– DRAFT –
Personalization Task Force Teleconference

Red-line review of our other 2 modules and overall general structure (John)

JF: [did the review of the Explainer and Module 1; awaiting PR being published]

JF: Please let me know if you have comments.

JF: Was going to start on Modules 2 and 3 but the structure is different to Module 1.

JF: Module 1 has evolved a lot; 2 and 3 have not, so some things like sections/numbering no longer match up. Should I carry out an editorial review to harmonise the structure?

LisaSeemanKest: Assuming we're looking at Module 2 next; Module 3 is more experiemental and some of it has been implemented recently in Android. Thinking about Module 2: I think we should re-read it and decide what research we still need and do we like the data model?

LisaSeemanKest: The model is very important but is a first attempt and there are other metadata schemes that we may want to pull in and look at issues like pulling in content in different formats.

LisaSeemanKest: Capturing use cases really helped with Module 1; we should do the same with Module 2—will help us explain it to other people, and us down the line. We may see gaps for other user groups/platforms.

LisaSeemanKest: (e.g. low vision in adition to cognitive)

LisaSeemanKest: It'd be helpful to decide which use cases we want to cover (and which not).

JF: Agree with respect to activities we need to take on next. I'm currently looking at more naming/editorial/structural issues in the documents (e.g. sections serving the same purpose having different names/numbers due to the changes over time).

JF: Looking at harmonising the tables of contents.

janina: (Notes the vocabulary we're using differs across documents too.)

<CharlesL> +1 to Johns suggested changes

sharon: Any objections to this review taking place?

JF: I would be harmonising terms and numbering but not making significant content changes (that's a group activity).

LisaSeemanKest: We'll know more when we've worked on defining things, which we can change as we go, but a lot of the structure should be the same.

LisaSeemanKest: We shouldn't necessarily try to normalise _everything_ in case there are nuances we wanted in Module 2.

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to janina

janina: Suggest that we keep a list of terms that were normalised in case we need to revert any later.

JF: (agrees)

<LisaSeemanKest> I hate finding stuff in a diff

+1 to the review/changes being carried out in this way, so we can go back on any of them if need be.

LisaSeemanKest: working in this way, or simply adding the original term in brackets afterwards, sounds good.

JF: Perhaps we should have a group vote about the term "vocabulary"

sharon: John will make updates; keep track of changes.

sharon: Shall we use "content" or "vocabulary" in Module 2?

JF: janina: the content/vocabulary term issue can be separate.

LisaSeemanKest: We shouldn't discuss what term to use until we've agreed what problems we're solving and what approach we're taking to solve them, or we'll waste time.

LisaSeemanKest: I'd much prefer a list/wiki page on what's been changed.

janina: So we're agreeing for JF to make these changes, create the page and raise an issue we can come back to.

CR Blockers -  Summary and review of action items - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/actions

Action: JF to make proposed structural edits to Modules 2 & 3

<trackbot> Created ACTION-89 - Make proposed structural edits to modules 2 & 3 [on John Foliot - due 2021-07-19].

janina: There is issue 144 (i18n) that has been re-opened. The i18n team is asking some specific questions. There may be a misconception of AAC.

Issue 144: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144

janina: Seem perhaps some things that are being asked for can't be catered for in AAC? Can LisaSeemanKest advise? Maybe we need a face-to-face meeting.

<JF> +1 - they are focussing on the wrong things IMHO

janina: Much prefer for them to join a call before TPAC, so we can go to CR before then.

<janina> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144

LisaSeemanKest: (need time to look into this but...) The user may not see the rendered symbols in any given situation; we are not in control of rendering.

LisaSeemanKest: These issues seem important to clear up. The spacing issue would be a UA issue.

LisaSeemanKest: We should send them the links to the vide we made, and the BLISS rules (and note we're just using the numbers, not the symbols).

janina: We could do this, but have done so before; concern about repeating.

JF: Thinking about an analogy of translating one language into sign language—both are languages, and you can't get a perfect translation. We may need to accept that it is not possible to reproduce all of these nuances. We need to translate the broad meaning. A lot of content will be written in symbols to start with.

janina: We should talk to the group, with whom we have good relations. They are interested in being precise, which is important, but we need to be able to give our users something good rather than nothing.

