[Accessforall] Minutes of AccessForAll Meeting on 2012-01-31

Liddy Nevile liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Thu Feb 9 21:23:49 UTC 2012


Gregg

I think we are in 'violent agreement' - excellent!!!

Liddy


On 10/02/2012, at 8:19 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>
>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 3:10 PM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>
>> Colin
>>
>> I am sure that we will have a problem because some of us see this  
>> as a metadata problem and some don't. I don't know another word or  
>> way of describing what we are doing as I think we are trying to use  
>> descriptions of resources and services to adapt what is delivered  
>> to the user to their needs and preferences.
>>
>> Anyway, I am wondering why this group wants to reinvent how to do  
>> metadata? URIs are for machines - words are for humans. If you look  
>> at the ISO standard for metadata (N19788) you will see that there  
>> are words for humans and URIs for machines ????
>
> What are you trying to say?    The resource descriptions are for  
> Machines to use to match resources to user needs.    So are you  
> arguing FOR urls?
>
>>
>> As for what Gregg is calling tags - I am really confused. I don't  
>> know what they are.
>
>> I think what he wants (what you want, Gregg) is an easy way of  
>> looking at the property-value pairs once we have them - so a person  
>> can have a collection that is relevant to them and forget the rest?
> close.   it is so that they can more easily FIND one when they don't  
> know what it is called so can't search by its name.
>
>> or so they have the ones that are useful to them,even though in  
>> another context they might be useful to someone with a very  
>> different set of needs?
>
> not this.    TAGS are for searching the listing more easily.  They  
> have nothing to do with use.
>
>
>> For example, if my problem is difficulty with hearing but I have  
>> good eyesight, I want a collection of things to do with sound to  
>> work on but I won't need special things for sight.
> This is not what this is about.   There will be tools that make it  
> easy to determine what helps you.  no human should have to go  
> digging through the huge preference file and trying to make sense of  
> it.  Users should never see the preference registry.
>
>> People who work with metadata create sets like this by having what  
>> they call faceted views - or they have application profiles - maybe  
>> a set for mildly deaf users, and a set for severely deaf users??
> What is proposed allows all this and more.
>>
>> I think that fortunately many of the problems being raised here  
>> have been worked on for many years now by metadata experts and the  
>> solutions are not as far away as they seem.
> Not sure what you mean.    Who said the solutions were far away?     
> With all the work that has been done - I think we are very close to  
> what we need.
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/02/2012, at 3:59 AM, Clark, Colin wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Liddy,
>>>
>>> On 2012-02-09, at 1:39 AM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>>>> I think we should remember that from the perspective of JTC1, a  
>>>> lot of work has been done to make a standard for metadata that is  
>>>> the simplest and most used way of providing and implementing  
>>>> metadata. I think at least for the purposes of JTC1, this expert  
>>>> advice should be noted. Beyond that, as most major entities in  
>>>> Europe use the sort of metadata advocated now by JTC1, I see no  
>>>> reason for trying to invent a better way of doing things?
>>>
>>> We're actually 100% in agreement here. I perhaps should have been  
>>> more explicit, but I see ISO 24751 as exactly an example of that  
>>> "judicious use of containment" that I was referring to in my  
>>> previous email.
>>>
>>> What we do need is to come up with a reasonable extension  
>>> mechanism, which is representation-independent (i.e. it can't  
>>> depend on, say, XML namespaces), so that communities can  
>>> contribute their own properties easily and in a way that won't  
>>> collide with others.
>>>
>>>> Eric Miller has pointed out that the magic of URIs, as Tim BL  
>>>> says, is that they can always be disambiguated and they make it  
>>>> easy for people to add their own. I am not an expert in  
>>>> optimization but I do know that the use of URIs does not mean  
>>>> that people get lost because everything is URIs instead of words.  
>>>> The usual implementations have clear instructions and wizards for  
>>>> humans that 'speak' about the definitions of the terms  
>>>> represented by the URIs in ways that are appropriate to the  
>>>> audience using the wizards - and these vary enormously without  
>>>> any effect on the resulting metadata.
>>>
>>> I get the magic of URIs. My point is about human users of the  
>>> specification. Compare Gottfried's example (http://myurc.org/TR/res-prop-vocab1.0/ 
>>> ) to the ISO 24751 spec. Which one is easier to understand, at a  
>>> glance?
>>>
>>> The optimization question is straightforward: we just need to come  
>>> up with a non-redundant technique for solving the very important  
>>> issue that Gottfried raises with his proposal: namespacing.
>>>
>>> Hopefully this clarifies,
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Colin Clark
>>> Lead Software Architect,
>>> Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University
>>> http://inclusivedesign.ca
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accessforall mailing list
>> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
>> http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessforall
>



More information about the Accessforall mailing list