innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

Title: Proposal for a term "Accessibility"
Identifier: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/terms-accessibility/
See also: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/ISSUES/
Created: 2004-09-14
Agenda frozen: 2004-10-02 07:25, Saturday
Archived: 2004-11-10
Maintainer: Tom Baker
Note: If any of the links below are broken, please refer to 
                   the meeting packet
                   (http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2004/10/Meeting-packet.pdf) 
                   for copies of the key documents discussed at the meeting.

Shepherd: Stuart Sutton

In August, the DCMI Accessibility Working Group submitted a
proposal for a term called "Accessibility". In Shanghai,
we need to decide whether or not to approve this as a new
DCMI Element.

The following are required reading:

-- The proposal
   http://www.ozewai.org/DC-term-proposal/prop-reqs-table2.html 

-- About the proposal
   http://www.ozewai.org/DC-term-proposal/overview.html 

-- Evaluation of the proposal
   http://www.ozewai.org/DC-term-proposal/criteria.html 

The following background material is not required:

   http://www.ozewai.org/DC-term-proposal/index.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 06:46:03 +0200
From: Thomas Baker <thomas.baker@bi.fhg.de>
To: DCMI Usage Board <dc-usage@jiscmail.ac.uk>
Subject: Accessibility proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------

It looks to me like the definition of Accessibility may need to
be wordsmithed to make it more general and bring it into line
with other DCMI definitions. The proposed definition reads:

    A reference to a machine-readable profile that describes
    the qualities of a resource that can be used to match
    the needs and preferences of a user as expressed in a
    machine-readable user profile.

The comments specify that the referenced profile may be in RDF,
XML, EARL, etc. Problems include:

    "A reference to..." -- no longer appropriate now that a
    value is considered to be a resource.

    Restriction to "machine-readable" in the definition itself.

For example, one might edit as follows:

    A description of the qualities of a resource that can be
    used to match the needs and preferences of a user...

If anyone would like to work out an alternative wording
beforehand, this could save us time in the meeting.