Search the space:
Please contribute to this page by writing a couple of paragraphs showing what your group needs to achieve with this work - eg, ISO people need a new structure for the AccessForAll standard N24751, CloudForAll needs ??? etc.
The work on 24751 resulted in a series of Parts that aim to describe the needs and preferences of people by the resource with which they are interacting - for example, their needs and preferences for digital objects, for languages, for events and places. All the time this work was seemingly overlapping itself as users have needs and preferences that carry across from one such context to another. They also have different needs and preferences depending on their circumstances at the time - eg time of day, location, etc.
As I understand it (ie Liddy Nevile), the goal of the revision of 24751 is to develop a new classification of the needs and preferences that is more accommodating of a person's circumstances, device context, interaction purposes etc that can then be applied to whatever it is that they are interacting with. The time frame for this work is first draft by March 2012.
It is probably worth noting that in the original N24751, everything was oriented to a learner - this is because SC36 is concerned with IT in Learning, Education and Training. It is not necessary to have this restrictive wording and as it is intended that this standard will be for all, it is perhaps wise to write the new documents without this constraint.
It is important to be aware of the new standard for learning resources developed by SC36 that implements Dublin Core -style metadata and requires that all SC36 metadata relating to learning sources and services is RDF compliant.
The DCMI Accessibility Community has some work that may contribute to this current work. Included in this is a main DC term for accessibility that can be used alone, plus an application profile. These show, at least, how to structure DC/RDF descriptions. It should be noted that using DC/RDF, there is no need for bindings etc, simply a namespace for the terms. ISO does not supply online namespaces but publishing a cross-walk from the ISO standard to a namespace should be a trivial exercise. DCMI has a schema registry that can be used for such purposes. DCMI work is available at http://dublincore.org/groups/access/
As DCMI Liaison to SC36, I (Liddy Nevile) would like to engage DC metadata experts and share the work with those interested from the DCMI community.
(Gottfried) This working group is within SC35 on User Interfaces. We are currently revising the ISO/IEC 24752 standard on Universal Remote Console (URC). This standard has the following parts:
Part 5 specifies the description of atomic user interfaces resources (e.g. labels, icons, help texts, access keys, key words, and location descriptions) in RDF syntax with a given vocabulary. Where appropriate, DC terms are used. An atomic resource is described in terms of its possible applications in concrete contexts of the URC framework (e.g. as a label for a variable in a specific user interface socket, or as an icon for a target). It is possible for third parties (i.e. other than the target manfacturer and the vendor of the user device) to contribute atomic resources for existing targets and user interface sockets, thus filling gaps in accessibility.
Our goal is to harmonize 24752 with 24751. It might be possible for part 5 to use the same syntax as ISO/IEC 24751-3 (“Access for all” digital resource description), with an extended vocabulary, maybe.
(Rich, Andy) IMS are currently finalising documents on the public draft of a minimal model of preferences and resource descriptions. The information is completely consistent with a semantic web view and will be published with bindings to several technologies. This first draft does not yet include the complete set of user control preferences in 24751. Document publication is imminent.