<janina> scribe: sharon

<JF> Oct 2018 (WD Module 1 & Explainer) - note can make a second WD Module 1 & Explainer if needed 2 month later (dec 2018 - so if we have not worked out implementations we have more time Oct 2018 (FPWD Module 2&3) - note These need to be published with the explainer next draft (These are still early drafts so we do not think we need to worry too much. Feb 2019 (CR Module 1 & Explainer) June 2019 (PR Module 1 & Explainer) Nov 2019 (CR Module 2) April 2020[CUT]

<JF> 1) Oct 2018 (WD Module 1 & Explainer) - note can make a second WD Module 1 & Explainer if needed 2 month later (dec 2018 - so if we have not worked out implementations we have more time

<JF> Oct 2018 (FPWD Module 2&3) - note These need to be published with the explainer next draft (These are still early drafts so we do not think we need to worry too much.

<JF> Feb 2019 (CR Module 1 & Explainer)

<JF> June 2019 (PR Module 1 & Explainer)

<JF> Nov 2019 (CR Module 2)

<JF> April 2020 (PR Module 2)

<JF> Nov 2020 (CR Module 3)

<JF> April 2021 (PR Module 3)

Discuss the proposed Timeline for the APA Charter

Charles: First module written, more work to do with explainer.
... Just over a year to CR and June to PR.
... Anyone have any issues?
... Module 1 is action, field.
... we need taxonomy and action, etc. before we go to CR
... Do folks think we need to just focus on taxonomy we can do that.
... Understand John's view on this. Anyone else have comments.

Janina: Also note where we expect implementations will come from.
... Need them to go to PR.

Charles: This implies we will need to understand implementation
... Some information on the wiki re: implementations

Becky: Not a requirement we explain how to do implementations.

Charles: We need to show potential implementation solutions. If we have a good idea it would help.

Becky: Is that what our goal is with the explainer?

Charles: That was one of the take aways.

John: No solid documentation on wiki. No determination of micro data etc. of what is on the table.
... Having a taxonomy might be a reasonable and important part of the larger deliverable project.

Charles: Need to sort this out before candidate recommendation.

Sam: After looking through the docs can not find a definition of the problem we are trying to solve.
... Generally understands module 1, but in module 2 related to action and forms it is slightly more abstract on what problems are being solved.

Charles: Module one is what we have called the content module.
... help has literal easy lang, more info, etc... Is help and support easier to understand then actions and destination?

Sam: Understands simplification and number free.
... Does not understand how the user agent can take advantage of the markup and do anything useful.
... Introduction of the problem statement would be useful.

Charles: That is useful feedback. We should file these issues and get to.

Janina: Is this a reasonable timeline to achieve our goals.

Charles: Back to timeline, first module needs clarification and invite Sam to write up GitHub issues to flush out on the calls.

Sam: Will follow up and enter issues

Michael: Timeline leaves room for the unexpected and is hopeful we can address issues.

Charles: Assuming we are happy with module 1 explainer, we will work in parallel with module 2. The timeline for 2 is Nov 2019.
... Sure we will have public working drafts available in the pipeline and timelines
... Module 2 Nov 2019 and April 2020 PR any one have issues?

Thaddeus: In response to some modules are not clear, they are a work in progress. There is a use case in module 3 that explains the problem.
... Need help in fixing the modules with specific feedback.

Charles: Any other comments or second portion of the timeline?
... Spring of 2020 start working on the last of module 3.
... CR for module 3 Nov 2020, and April of 2021 goes to PR. Gives a month before charter closes at the APA

Janina: End of July 2021, looks good.

Does everyone agree with the timeline given?

<janina> +1

+1

<clapierre> +1

<Thaddeus> +1

<JF> +1

<Becka11y> +1

Charles: We have consensus.

Janina: We are good for charter.

Review any updates on Tools & Help

Charles: Becky wanted hers to slide a bit. Thaddeus put in a poll request.

Michael: Repository is public to see pull request.

Charles: We can post in links to the pull request.

<clapierre> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/71

Charles: It has been broken up into sections. Do commits and then submit it all at the end.

Thaddeus: Do you have the full page we can look at?

Becky: If these are separate commits in your branch, they show up separate?

<Thaddeus> https://rawgit.com/AreaOfAKite/personalization-semantics/thad-tools/tools/index.html

Michael: They usually show up as separate. I don't think we need to merge at the moment.

Becky: Work on the file and do commit locally and then work again for each piece.

Michael: Easier to see what is changing. If you use branches other people can edit the branch and fix typos.

Becky: You do it as a branch, rather then forking.

Michael: Recommends branches rather then forks. Forks tend to get out dated.

John: Is struggling here. Lets not get to caught up on implementation. Document lists examples of attributes. Seemed to me that explainer doc compare and contrast, could be a lot of different attributes. Am I only one not seeing this the right way?

Michael: Don't get distracted on the old text or things that are in flux.

<sgoto> Just following up on the AI that I took to file an issue regarding asking for a crispier understanding of the problem we are trying to solve with the adaptable content module: https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/72

Michael: Change attribute to *** around whatever we want to call the vocabulary terms

John: Looking at defined values. Use that term rather then attributes.

Charles: Likes that idea. No problem changing it to "defined values"

Becky: could be more specific as "Defined terms"

<scribe> ACTION: Thaddeus can replace attribute with defined values.

<JF> +1 to that

Charles: Any issues with that?
... Table that since Thaddeus had to leave and come back to it

Go though open issues and assign people to work on them

<Becka11y> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues

Charles: 23 open issues
... Issue #33, need a to-do that it is needed when we have implementation.

Michael: We can do that if it is useful we can add a to-do.

Charles: Areas that are wrong in the spec. should we call it out as a to-do?

Michael: In the case of obviously wrong he would do that.
... Editorial note class=ednote.

Charles: Issue#36

Becky: Placed here as something we shouldn't forget.

Charles: Will assign #36 to Lisa.
... Issue #42
... Do we have anyone who has expertise with CSS?

<Thaddeus> im back

Becky: Does not understand how symbols work

<Thaddeus> sorry

John: Has experience as well

Charles: John can you take this as assignee?

<scribe> ACTION: assignJohn issue 42

Michael: recommends just assigning issue to John
... Profile > Settings there is a tab for notifications. Using tacker to track issues is redundant.

Charles: Thaddeus do you have any points or work you want us to look at?

Thaddeus: I was following Lisa's template. The first one introduction was in the same format.
... Feels confident about the step indicator. Changed status to step-status
... left off at reminders and messages. Talking about grouping contact, but doesn't see a way to make the groupings

John: Wouldn't that be a order or unordered list?

Thaddeus: We need a property to group things as well.
... Logging it the one above. It has now been changed to step-indicator.
... Seems to be missing values for grouping.

Charles: Need to flesh that out a bit more. We can take it up on next weeks call.

Thaddeus: Wants to make sure we are doing work that pushes up forward. Needs suggests on this. Does not understand the one on tools and what it meant.

Charles: We'll need guidance from Lisa and others. Do you think you have enough for the group to discuss next week, or do you want to discuss with Lisa first?

<clapierre> regrets Lisa

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)

Default Present: clapierre, janina, Roy, sgoto, JF, Sharon, Becka11y
Present: clapierre janina Roy sgoto JF Sharon Becka11y
Found Scribe: sharon
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharon

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: assignjohn thaddeus

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.)