<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> zakim is not letting me in...

<scribe> scribe: becka11y

Update tpac, wacg, publications

Lisa: just looking for a general update from other groups and our publication

<clapierre> CSUN not TPAC

Lisa: looking for updates from CSUN, not TPAC

Charles: good data visualization meeting although it doesn’t affect this group too much, but mentioned personalization to group re: configuration of visualizations; Charles met with Michael Cooper, Charles Neville, John Foliot

Michael: in meeting discussed engineering structure of semantics and how to apply the vocabulary in host languages
... microformats still viable is rdfa - although rdfa is less preferred. John exploring using a new option for embedding personalization semantics in HTML via roles/properties
... people who understand how to apply technology in a host language are different from the people defining the vocabulary
... submitted issue as to whether pers. can be an ARIA module but seems to be moving away from that

Charles: Charles Nevile wanted to make clear that since we are in a draft state we need to be clear that we are not locked into an implementation; we need to make that clear to implementers

Lisa: we can hear Charles’ Neville opinion but we have to understand that changes require consensus from the group and we must take into consideration that we need implementors and we will rely on them to reach CR
... we can’t randomly change things; must be a good reason since this is no longer a very early draft

Michael: Charles N. Comment was valid W3C process - until we reach CR items are subject to change. Charles N. seems to think things are less solid than Lisa does - Charles N. opinion is that we are still in incubation phase;
... we have to be careful not to hold ourselves back based on the state of an implementation

Lisa: Would it help us to make an RDF ontology? We did this with ARIA and it helped. It is a big piece of work but helps to clarify how things work and work together

Michael: defining ontology is a useful design tool but worry about going to far on an academic exercise; current view is that we currently have a flat ontology; with ARIA the ontology didn’t really help implementors

Lisa: perhaps we should put this out as an offer for people (Like Charles Neville) who are concerned
... I am hearing concern from a W3C purist approach as to whether or not this holds up through implementation

Michael: ontology doesn’t help with implementation
... don’t think that implementations we need use that (OWL / RDF) information; doesn’t think this will solve Charles Neville concern

Charles: Should we reach out to Charles N further?

Michael: we can invite him into task force; no harm in asking but must be careful to give equal weight to all opinions

Charles: ARIA approved our latest draft before CSUN - what is process for a wider review? Are we ready?

Michael: implementation and host languages is not ready - need more work on explainer; believe we think content modules are fairly complete and ready to go for further review; getting other modules up would be best before we go ahead with wider review;

Lisa: What is up with WCAG 3.1.5 and what do they need from us?

Michael: WCAG can’t benefit from us at this point - they are very close to finishing CR testing

Lisa: would like to ask WCAG if personalization should review

Michael: doesn’t believe WCAG will accept at this point - Lisa could bring this up at task force coordination meeting

Lisa: need to have implementation section at a point where everyone is comfortable so can go forward with wider review; perhaps small group meetings
... need to also go through all of the open issues; suggest each taking some and going through them
... create a draft with editor’s notes within it

Charles: all drafts are there - just need review and updating; agree that we need to go through open issues

Micheal: need to do wide review of explainer before or at same time as content module. Feel we are at least 2 drafts of explainer away from finalizing implementation;

Lisa: but we can have more than one wide review draft

Michael: we need to be careful not to over do

Charles: agrees it is important to havel all ready for wide review

Lisa: getting explainer ready for public review is priority and other two modules are lower priority

Michael: need to be able to answer, “why don’t you publish as one doc?”
... external reviewers likely think not-published yet == not existent - need to set expectations

Charles: we are on the right track just need to keep moving forward

going though issues

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

Lisa: asks that people take 2 and start working through them

Charles: different people have different expertise; some issues require multiple collaboration

Lisa: should we go through 1 by 1 and try to close?

Charles: let’s start with earliest - #1 typos and missing commas, probably so old it may not make sense to review

Becky accepts issue #1

Charles: Issue #3 - avoid human text in attributes? is this aui prefix?

Michael: is about values being tokens and not free text in property values
... accepts issue #3

Charles: issue #4 - review privacy implications

Michael: may need to ask for review from privacy interest group - but our drafts should be more mature before doing so

<MichaelC> https://www.w3.org/wiki/DocumentReview#TL.3BDR:

Charles: adds that comment to issue

Michael: above link is for checklist we need to follow before asking for review

Lisa: nominates Thaddeus to go through the checklist;

Charles: assigns #4 to Thaddeus
... are there other agenda items to take up?

Lisa: Becky and Sharon have actions

Sharon: we did discuss a few weeks ago and there is a pull request for update to log section

Charles: there is a failing check so can’t merge without review

<clapierre> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/61

Lisa: let’s take an action to review for the next call

Becky: isn’t sure what I should do

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/tree/master/help

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/vocab-implementations-MC/help/index.html

Lisa: look at current branch and create a proposal and send to list;
... help is messy at the moment because we have two data models; some is inline and othe is metadata and reporting

implemetion sectison

Sharon: regarding failed check in pull request - She needed to link her git account with W3C; is there more she needs to do>
... still getting notice about linking account in pull request

Michael: go to W3c profile

Sharon: yes, did that but may be do to linking after posting pull request

Michael: won’t hurt anything, is just a flag to the editors that we don’t know this user and whether or not had agreed to patent policy; found revalidate button;

Charles: check now passes

Michael: if we don’t have a meeting need people to work on action items

Charles: Becky has help action; We assigned issue to Thaddeos; asks Sharon to pick up issues and assign in github

No task force meeting next week, April 2

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Present: Becka11y clapierre LisaSeemanKestenbaum MichaelC Roy Sharon
Found Scribe: becka11y
Inferring ScribeNick: Becka11y

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

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.)