<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> scribe: sharon

updates on actions and next steps

Lisa: lets recap timelines and what we need to get there

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki

Lisa: Would like to make one or two modules in July

Module 1 and Explainer or first working draft of the module.

We have 4 publications in October.

Lisa: First working draft of module 2 and 3 do not need to be mature, but it should be in the direction we plan to go.
... Module 1 and Explainer should be a serious and wide review. Implementation section and editorial sections and instructions. Should be more mature.

Charles: Still trying to understand if this is a vocabulary and we have buy in on the approach. Still thinks people are confuses and would like to be sure we are in sync. Get advise from APA.

Lisa: Thinks APA input would be good. Not clear on the order.

Janina: Not officially in APA yet, but we are in track and on time. We can ask guidance anyway.

Michael: We should act as if we are part of APA.

Janina: old charter or new the APA is responsible to help all groups

Lisa: next agenda item to do a quick review of module 2 and 3
... Then look at the implementation wiki and see whats missing.
... Comments from last review and determine if we have all the data for next steps. Should have our discussions in the wiki and do not go for reaching conclusions. Does that sound OK?

beckys email

Becky: Still confused. Understands attribute values and can reorganize the document.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/help/index.html

Lisa: Move on to module 2. Lisa has the a version where we tried to reorganize but it does not have the restructure.

Becky: Checked in her latest updates, but not sure how to look at the version.

Lisa: You can look at it in rawgit.

<Roy> https://rawgit.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/becky-redesign/help/index.html

Becky: Its in a new branch.

Roy: Added link

Becky: Changed properties on first topic. Idea was to take the properties as the main topics. They would be under properties and tried not to use the word attribute and added them as a level. Under one if they have potential values they were added. Not sure what to do with characteristics. Most had placeholders.
... Took discription and value and put them in section 3. In 4 took example implementations and did two examples.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://rawgit.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/new-format-for-help-module/help/index.html

Lisa: URI to compare. Introduction and use cases we're not looking at that now. Then we have 2 high level sections. Properties and example implementation. In previous we had vocabularies and implementations. The older version was to test to see if we liked separating out and making a vocabulary and another section for using the vocabulary.
... Carry over of help type and vocabulary and alternatives. A characteristic of an alternative and type of help. We had 2 ways of implementing. Very generic with an alternative and the vocabulary that can be used. But in some case we may also need an attribute for implementation.

Becky: Some attributes that are not vocabulary should they be added?

Lisa: Would like to look at differences.

Becky: Will make a vocabulary and add descriptions.
... Had to explain the mix and match of vocabularies. We will be repeating under examples.

<Sharon_> Lisa: The model we are working was to separate the vocabulary with a separate way on how to implement.

<Sharon_> Becky: In all our examples we do not use anything but attributes. When we say we are going to have a vocabulary how else can we implement alternative

<Sharon_> Lisa: There is another implementation that we did not have in the other version like micro data. An example would be using alternative in the meta data in the top of the page. This would be using vocabularies in a different way but keep the meaning.

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="theme.css">

<Sharon_> Lisa: Give an example of an alternative for simplified or easy lang with a reference to an alternative of the page. The meaning of the vocabulary is the same. Would that help make it abstract?

<Sharon_> Lisa: Maybe we need a third high-level section. The problem is the implementation section is overloaded with proposals use attributes and vocabularies.

<Sharon_> John: Concern it that if we have too many attributes in the plural they will not be used. Until we are sure he continues to struggle.

<Sharon_> Micahel: When Lisa says the word attribute she means property and we will sort out how they get used later.

<Sharon_> Lisa: We need to see what the proposals are and in the same format to move to vocabularies we can see what we have and what is implementable.

<Sharon_> Becky: Thinks we need more description in attributes section around proposal and how it may change. Hoping to find other examples that may change the vocabulary. Is this acceptable?

<Sharon_> Michael: Allows us to have something as a basis of discussion.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Proposed Attributes, vocabularies and implementations as separate sections.

<Sharon_> Becky: This will mean splitting the files.

<Sharon_> Becky: Includes need to be a separate file. She will split up alternatives, description and examples.

<Sharon_> Michael: You can focus on technical work. Roy and Michael can split up files etc. for editorial work. Don't worry about code examples at the moment.

review of implention suggestions wiki

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content

<Sharon_> Lisa: There is a table Michael started in the wiki of different issues. What we need to do is make sure we have the issues. This is proprietary for addressing implementation.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Need to be sure it has the information needed to have a discussion on this. Asking everyone to review this for what is missing from the tables.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Should people be editing or should it all be in a to-do list? Michael do you want to accept comments?

<Sharon_> Michael: Would like people to add their own information. Michael set it up to get a structure people can copy from to allow people to add things.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Would like to ask that no one remove anything. If you disagree with something leave the information for discussion. Does everyone agree?

<Sharon_> Sam: Reviewed table and its a good starting point. He also added issues in GitHub.

<Sharon_> Sam: Github issues are constructive because they enable conversation.

<Sharon_> Michael: Port that stuff to the wiki and add a link back to the issue.

<Sharon_> Charles: Likes that idea.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Are we all in agreement to not take out any bullet points. We open as issue and link to it.

<Sharon_> Everyone agreed.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Try to collect our thoughts over the next week or do people need more time?

<Sharon_> Becky: M Enabling conference next week.

<Sharon_> Charles: Is not available next week, but can make Wednesday.

<Sharon_> Lisa: What's next steps?

<Sharon_> Michael: Would like to get to the point where all the issues are listed in the wiki.

<Sharon_> Lisa: Then work with Janina on next steps.

<Sharon_> Lisa: We also want to have better understanding of module 2 and 3 to determine if it works.

<Sharon_> Michael: Understanding other modules and what got deferred. The questions is not only if it works, but also if it is required.

<janina> I'm available 11 June

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> who is around

<Sharon_> I'm available

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> for next week

<Roy> I'm available

<Sharon_> Is anyone still in the channel?

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> i am

<Sharon_> I am getting an error when I try to view the meeting minutes and I can't figure out why.

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: MichaelC, Sharon, clapierre, janina, LisaSeemanKestenbaum, Roy, sgoto, Becka11y
Present: MichaelC Sharon clapierre janina LisaSeemanKestenbaum Roy sgoto Becka11y
Regrets: thad
Found Scribe: sharon
Inferring ScribeNick: Sharon

WARNING: No meeting title found!
You should specify the meeting title like this:
<dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting


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


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.)