 |
 |
I think the answer to this is: first, metadata does not usually contain information about the intention or motivation for the property of the resource.. and secondly, the values for the property allow you to say it is variable or not variable, eg., but not how hard it is to re-code it - for sure - sorry! If you want to describe the resource as an example of bad encoding, that can be done but not as a value for the font-flexibility property. That is relevant to the subject or description properties, IMHO. Liddy On 08/02/2007, at 6:05 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:04:43 +0530, Liddy Nevile > <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> perhaps bear in mind, Charles, that we are not proposing a >> statement ofthe type "x is accessible" or otherwise...but rather, >> "X has variablefont size" or "X is not controllable by keystrokes >> alone" > > Sure. But even in that context, how do I say "X has fixed font-size > and I will > do everything in my power to make sure X is an example of something > whose font-size > cannot be varied, because I am deliberately trying to make it bad", > in a way > that you can tell is different from "I don't know about the font- > size in X"? > > (In EARL you could just say that it fails a particular requirement, > but I am not > sure how that fits in here). > >> Liddy >> >> On 08/02/2007, at 5:20 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: >> >>> >>> 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 - >>>> theyreflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give >>>> muchmoreflexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and >>>> they areaboutto become an ISO standard at least for education.... >>>> >>>> The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough >>>> usefulinformationabout the resource..so we have added a few >>>> qualifiers andone new term >>> >>> But the big question is whether you can state that something is >>> notaccessible (which >>> is different from not stating that it is) - the use case is >>> forexamples that >>> are showing how not to do things. >>> >>> There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins >>> thesemantic web, a >>> lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so on). >>> Broadlyspeaking, a >>> statement is expected to be true. If something is going to >>> changestate, that is >>> problematic, but there are ways around it. >>> >>> The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way >>> ofmanaging 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 >>> "josays foo >>> is not accessible". (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you >>> can useOWL to >>> explain that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen >>> toanything 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 >>> isinaccessible, >>> 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 > > > > -- > Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar > [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org