[Accessforall] Standard/controlled vocabulary vs Open Vocabulary use in metadata

Gregg Vanderheiden gregg at raisingthefloor.org
Sun Jun 21 23:50:21 EDT 2015


This is a reposting of something I sent to the WAI Interest Group List in response to a discussion regarding whether it was better to use standard terms for metadata or open it up to consumers and others to suggest/enter/register terms. 

This was an attempt to pull together a lot of ideas from many posts to the list. 

Thought it would be of interest to you all since it gathers some ideas that help add clarity I think to the role and even perhaps the name of the Terms-registry/dictionary we have all been working on/with/toward. 



Although the subject line talks about documents - the discussion covered materials, services, interfaces, and resources of all types. 

For a full view of the discussion you can go to https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/ <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/>  and search for "Schema.org - identifying accessible documents”


gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - http://Raisingthefloor.org <http://raisingthefloor.org/>
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project -  http://GPII.net <http://gpii.net/>

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg at raisingthefloor.org>
> Subject: Re: Schema.org - identifying accessible documents
> Date: June 21, 2015 at 3:58:31 PM CDT
> To: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig at w3.org>
> 
> Some thoughts looking at the common ground - and collating ideas for how we can address both the need for standard language — and open language. 
> 
> 
> FIRST 
> 
> There sometimes seems to be a debate between:
> 
> A) we NEED standards, or things don’t interoperate
> B) we NEED some way for people (consumers, industry) to talk/express needs & preferences   - in their own language/words/terms  when they don’t “speak”/understand standard language/terms.
> 
> I agree with BOTH,  and think both are critically important.   (…that it is not an either/or situation) 
> 
> 
> SOLUTION IN FRONT OF US?
> And I think a potential solution to both issues is the following (which is basically what we are very close to doing if we pull all the bits we are doing together in a coordinated way) :
> 
> 1) create/maintain/continue to support standardized metadata terms that can be used in formal coding and retrieval systems.  (we already have - Dublin Core et al to address this.) 
> 
> 2) create a registry (I think we should call it a THESAURUS) of IDEA/CONCEPTS that can be used, or combined to express, needs and preferences etc.   (the new part 2 of ISO 24751)
> we put into this registry/THESAURUS every different concept that can be used or combined to express needs/preferences/features/affordances  for accessibility/usability
> we put into this registry/THESAURUS every different word/term/characterString (in any language) that can be used to express one of these concepts 
> where (words/terms/characterStrings) have the same meaning (are synonyms), we link them together (call them aliases) 
> where they have the same meaning but have different transformable value spaces, link them as "Transform aliases" 
> 
> 3) then let the systems use standard terms/ formats on a machine level — but let people (consumers, developers, manufacturers, family members, practitioners) use whatever terms they are used to, in whatever language they understand, to express needs and preferences — and have the THESAURUS provide the ability to translate between the two when people can’t / don’t use the standard terms.     
> 
> 
> Would this address both needs  (A & B)?
> 
> Would this be a more realistic way for creating systems that work for machines, but that will also be usable by the vast majority of human being who will not learn (and many could not understand) standardized metadata terminally and proper usage. 
> 
> Is this not what we have been heading toward  
> with the new “registry (thesaurus)” approach to 24751 part 2 ...
> working together with existing metadata standards and systems/registries.  (Dublin Core et al,  Schema.org <http://schema.org/>, etc)
> ?
> 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> gregg
> 
> ----------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> gregg at raisingthefloor.org <mailto:gregg at raisingthefloor.org>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20150621/2329363a/attachment.html>


More information about the Accessforall mailing list