See also: IRC log
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-270115/results#xheads
<mhakkinen> Description Background and State-of-the-Art Challenges Research Goals
VC: proposal by David Sloan
... I concur with that
SAZ: what would we want to have in this section?
VC: challenges in using accrediation schemes
<luz> Maybe "Transfere"
AN: like "challenges" but could apply to any
topic
... could be challenges in applying
... or challenges that people observe
... depending on the topic
... if we get to specific then we lose flexibility
MH: also try to think about the gaps
... what is it that we don't know
... maybe research gaps
<luz> I like Challenges and Gaps
VC: next section is "research goals"
SAZ: "challenges and gaps"?
VC: like it
MH: maybe can keep it simple with challenges
... gaps can be a sub-part of that
VC: proposal is section called just "challenges"
+1
<annika> +1
<Vivienne> +1
<mhakkinen> +1
<luz> yes
<luz> +1
<mhakkinen> +1 to introduction
VC: "overview" or "introduction" rather than "description"?
<Vivienne> +1 introduction
<annika> +1
+1 both fine by me
<luz> yes
VC: keep "state-of-the-art" as a separate section?
AN: like "current situation" or "current
practices"
... current "situation" may be more open
<mhakkinen> +1
AN: some topics may not have "practice" (yet)
+1
<mhakkinen> Agree that "current situation" is more open
<Vivienne> agree with current situation also
VC: keep as two sections or together with background?
SAZ: no keep separate
<annika> +1 (two separate sections)
<mhakkinen> +1 to keep separate
VC: not providing much about current practice
SAZ: we'll need to be clear how much detail vs brief we want to be
<luz> +1
SAZ: need to keep separate from symposia call for papers
VC: "opportunities for research"?
SAZ: or just "research opportunities"?
<luz> "Reseach Oportunities" +1
MH: like the opportunities
<Vivienne> +1 to research opportunities
MH: may not even have arranged specific questions yet
<annika> +1 to opportunities
+1
<mhakkinen> +1
VC: will have a look and try out these new titles
"Research Topic: Accreditation"
VC: think "catalogue entry" is confusing
SAZ: can just drop it
<mhakkinen> +1
<annika> +1
<Vivienne> +1
<mhakkinen> +1 to leaving them in
<luz> +1
MH: change "categorization and tags" to "keywords"?
<annika> +1 to keywords
+1
<mhakkinen> +1 to keywords
<Vivienne> +1 to leave them in and say 'keywords'
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-270115/results#xstds
<mhakkinen> +1 to specific heading
VC: suggestion for specific section
MH: think makes it relevant to other W3C groups
<annika> W3C activities could be a subsection under background
<mhakkinen> Related W3C Activities: Listing Active/Inactive
<mhakkinen> Domains, Groups, Standards
SAZ: are we talking about groups or standards, or both?
<luz> +1 for Standarization
<luz> !
<annika> +1 to list all activities not only standards
<Vivienne> +1
AN: may be on-going work, not finalized standards
SAZ: proposed title "standardization"
... under that could be W3C or "external"
AN: could this be under "current situation"?
... otherwise may have too many sections
MH: standardization could be side-bar but should
be quick to spot
... just a list
AN: just the W3C part could be the side bar, that
makes sense
... "external" should be under "current practice"
MH: agree with that
https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/47076/RDWG-270115/results#xshape
SAZ: could combine Annika's and Klaus' suggestions