In the revised version of my example description based on the proposed
adaptability application profile at
http://dublincore.org/architecturewiki/MoreCarefullyThought the new
a4a:adaptability property is used to carry the following value strings:

"visual"
"auditory"
"keyboardOnly"
"structuredPresentation"
"peerInteraction"
"Textual"
"Replaces Visual"

The proposed label and definition of the adaptability property are as
follows:

Label: Adaptability Statement
Definition:	Characteristics of the resource that affect how it can
be modified for users or agents.

The following thoughts strike me...

If the property value is supposed to be a 'statement' (as the label
suggests, and as 2 of the 4 example values in the proposal show) then it
might be more consistent for the definition to start "A statement of the
characteristics of the resource ..."?  

If the anticipated values are intended to simply be characteristics (as
all but the last value above are), then it might be better if the
proposed label is changed to 'Adaptability characteristics'?

In general, if a property is defined to be 'a statement' but all or most
of the anticipated value strings are single words (or short phrases),
then I think there is a problem.

The proposed comment suggests that an "adaptability statement might be
used to match ..." (implying, I guess, a level of automated matching?) -
I'm struggling to see how free text statements can be used in this way.

Even if the anticipated values are just characteristics (preferably
terms taken from a fixed vocabulary of characteristics) then I fail to
see how one or more such characteristics "might be used to match a
(digital or physical) resource to a description of user or user agent
needs and preferences".  I understand that knowing that a resource has
the characteristic of being 'keyboardOnlyControl' may allow my
user-agent to match that resource against my requirements (because I
don't have a keyboard) but I don't see that as having anything to do
with "how [the resource] can be modified for users or agents" (which is
what the definition says it should be).

Overall, I think there is something potentially useful going on here,
but I don't think the currently proposed term is helpful in moving us
forward - either because it isn't clearly enough defined to be used
consistently or because it is not going to meet the requirements it has
set itself.

Andy
--
Head of Development, Eduserv Foundation
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1225 474319