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

Clark, Colin cclark at ocadu.ca
Thu Feb 9 22:12:13 UTC 2012


Hi All,

And from my end, I had a minor epiphany while on the subway this morning that helps me join the violent agreement. Here's a summary:

* Gottfried's proposal fully makes sense to me now, and I agree with it. The registry will contain a flat structure, and URLs are fine namespaces.
* Unlike the UIC example we've been bouncing around, our website and registry should be more user friendly. As Liddy says, URL are for machines, words are for people. We'll just need to design a better interface for the registry.
* The specific mechanism for representing the namespace is an implementation-specific detail. In XML, they'll be represented using colons and the xmlns attribute, and in other formats they may be represented differently.
* As long as nothing in the standard prevents implementations from representing ISO 24751 using hierarchical (or any other) data structures, I'm fine with whatever structure we like within the specification and registry. Flat is a-okay.

Gregg and I chatted further on the phone about his tags idea, and he clarified that the tags were only designed for the registry system itself, not part of the preferences profile. In other words, they're a tool on our website to enable users to sort, search, and view the registry's content. Sounds good to me.

Colin


On 2012-02-09, at 4:23 PM, Liddy Nevile wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accessforall mailing list
> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
> http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessforall

---
Colin Clark
Lead Software Architect,
Inclusive Design Research Centre, OCAD University
http://inclusivedesign.ca



More information about the Accessforall mailing list