<clapierre> scribe: Thaddeus

<janina> chair: clapierre

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

<clapierre> zaking, take up item 3

Merged Pull Request from Becky #86 

<clapierre> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/pull/86

Becky's pull request 86

resolves 3 issues mostly grammar

adaptable tools was going to 404 still open

Roy will do a link check before publishing document

Action items from last call

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

Thaddeus will continue work on COGA vocabulary

Lisa has added suggestion of value pairs to the Comparison page

Q

Q

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

Value pairs, in theory, would become part of the host language (HTML)

In the form of single attributes or value paris

The process of getting this into HTML may not be a full representation of what we envision

Although HTML integration would be great we may need to stepping stone

There is most likely a division based on based on user features that would determine HTML vs extension/plug-in

if there was an HTML integration the property value pair may be different based on purpose or feature

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

<clapierre> Thaddeus at the DIAGRAM Hackathon did some implementations to test out some of the vocabulary

<clapierre> We will add this implementation in the Personalization Wiki page above.

<clapierre> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/73

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> this is for a difrent discuion

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> (apis

<clapierre> +1

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> +1

+1

<Becka11y> +1

<janina> +1

<sgoto> +1

<sgoto> just a note, i'm not sure i fully understanding what i'm +1-ing here

<janina> Restated as api discussion is separate from vocab definition?

<Becka11y> +1

<sgoto> unclear to me exactly what you said

<sgoto> but i do agree that in order for you to define an API/notation you have to test it under different use cases

I have to drop, My mother is calling can someone wrap up

<LisaSeemanKestenbaum> resolution, the api discuion is not needed to put vocablary in content

RESOLUTION: the api discuion is not needed to work out how put vocablary in content

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: janina MichaelC Roy sgoto clapierre LisaSeemanKestenbaum Thaddeus Becka11y
Found Scribe: Thaddeus
Inferring ScribeNick: Thaddeus

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.)