[Accessforall] Alternative way of handling conditions (was Re: I presume our meetings ...)

Liddy Nevile liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Thu Apr 5 22:20:14 UTC 2012

These responses confuse me????

DC is not a language, or a format, it represents a way of making and  
using metadata that has evolved over the last 15 years of work on  
metadata. It depends on an abstract model that has been carefully  
developed (it has some historic bugs, in fact). What we are doing  
cannot be just 'expressed' in DC or some such thing - it does not  
follow the principles. It seems to me we are building something like  
the LOM that cannot be expressed as DC metadata other than with great  
loss .

Also, there is little too much 'flexibility' in what we are doing. If  
we were developing principles that were consistent then, like with DC  
and Sem Web metadata, more could be derived and added. As I see it,  
what we are doing is arbitrary and so will be dependent on our (your)  

I believe one of the clever things about AccessForAll is its potential  
to support cumulative, just-in-time metadata and therefore  
accessibility. I cannot see how we are supporting that or the other  
benefit of using other people's metadata.

Am I a grinch? I am really really excited about the possibilities, in  


On 06/04/2012, at 3:56 AM, Andy Heath wrote:

> <SNIPPED argument for refinement within the registry>
>> Well the approach we are using allows us to go both ways in the User
>> Preference Profiles
>> again - the registry is like the dictionary of words that we use to
>> create terms. The terms can still be expressed in DC format if that  
>> is
>> the desired format in the end.
> I agree completely with this - the approach is *more* flexible and  
> still allows DC (and other Metadata approaches) to be used with it.   
> Putting these semantic mechanisms within the registry would not do  
> that.
> Cheers
> andy
> -- 
> __________________
> Andy Heath
> http://axelafa.com

More information about the Accessforall mailing list