<JF> +1 to pointing to the video

LisaSeemanKest: Suggest we (1) take them to the video (I don't think we have before) to give them the big picture; (2) remind them we're not rendering symbols specifically and of the rules document, and (3) if they still think these issues are important at this granularity let's talk.

<LisaSeemanKest> yes she is active in coga

<LisaSeemanKest> ea is an excelent person

JF: Someone who's done review of our work in the past is E.A. Draffan—perhaps some subject matter expertise could help if possible?

LisaSeemanKest: This is a good idea—though we need to be very clear about our documented decision to cover translation into symbols _in the same language_ as the concepts in translating cross-language are very different.

<LisaSeemanKest> The reference numbers are from Bliss symbolics, which was designed to be an

<LisaSeemanKest> international language similar to Esperanto. They already have a published

<LisaSeemanKest> set of usage rules at:

<LisaSeemanKest> http://www.blissymbolics.org/images/bliss-rules.pdf

janina: +1 on sharing the video (we have a new APA video page). Concerned that i18n is not aware of the much smaller use case we're considering.

CharlesL: We should invite i18n to a meeting first and foremost.

<LisaSeemanKest> + to say meeting should have beer. we will need it

<LisaSeemanKest> + we wrote it somewere. need to find were

<LisaSeemanKest> where

Matthew_Atkinson: +1 to talking with i18n and sending video.

Matthew_Atkinson: Should we have a note (or similar) in the spec to explain the very specific situation we're dealing with?

janina: concern about sending rules, but the rest sounds good.

sharon: (checks for agreement on this)

<JF> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/index.html#description-4

<janina> https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/video-examples

JF: Propose that we use a "Note" for advisory info in line with Matthew_Atkinson's suggestion above.

JF: ... That we are remaining within the same language.

janina: +1

+1

<mike_beganyi> +1

janina: The link above is to the new APA videos page.

janina: This includes Lisa's video; the demo from Niklaus Schildhauer (Gottfried's student) on Media Queries; Pronunciation etc.

LisaSeemanKest: I remember we wrote a note to this effect; may've been in the requirements document?

sharon: (offers to look for it)

<Lionel_Wolberger> present?

<LisaSeemanKest> +1

<CharlesL> +1

sharon: Regarding #144: do we respond as discussed, asking for a meeting at the same time, without the link to the rules?

+1

<Lionel_Wolberger> +1

JF: I don't think such text is in a _current_ draft.

sharon: (will have a look)

LisaSeemanKest: We also have an "out of scope" section in the Explainer.

janina: This could be the place for it to go.

sharon: Shall I search, or shall we write something up to go in the "out of scope" section?

janina: +1 to a quick look

sharon: Who'd like to respond on 144?

LisaSeemanKest: (volunteers)

janina: (volunteers); after discussion will go with this.

JF: Actions 82, 83, 87 pending review.

JF: these will be resolved when the PR is closed.

The PR is https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/189

Matthew_Atkinson: Have a few clarifications/questions before CR (will post to list/issues). (Discuss PR technical issues.)

JF: (was checking that the wiki page URL won't change)

Matthew_Atkinson: It's fixed now.

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/187

<LisaSeemanKest> +1 to the change

<JF> exclude the word "Therefore" from the 'critical' section

Matthew_Atkinson: (will add a comment to provide one/other choice for resolving 187 we can decide on next week)

sharon: Can you check other issues?

Matthew_Atkinson: Yes :-)

janina: We must start with TPAC next week; nearly at last chance!

sharon: ACK (will discuss with Lionel_Wolberger)

<LisaSeemanKest> i have a followon call. thanks folks

JF: We need to get the editorial changes done. Please provide proposed edits.

Matthew_Atkinson: ACK; will do.

CharlesL: +1 to JF; Make a PR.

CharlesL: (for 187 put the essential stuff first)

<Zakim> Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to ask what homework we should do re TPAC?

Matthew_Atkinson: What homework should we do for TPAC?

janina: Look through list of groups plannign to meet and see which ones we may have agenda with.

janina: We should all check this out.

<JF> Gotta dash - thanks all (Sharon will be watching for theGithub update)