useful information > about the resource..so we have added a few qualifiers and one new term But the big question is whether you can state that something is not accessible (which is different from not stating that it is) - the use case is for examples that are showing how not to do things. There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins the semantic web, a lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so on). Broadly speaking, a statement is expected to be true. If something is going to change state, that is problematic, but there are ways around it. The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way of managing both trust, and changes in actual status fo the thing under discussion. If, instead of saying "foo is accessible" you say "fred says foo is accessible" then you don't make RDF and other monotonic systems crash if you add a statement "jo says foo is not accessible". (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you can use OWL to explain that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen to anything that meets WCAG-A, for example. You can then define "isAnInaccessibleExample" as test for EARL and make statements about it. As I understand it, you could then use that approach for DC metadata. So, as far as I know, there is no direct way of saying something is inaccessible, but it is easy enough to define a slightly indirect one. If anyone has a better approach I would love to hear it... cheers Chaals -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org