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

Erlend Øverby erlend.overby at karde.no
Mon Feb 13 09:43:09 UTC 2012


Hi

I would also argue that there is a difference in needs and preferences, and a resource.

1) The personal needs and preferences are for individuals, there are many individuals, and the individual preferences are more dynamic. They could change during the day, or based on my location, or which situation I'm in.
2) Resources are there only one of (that need to serve all individuals). The description of a resource is more static, and would not be updated as often as the individuals needs and preferences. Therefore storing the resource description as part of the resource would make sense - as suggested by the schema.org.

This is how I understand what schema.org is proposing, and how it might fit our descriptions of a resource.

My 1 cent

Erlend


Den 13. feb. 2012 kl. 10:22 skrev Liddy Nevile:

> Gottfried
> can you explain why describing the needs and prefs is different from describing the resources please....
> 
> Liddy
> 
> On 13/02/2012, at 6:16 PM, Gottfried Zimmermann (List) wrote:
> 
>> Agreed very much.
>> 
>> Currently, what i see happening on schema.org is that semantic classes and
>> properties are defined for marking up Web content, in the manner of the
>> semantic Web.
>> 
>> For us, this is to be considered when developing the techniques for marking
>> up resources.  However, our personal profile is not directly affected by
>> this, as I see.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Gottfried
>> 
>> 
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: accessforall-bounces at fluidproject.org
>> [mailto:accessforall-bounces at fluidproject.org] Im Auftrag von Liddy Nevile
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 10. Februar 2012 22:59
>> An: Accessforall at fluidproject. org
>> Betreff: Re: [Accessforall] Minutes of AccessForAll Meeting on 2012-01-31
>> 
>> oh, and the other thing I think is really important is that Google,
>> Microsoft etc are all getting together to build, use and share metadata -
>> hence the work of schema.org. This suggests very strongly that we should be
>> following their lead and doing our metadata the way they are doing theirs,
>> surely?
>> 
>> Liddy
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accessforall mailing list
> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
> http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessforall

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2769 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20120213/edf7222e/attachment.bin>


More information about the Accessforall mailing list