Report - Usage Board telecon - Wednesday 2 September 2009 - 1300 UTC
This report: http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2009/2009-09-02.dcub-telecon-report.html [*]
Agenda: http://dublincore.org/usage/minutes/2009/2009-09-02.dcub-telecon-agenda.html [*]
[*] = after next Web build (until then, available at dublincore.org:8080)
Attended: Tom Baker, Akira Miyazawa, Andrew Wilson, Julie Allinson, Stefanie Ruehle
Regrets: Pete Johnston, Joe Tennis
Guest: Liddy Nevile
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Next telecon
-- Wednesday, 16 September - same time
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?month=05&day=20&year=2009&hour=13&min=00&sec=0&p1=0
0600 Seattle - 0900 New York - 1400 London - 1500 Berlin - 2200 Tokyo - 2300 Canberra
-- Attendance: all members
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual face-to-face meeting
-- Date: Friday, 16 September 2009
17:00-22:00 Seoul (09:00-14:00 UK)
-- Attendance
In Seoul: Tom, Joe, Akira, Stefanie, Andrew
Remote: Pete, Julie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Usage Guide and related materials (Tom)
Review of legacy documentation
-- http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/11/07/usageguide/
http://dublincore.org/documents/2005/11/07/usageguide/glossary.shtml
http://www.bs.dk/standards/AdministrativeComponents.htm
http://dublincore.org/resources/faq/
Process:
Sep 7-11: discuss on dc-usage the materials to be reviewed and get volunteers
proposed: assign two people to each text
Sep 16: last telecon before Seoul
reviewers will comment on how they intend to conduct review
(what questions to ask, what output to expect)
Oct 5: one week before the start of DC-2009, reviewers should
post their reviews to the list for others to read
Oct 16: meeting in Seoul with remote participation from UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Review of Accessibility properties (Andrew)
Andrew: proposes that the Usage Board agree on a text summarizing our
understanding of the proposal
Background of proposal (Berlin meeting 21 September 2009), agreement
on process with AGLS Working Group.
Intention was for DCMI and AGLS to agree on definition and range
for accessibility term.
UB has discussed the following:
Range of the "accessibility" property ("AccessibilityCharacteristic"?)
Terms in the proposed VES (e.g., "hazard"?)
User guidance: needs to be enough to answer questions after publication.
Relationship to previous work: UB feels that sources of these concepts
need to be acknowledged and cited with more precision in proposal and any
resulting publication.
UB acknowledges the importance of accessibility as an idea
Liddy:
Many years of discussion. Each time, technical questions arise.
This work has come from work done by experts in ISO and IMS -
they are the experts. It is not the role of UB to judge the
content of accessibility concepts - this has been done by an
accessibility community over many years.
Started work on this proposal five years ago. At that
stage, we had already been working within W3C and DCMI for
five years. Work in W3C brought together main players.
Agreed that part of the accessibility work should be done at
the stage of content production (techniques for production),
and part done afterwards in the form of metadata for
existing resources. Recognized that this is complementary to
other work - if we are doing this in IMS and LOM, should also
do in Dublin Core.
IMS went through a process, and their accessibility approach
has been implemented for five years, picked up by ISO, and
accredited by W3C in guidelines. This is work recognized by
major players in accessibility field. They said: "the
properties we need are x, y, and z", and the UB should defer
to this expertise.
We are discussing an accessibility term, but of course that
would be used in the context of an application profile.
Tom:
Would not characterize the central issues discussed by
Andrew as "technical" in nature. Main point is not
whether the terms of VES are declared as SKOS concepts.
Rather, issues are "conceptual". Does it make sense
to _model_ accessibility as a property relating a
resource to a controlled vocabulary of SKOS concepts?
If the proposal reflects work done by experts, the proposal
should cite those sources with some precision. Following
links, find documents based on a much different model;
multiple properties being used to describe things. These
other standards bodies have not coined anything analogous to
a single accessibility property or modeled accessibility
characteristics as a controlled vocabulary. In that sense,
the proposal seems to show an entirely new way to model
accessibility. If asked why we chose to model it this way,
we would not be able to point to implementation experience
or examples. In effect, we would be offering a new and
untested approach.
In a sense, the UB is just another non-accessibility-expert
consumer of the proposal, so we could expect other users to ask
similar questions.
Liddy: withdrawing the proposal would be an option.
Andrew will propose a text for discussion on the list.