<thaddeus> +present

<stevelee_> webEx is not working for me

<Becka11y> I can’t login to W3c account today?

<Lisa_> scribe: jf

<scribe> scribe: JF

<Lisa_> zakim item

<Lisa_> zakim next item

do we agree on short list https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content

LS: started to updae the short list on the wiki page
... we should double-check to ensure we are on the same page

<stevelee> lisa tha tpage is a new page?

LS: AUI attributes are still on

<stevelee> scratch that - trailing " (again)

LS: may be the same attribute list minus the AUI prefix
... we may change the prefix - if we go that route we can discuss that then
... looks like we are moving away from a single attribute in favor of perhaps 3 (toxens, string text, URI)
... many of the other options were also dropped after TPAC

JS: how much of the vocabulary is complete at this time? 80%, 90%, more?
... we don't need to be complete to have the discussion with Web Plat

is the new option doable? https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content#6c

LS: any concerns moving forward?

- none -

<Lisa_> context="critical fieldFamilyName" easylang="Last name" refrences="blis.org/1046236"

LS: if we look at the 3 attributes - provided some PoC examples here

JF: expressing concerns about complexity of using 3 attribues as part of authoring
... concerns about the examples. Space separated values versus comma-separated; the example shows 3 attributes for one example

SL: confused about how this is emerging. At TPAC we talked about one attribute "@purpose" which could be re-used by others as well
... and then the values is its own "sub-language" which is then attached to the element

LS: the question now is how it is attached to HTML

SL: yes, but are we using more than one attribute

LS: we ruled out micro-syntax, so now we have 2 current proposals

the first is lots of attributes (as we had started with), or the other is to have 3 attributes, which we proposed to Web Plat: one that takes a token value, one that takes string text, and one that takes an URI

LS: the question now is, will that work?

<thaddeus> im taking myself off the speaker queue

Tokens look like they can work, URIs may not. The text attribute... maybe

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about structure of the doc

JS: this strikes me that this document is still unclear as to what it is trying to say. Concerned that the Web Plat folks won't understand it
... we need something less complex
... believe we need to list out the types of content, the types of data we want to communicate.

The question we have for Web Plat is what is the best method to do this, not to offer them suggestions

+1 to Janina

<Lisa_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/value-list/vocabulary-list/index.html

LS: want to clarify that this document is not intended for Web Plat, but rather for our internal discussion

Thad: not sure why we don't work on examples during the week, so that we have something to discuss without confusion

LS: yes, that 's the hope
... for clarification - is having more than one value in "context="" " is indeed a microsyntax

CL: not sure if that would work

JS: which is why we need to show what we need to share, rather than a mechanism for doing so

LS: would like to look at the multiple value attribute, to offer that as an option
... was unsure of the process - are we proposing something and/or waiting for Web Plat to make a decision
... it's now been 60 days, and we should be looking at examples now - we need implementations

Becky: still a little unclear. We should be looking at use-cases, written down in words.

Then we can show that to Web Plat folks etc.

<Lisa_> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/value-list/vocabulary-list/index.html

LS: we should look at what we have now. We may not get to 80%, but perhaps more than 50%
... counter-proposal - we try to reduce the number of attribute values, but not down to just 3. Suggest that 'where we can' we have a general purpose attribute, and when that doesn't work we have a specialized attribute

and we may get the "main" one added to Web Plat, but the other specialized one(s) may not

<Lisa_> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Comparison-of-ways-to-use-vocabulary-in-content#6c

CL: the list is not yet currated to show which value type they may be. The is not what we would share with Web Plat

JS: this seems to keep coming back to context. Not sure which meeting, but there was a prior discussion about competing goals

we seem to be trying to meet both of them: the long range "what is the best standardization approach" - wqhich we discussed with Web Plat

versus "gee, I have a grant and I need to deliver a deliverable" and I need somthing now

both are meaningful. The latter proves need, but the first one is extensible

LS: I don't see it as that different. But we seem to have been ignoring the fact that we told implementers a year ago to wait, and now it's seems to be stalling
... now Atos, who had done a PoC, have taken their examples down
... we are losing implementor support
... we seem to be down to one proposal

<Zakim> janina, you wanted to note that we have two competing goals

CL: agree with most of the points made. We're stuck in a hard place, this hasn't been tried before. Looking down the road is critical, but so is implementation.

Looking at the wiki page, it's illustrating some of the important things. The value pairs seems to be the easiest (if we allow space separated)

LS: would like to move on to next steps

CL: was expecting something different in the wikie page

was expecting the values, and not the examples of how to implement. I just updated the short-list

LS: disagrees with the history. We gave this list to implementers earlier

JS: the history is an ongoing problem at the W3C - now versus in the future, and what we have now will likely not be the final word

LS: straw poll to see if we can't do 3 attributes, but we would need more?

CL: wouldn't we need to see where the conflicts/problems are?

we need the use-cases to show that we can or cannot do something

so that then we can see whether space separated (or comma separated) are required

LS: but would that be true? Could we ever see a time when an attribute needed to do multiple things?

CL: that's what we need to determine

LS: sounds like we need use cases then
... anyone want to volunteer to write up use-cases

Becky: I can try, but I'm still struggling to get this all, as I have no previous experience

If I had one or two examples, I could try working from there

LS: how do we define the use-cases and allocate them?

CL: that's a good question

LS: use-cases? how do we allocate them? who can write them up?

CL: homework for everyone on the call, to write one or two use-cases. Don't try and figure out the solution, but clearly articulate the needs

<Lisa_> https://rawgit.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/requirements/requirements/index.html#abstract

<scribe> ACTION: on the group, each person to write one or two use-cases. Discussion, link to the voc terms

LS: we have two examples, one with multiple attributes, and one with as few attributes as possible (i.e. the two we have on our short list)

may not be perfect, but it's a good start and a move forward

<scribe> ACTION: Lisa to establish a wiki page to collect the use-cases

trackbot, end meeting

trackbot, end meeting

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/sme/same/
Present: Becka11y JF Lisa_ Roy stevelee clapierre janina
Found Scribe: jf
Inferring ScribeNick: JF
Found Scribe: JF
Inferring ScribeNick: JF

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


WARNING: No person found for ACTION item: on the group, each person to write one or two use-cases. discussion, link to the voc terms

People with action items: lisa

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.)