<CharlesL> trackbot, start meeting

<CharlesL> zakim close item 3

<JF> scribe: JF

<Becka11y> scribe: becka11y

Charles: need to get vocabulary list ready to share
... review so that we can share with web platforms group

vocabulary list: https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/value-list/vocabulary-list/index.html

Charles: do we need a link to our main document? we do have links interspersed. Are people comfortable with the Abstract?

Janina: we haven’t considered this as a permanent document that we have to maintain?
... probably useful to list the documents that this is derived from. Note that this vocabulary document is a derivative of those documents

Charles: will add that to the absract

JF: concerned that symbol is categorized under URI; we know that users will use their own symbol set; suggest that symbol will be a token value; I will give the token home and that will get turned into the user’s symbol

Lisa: agree; believe having this organized this way is helping us to see issues; bliss maintains a namespace

JF: think it is good that bliss provides this; don’t want to exclude others that may haave their own sets
... we want to allow authors to link to more than one symbol set;

Lisa: agree we want to put it into the token set;

JF: suggest move to token group and add a line that ability to reference different symbols sets is a requirement

Lisa: no - that won’t work; note that for symbol the URI acts as a token

JF; doesn’t agree with that

Janina: agree to add a note but we shouldn’t try to solve right now

Charles: we want the author to be able to speciffy the token home - but user agent or AT will reference a user specific URI

JF: agree if mapping is a URI - there are issues when running locally; also being able to change the set

Lisa: currently works with a limited set of URIs
... is a link to a namespace URI; they act like tokens; similar to an RDF node reference

JF: concerned that we are being too specific; not comfortable having an example that is using RDF and namespacing; just want to step away from assuming a URI - leave the options open so user get the symbol via browser extenstion or other mechanism; don’t want to limit ourselves to URI

<JF> <a href="" symbol="home">Home</a>

Lisa: we are using the URI as a reference point; agree to add clarification and that they could be replaced with tokens
... but don’t want to move symbol out of the URI grouping; can add a note that it might move to token

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> urls in symbol acts as concept identfiers

<scribe> ACTION: Charles add note to symbol that the URI is being used as reference point; and that it may migrate to token

<trackbot> Created ACTION-4 - Add note to symbol that the uri is being used as reference point; and that it may migrate to token [on Charles LaPierre - due 2019-01-21].

<scribe> ACTION: charles to update abstract to list the documents that the vocabulary doc is derived from. Note that this vocabulary document is a derivative of those documents

<trackbot> Created ACTION-5 - Update abstract to list the documents that the vocabulary doc is derived from. note that this vocabulary document is a derivative of those documents [on Charles LaPierre - due 2019-01-21].

Janina: do we want an APA CFC before forwarding along or not?

<JF> +1 to Charles, this is just a refo0rmation of the data

Charles: this is just the vocabulary doc - info has been pulled from working drafts so don’t believe we need a CFC

Janina: agreed - question answered
... forward it on to the list from TPAC; noting that this is the info that they asked for

Charles: should we give them a timeline?

Janina: send it to web platforms email list; cc leonie as she is our rep

Charles: will verify with Leonie that message is received by web platforms

Lisa: are we going to include / refer to the use cases

Janina: I wouldn’t overload this initial email - they can ask for more info or use cases

Charles: I had added 3 use cases; we brifely eviewed them last week; Lisa has added a few more for this week

Lisa: split the language impairment into two moderate and severe (this is where symbols are used)

Charles: please review these for next week and add more for next week; especially good to have some conflicting use cases where people need info updated in very different ways

<CharlesL> q/

Lisa: have a question about the layout; we have stories and use cases - what should the layout be?

Charles: we can separate it - high level stories with no implementation details; use cases can reference the stories and provide suggested implementations

Lisa: do we want all of the stories or just a couple of them?

Charles: Am struggling with our deliverables for the year? Should we focus on just the stories that will help us to get module 1 completed this year
... point of stories it to get everyone to step back and understand what we are working on and our goals; will be good to have the stories and use cases to help respond to feedback from web platforms group

Lisa: we do have a user requirements document; Are we not looking at our documents? I pulled the severe impairments use case from an existing document

should we be stepping back and paring down our work? I agree it is all abit overwhelming

Lisa: that is the point of the modules; we have a requirements doc and it has some gaps;

<Zakim> JF, you wanted to suggest a mixed approach - high level = *ALL the terms* + Detailed Module 1

JF: suggest a mixed approach; get all of the items defined and then work on one module at a time

Charles: want the high level stories written that don’t get into too much detail so we can share it with others;

Lisa: we have a mess of information and because we don’t know that it exists or where it exists we then make more information
... suggest a list of the different documents on the front page of our wiki; then we can see what is missing;

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/requirements/requirements/index.html#abstract

Michael: still working on restructuring the documents

invite those current prototype implementors to a future meeting

Charles: should we try to bring some implementors into our call to discuss their needs or should we wait for feedback from web platforms or we are further along?
... just want to get their feedback on our current direction - unless we think it is too early

Lisa: there have been implementations already based on original documents using aui attributes; We would need to have specific questions because they were focused on the last draft

Charles: perhaps get more clarification on cases where multiple symbols are needed together - getting guidance on that and interchange between symbol sets;

Lisa: did have a call with group working on symbol sets - the UNICEF call. Do we want another call with those folks?

Charles: think everyone in group would benefit

end of meeting

<CharlesL> regrets, Roy Thaddeous

:-)

<CharlesL> trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Default Present: Becka11y, MichaelC, CharlesL, stevelee, Roy, Janina, Sharon, JF, LisaSeemanKestenbaum
Present: Becka11y MichaelC CharlesL stevelee Roy Janina Sharon JF LisaSeemanKestenbaum
Regrets: Roy Thaddeous Steve
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y
Scribes: JF, becka11y
ScribeNicks: JF, Becka11y

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 14 Jan 2019
People with action items: add charles note

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.


WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)