[Accessforall] Draft of new standard

Andy Heath andyheath at axelrod.plus.com
Tue Jul 3 10:26:42 UTC 2012

I don't see how any technical standard can prohibit any system from 
storing any data the system designers choose to store (such as medical 
descriptions of persons).  Only laws, conventions, political agreements 
and similar can do that. It can only focus on what data must be stored 
or output or input not on what cannot.

Of course we all might *want* laws that do that but it isn't our job 
here to do that imho.

> Let me rephrase my second question.  One of the statements in the
> current conformance section is: "IT systems are conformant when they
> gather and/or process Personal Needs and Preference descriptions as
> specified in ISO/IEC 24751 to deliver digital resources that match each
> user's needs and preferences.". I know we don't support the description
> of persons in this standard (or in Cloud4all), but that was not my question.
> The issue is as follows: Assume that a system stores both needs &
> preferences AND characteristics of users. Since it stores needs & prefs,
> it meets this conformance requirement. I think the current wording in
> the conformance section does not *prohibit* the storage or processing of
> use characteristics. Is this intentional? (Or am I just paranoid? ;-) )
> Best regards,
> Christophe
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org>
>     *To:* Christophe Strobbe <christophestrobbe at yahoo.co.uk>
>     *Cc:* "Accessforall at fluidproject. org" <accessforall at fluidproject.org>
>     *Sent:* Monday, 2 July 2012, 23:55
>     *Subject:* Re: [Accessforall] Draft of new standard
>     Thanks Christobe,
>     my comments in situ.
>      > (1) The scope section states: "ISO/IEC 24751 is intended to
>     facilitate the matching of resources to user's individual
>     requirements by providing common terms for describing those
>     requirements so they can be matched to resources that satisfy the
>     requirements." But what about groups of users? The approach taken by
>     the VUMS cluster does not assume that a user profile can only belong
>     to an individual user: "A user profile is an instantiation of a user
>     model representing either a specific real user or a representative
>     of a group of real users" (from the VUMS Cluster white paper:
>     <http://www.veritas-project.eu/vums/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/White-Paper.pdf>).
>      >
>     It is, I believe, made clear that a profile might be only one of
>     many that a single user, in fact, uses throughout their time.
>     Similarly, it is expected that a number of users with similar needs
>     will, at times, all use a single profile. I will try to make sure
>     this is made clear. One of the problems, of course, is that a set of
>     users may have conflicting needs but that is not your question, I
>     realise.
>      > (2) The registry is supposed to contain terms that enable the
>     description of needs and preferences, as opposed to medical or
>     functional characteristics of users. However, will Part 1 and/or the
>     conformance clause state that terms for medical or functional
>     characteristics make the implementation non-conforming? The current
>     draft does not prohibit terms for medical or functional characteristics.
>      >
>     Our work has very deliberately not supported any description of
>     people - their needs are not considered definitive of them, etc.,
>     and we don't support descriptions such as: resources for a blind
>     person. This approach is based on the belief that as people are so
>     different in their skills and needs, it actually does not make sense
>     to do this anyway.
>     Liddy
>      >
>      >
>      > From: Liddy Nevile <liddy at sunriseresearch.org
>     <mailto:liddy at sunriseresearch.org>>
>      > To: Gottfried Zimmermann <zimmermann at accesstechnologiesgroup.com
>     <mailto:zimmermann at accesstechnologiesgroup.com>>
>      > Cc: "Accessforall at fluidproject. org"
>     <Accessforall at fluidproject.org <mailto:Accessforall at fluidproject.org>>
>      > Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012, 5:12
>      > Subject: Re: [Accessforall] Draft of new standard
>      >
>      > I am not sure if anyone else is doing something but I have done
>     more work on the draft of the revised 24751 that is on the wiki at
>     http://wiki.fluidproject.org/display/ISO24751/New+Version+of+24751+Part+1
>      >
>      > Liddy
> _______________________________________________
> Accessforall mailing list
> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
> http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessforall


Andy Heath

More information about the Accessforall mailing list