[Accessforall] Minutes of AccessForAll Meeting on 2012-01-31
liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Thu Feb 9 23:50:46 UTC 2012
looks good to me...
On 10/02/2012, at 9:50 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Great summary Colin.
> I added a couple statement from others -- and numbered them for ease
> in reference.
> Lets see where we agree and if there are any disagreements
> So does anyone have a problem with any of these statements? Or
> suggestions to tune them (these are basic statements so should be
> simple -- including only IMPORTANT caveats)
> • The registry will contain a flat structure,
> • URLs are fine namespaces.
> • What is supposed to be read by machines should be easy for
> machines to read
> • What is supposed to be read by humans should be easy for humans
> to read
> • The website and its presentation of the Needs & Preferences
> Registry should be user friendly.
> • The preference profiles and preferences themselves as read by the
> machines should be easy for machines to read and process.
> • 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.
> • It should be possible for implementations or presentations of the
> Needs & Preferences Registry Entries to be presented flat,
> hierarchically or in other formats to aid in viewing but no
> particular view should be required by the structure.
> • Nothing in the ISO 24751 or AccessForAll standard should prevent
> implementations or anything else from representing using
> hierarchical (or any other) data structures, I
> • Tags on the registry items are not part of the registry items and
> would not be part of preferences profiles.They're a tool (for use on
> our web site or elsewhere) to enable users to sort, search, and
> view the registry's content.
> • Tags are NOT PART OF the registry items but associated with
> them. RtF will maintain one set based on the GPII workgroup input
> for use on the RtF/GPII site.
> • But there COULD be other sets of TAGS generated by other people
> that would organize and present the registry entries differently on
> other web sites. The tags could also be constructed so that they
> would create a Hierarchical presentation of the registry items. But
> again - that is a presentation of the items. The items themselves
> stand alone as items in a flat registry.
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 4:12 PM, Clark, Colin wrote:
>> 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.
More information about the Accessforall