Public comment on dcterms:accessibilityNote

[tombaker]

The DCMI Usage Board proposes that the following property be added to DCMI Metadata Terms with the URI http://purl.org/dc/terms/accessibilityNote :

Name: Accessibility Note

Definition: A statement describing features or deficiencies of a resource that enhance
or impede its usability and accessibility.

Usage Note:
Applies to a diverse range of users, including but not limited to individuals with disabilities 
or impairments. This may include assistive technologies, alternative formats or design choices 
that facilitate broader usage.

[HughP]

In general I am loath to see this addition. It seems to suffer from poor design and inadequate consideration relative to other properties in the dct namespace.

1. the naming convention using the sub-part Note is not consistent with any other dcterms property; (at least their names).
2. it seems that introducing the Note in the property's name follows the pattern used in MARC for the naming new fields added to MARC. Which can become large text fields, e.g., the MARC 5xx fields https://www.loc.gov/marc/bibliographic/bd5xx.html.
3. adding a Note property seems to introduce a pattern into the DCTerms standard (for adding properties) which is not easily constrained. MARC is a fantastic example how there are notes for all sorts of things. DCTerms is not MARC. If descriptions require additional notes then maybe describers should consider using MARC.
4. this approach to adding an accessibility note seems to suggest that the value of this property should be a literal. This approach seems to mitigate against the idea that DCTerm values should be non-literal where ever possible.
5. the DCMI usage board has not made the case why or in which expected cases the proposed new property is fundamentally different from dc:description (or dcterms:description for that mater).
6. the DCMI usage board has not made the case how this property's value should be distinct from dct:language in encoding or concept. For example, Language is an accessibility issue for many people -- a beautiful illustration is ASL (American Sign Language). If a resource is created in ASL, then it should have the BCP47 code under dct:language for ASL. This indicates that the resource is accessible in ASL. If we take a different example, one for the blind, we might take the example of the DCMIType text and for this there is the BCP-47 script tag Brai. So a US English resource in braile is en-US-Brai. So, for which features is this note relevant?
7. the DCMI usage board has not made the case for which DCMIType values this applies. That is, does it equally apply to Sound as InteractiveResource?
8. the DCMI usage board has not made the case for why using the dct:conformsTo property with an externally published vocabulary is not a sufficient method for indicating accessibility conformity of a described resource. What information is needed in an accessibility note which is not derivable from conformance with an externally publish vocabulary/standard?