<JF> scribe: JF
<LisaSeemanKest> scribe: janina
<scribe> scribe: janina
ls: Have feedback from Alice (TAG); Likes the new Explainer--much clearer
s: Whether she might also review remainder of Module 1 -- no response on that
ls: We can leave current structure
<LisaSeemanKest> Thanks for the bump - I took a look through the updated explainer and it's very readable, thank you so much for the extra work on that!
<LisaSeemanKest> TAG review isn't really a "pass/fail" situation - it's more of a feedback process. So there's no risk in just sharing what you have with the TAG - worst case we'll just have more feedback, and continue iterating.
ls: Want to check with MC before forwarding to TAG -- does that work?
[crickets]
roy: OK to send
<JF> scribe: JF
Lisa: give a heads-up to Michael and Judy before we re-submit to TAG
Roy: needs to send the email
Lisa: I think we can use the same wording we used with Alice
<LisaSeemanKest> On behalf of the Personalization Task Force in APA, thanks for your help in the past. We're hoping you can help us again now by previewing our rewritten Explainer before we forward to the TAG. We'd like to be sure our rewritten content will meet the needs of the TAG for review, and believe running the draft by you can help us with that.
<LisaSeemanKest> We have tried to restructure and change our https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/restructure-of-the-explainer according to the comments provided by tag last time around. However, we didn't do everything that was asked because, the more we looked at the TAG comments, the more it seemed our proposed technology was misunderstood, e.g. we're not an API (though we might support an API in the future) and that the main[CUT]
CL: do we want to submit any of the other horizontal reviews?
Lisa: one outstanding from i18n, nothing about security, but we talked about adding something to that
<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#privacy-and-security-considerations
Lisa: do we want to add a security section before we go to the TAG
Roy: already added privacy and security content to our documents
unless something has changed
<LisaSeemanKest> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/
Lisa: we should review that as well then
<Roy> https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#terms
<janina> scribe: janina
lisa: 24-hour OK? On changes? Is that sufficient?
janina objects to the looseness of "24-hour"
[discussion on how much time and specifically when]
lisa: Will forward changes incl MC and JB
<LisaSeemanKest> https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/About-Data-Symbol
ls: We link to this in our
spec
... made edit about concatination ... may need to say
more?
... Sent example with gender
... Suggests a sentence of what's out of scope for us
... i.e. transliteration within a language, not translation
across languages
... used a plus sign for concat
<JF> +1 to research correct term
<JF> ACTION: JF to research correct term
<trackbot> Created ACTION-56 - Research correct term [on John Foliot - due 2020-05-18].
<Zakim> janina, you wanted to ask about the pdf
janina will look into suitability of using Bliss' PDF; and whether we need our own copy in W3C namespace
jf: Plus may be appropriate but
unaware of previous use like that; notes space and comma
separated values, but never plus
... Yet another question to TAG and/or WHAT-WG
... Does that work in HTML?
cl: Concerned we're getting too
deep into grammatical constructs; How much is enough but not
too much?
... Shouldn't we only support the mechanisms?
jf: Notes submeeting on this
topic
... Was convinced this is a requirement for symbolic lang
authoring
... We need to investigate what joining symbol is acceptable in
HTML
... But the constructions need to be defined for symbolic
communication -- it's expected
... PLH has asked in github; do we need to define the
grammar?
... Our answer is no, but we need to support existing
grammar
[discussion]
ls: BCI references may link to
more than one symbol to accomodate this
... tempted to just go with space for now
... EA was concerned across langs;
<LisaSeemanKest> I have to admit I have been trying to find a way around using Blissymbolics so that it could be available as it was designed to be - a language that is flexible and can adapt depending on the context, as happens with other written languages!
jf: Emphasizes need for additional research before making decisions on this
+1 to JF
jf: Asks about meaning
distinction if span with space vs same symbolics with plus and
no span
... Clarifies we're staying in linguistic group; but still a
expression of how represented from verbal/written to
symbolic
bg: Essential agree with JF and
CL
... agree with need to research how to specify the
joining
... two issues: how many do we need; what constructs are
functional and acceptable?
<JF> EA Draffin's email: I have to admit I have been trying to find a way around using Blissymbolics so that it could be available as it was designed to be - a language that is flexible and can adapt depending on the context, as happens with other written languages! However, you are right that I have had to accept that the only way we can map Bliss with other symbol sets is to use Bliss words (single characters or those that are combined) with its glosses [CUT]
<LisaSeemanKest> rule lissymbolics.org/images/bliss-rules.pdf
<LisaSeemanKest> http://www.blissymbolics.org/index.php/how-is-bliss-used/10-bliss-workshop
ls: Notes we're using only the
BCI numbers some of which are already conjoined
... BCI has a process for new constructs
jf: Notes some of the BCI don't match to other symbol sets, so may still need the joiner
ls: "user agent" makes adjustments as needed
janina ???
ls: we don't have to make the mappings
jf: Looks at joined examples
f: We need to map that
ls: object first when
conjoining
... don't see an example that doesn't work with what we
have
jf: Reiterates we still need the
joining symbol -- whatever turns out acceptable
... Asks for code examples
ls: was hoping to get more
examploes from EA
... Could take action to show more
<JF> data-symbol="15691+14707" OR data-symbol="15691&14707" OR data-symbol="15691,14707" OR data-symbol="15691/14707"
ls: Found many already existing in the BCI index
<JF> OR... data-symbol="15691 + 14707" OR data-symbol="15691 & 14707" OR data-symbol="15691 , 14707" OR data-symbol="15691 / 14707"
bg: her dog? the bluebird singing?
ls: Please send email
<LisaSeemanKest> data-symbol="15691 14707"
jf: Notes above example of 8 options for notation; which is correct?
[now discussion of whether we actually need a joining symbol]
ls: Think it was EA who got confused; and maybe we don't have a problem
<JF> However, you are right that I have had to accept that the only way we can map Bliss with other symbol sets is to use Bliss words (single characters or those that are combined) with its glosses (meaning and IDs) in a similar way to the range of pictographic symbols sets available.
ls: approx 3 months for a new conjoined symbol
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) Present: LisaSeemanKest janina CharlesL sharon becky JF Found Scribe: JF Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: JF Inferring ScribeNick: JF Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Scribes: JF, janina ScribeNicks: janina, JF WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 11 May 2020 People with action items: jf 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]