[Accessforall] Alternative way of handling conditions (was Re: I presume our meetings ...)
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
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
>> 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
> Andy Heath
More information about the Accessforall