IRC log of personalization on 2021-06-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

13:51:21 [RRSAgent]

RRSAgent has joined #personalization

13:51:21 [RRSAgent]

logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/06/14-personalization-irc

13:51:23 [trackbot]

RRSAgent, make logs public

13:51:23 [Zakim]

Zakim has joined #personalization

13:51:25 [trackbot]

Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference

13:51:25 [trackbot]

Date: 14 June 2021

13:52:26 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note agenda+ TPAC planning agenda+ Summary and review of action items agenda+ Summary and review of issues

13:53:08 [Lionel_Wolberger]

zakim, drop agenda 1

13:53:08 [Zakim]

agendum 1, Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note agenda+ TPAC planning agenda+ Summary and review of action

13:53:11 [Zakim]

... items agenda+ Summary and review of issues, dropped

13:53:19 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda?

13:53:28 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note

13:53:32 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ TPAC planning

13:53:35 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Summary and review of action items

13:53:37 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Summary and review of issues

13:53:47 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda?

13:54:03 [Lionel_Wolberger]

clear agenda

13:54:07 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda?

13:54:15 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note

13:54:19 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ TPAC planning

13:54:21 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Summary and review of action items

13:54:24 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda+ Summary and review of issues

13:54:26 [Lionel_Wolberger]

agenda?

13:58:43 [becky]

becky has joined #personalization

13:59:23 [JF]

JF has joined #personalization

13:59:28 [JF]

present+

13:59:33 [JF]

agenda?

14:00:03 [CharlesL]

CharlesL has joined #personalization

14:00:32 [CharlesL]

present+

14:01:03 [becky]

present+

14:01:20 [Matthew_Atkinson]

Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization

14:01:24 [Matthew_Atkinson]

present+

14:01:27 [Matthew_Atkinson]

agenda?

14:03:07 [JF]

scribe: JF

14:03:14 [JF]

zakim, take up item 1

14:03:14 [Zakim]

agendum 1. "Editor's note on action-destination-purpose (Matthew and John) -- Matthew sent the proposed editor's note" taken up [from Lionel_Wolberger]

14:05:43 [JF]

MA: we've been working on this - refocus on providing the deliverables as expected and this is a work in progress.

14:06:02 [JF]

... seeking feedback and comments

14:06:41 [JF]

This note outlines the different approaches, with code samples. Also includes a matrix with all of the options in one place (view)

14:07:03 [becky]

https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/wiki/Action-Destination-Purpose-Research-Questions

14:07:26 [becky]

https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Jun/0011.html

14:07:58 [JF]

LW: are these really Research Questions? Isn't this more seeking feedback?

14:08:15 [JF]

MA: sure, what we call is less important than what we are seeking, which is more feedback

14:08:22 [CharlesL]

q+

14:08:37 [JF]

JS: likes "Request for Feedback" - implies that we want that feedback

14:08:58 [JF]

BG: this is also to capture history, right? Historical data

14:09:05 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:09:33 [JF]

LW: agree with Becky - this is a presentation of the topic

14:09:56 [JF]

CL: fine with request for feedback. Want to note that changing the title changes the URL (wiki)

14:10:11 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:10:16 [JF]

CL: this is the first time I've seen "meaning" - is this new?

14:10:24 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:10:30 [JF]

ack ch

14:10:59 [JF]

MA: when I did the demo page, this was one of the options. This is a proposal that would apply to a change of approach

14:11:26 [JF]

so, "meaning" was a new concept - I added the name but open to suggestions

14:11:59 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:12:08 [JF]

it's a step on the way - a less drastic approach (merging action and destination) - there is also another proposal that re-uses attributes that are in common

14:12:25 [becky]

q+

14:12:31 [JF]

CL: fine if this is just for illustration

14:12:33 [CharlesL]

q+

14:12:50 [JF]

MA: we can choose a different name if this is confusing. But we can certainly change it

14:12:53 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:12:54 [JF]

ack MA

14:13:32 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q+

14:13:40 [JF]

BG: don't want to go down a rabbit hole.. if we already have purpose, why would we need meaning? So why (we will need an answer for that)

14:13:42 [becky]

ack becky

14:13:44 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack becky

14:14:09 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:14:09 [JF]

CL: the MathML working group is doing work on a proposed attribute "@intent"

14:14:23 [janina]

q+

14:14:27 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:14:31 [JF]

to be used in MathML - "what is this for in the mathematical equation?"

14:14:34 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack CharlesL

14:15:24 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack Lionel_Wolberger

14:15:25 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:15:45 [JF]

LW: introducing a new word has kicked off new discussion - suggest instead "action-destination" instead of "meaning"

14:16:04 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:16:08 [CharlesL]

q+

14:16:08 [JF]

MA: 1) this is a placeholder, 2) contemplated that but it makes it a long attribute name

14:16:11 [JF]

Q+

14:16:44 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack Matthew_Atkinson

14:16:49 [JF]

MA: to Charles... re: @intent - interesting. Considered it, but it is a common term already, so we need to be mindful of that.

14:17:12 [JF]

JS: Noted that MathML was working on @intent as well - interesting.

14:17:40 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:17:41 [JF]

to the extent that we can re-use... that may be useful. Is MathML looking at a prefixed set of attributes?

14:17:51 [JF]

CL: no it would be part of the MathML spec

14:17:54 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack janina

14:18:17 [JF]

ack JF

14:19:13 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack JF

14:19:14 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q/

14:19:39 [JF]

JF: -1 to "@action-destination" - too long. We could note that @meaning = @action+@destination

14:19:42 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:19:47 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:19:53 [JF]

Ack CL

14:20:01 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack CharlesL

14:20:07 [becky]

q+

14:20:08 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:20:09 [JF]

CL: how will we cross link this? Note that it's just a wiki page today

14:20:35 [JF]

MA: the idea is to link to the wiki page from the Editor's Note

14:21:23 [JF]

...tried to keep this as neutral as possible - without showing a preference to one or the other

14:21:50 [JF]

but I do understand that this may actually introduce more confusion

14:21:51 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:22:02 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack Matthew_Atkinson

14:22:08 [JF]

if @meaning isn't working we can perhaps come up with something else?

14:22:20 [JF]

Q+

14:22:25 [janina]

Proposed Ed Note: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-personalization-tf/2021Jun/0011.html

14:22:30 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q/

14:22:31 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:23:02 [JF]

BG: only concern is I don't recall us deciding to merge this. Feel like we haven't discussed this as a group

14:23:08 [becky]

ack becky

14:23:10 [JF]

ack b

14:23:11 [janina]

+1 tro Becky that this is new

14:23:11 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack becky

14:23:27 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:23:27 [JF]

LW: we can take that as a consideration, but we have discussed this

14:23:43 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q+

14:24:23 [becky]

q+

14:24:27 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack JF

14:25:10 [JF]

JF: we have discussed this before. As I recall, the idea is to continue with the original 3, and note in the Working Draft that these are some open quesions

14:25:57 [JF]

LW: what are next steps, and should we have this as a public conversation. There is some resistance to continued discussion

14:26:58 [JF]

LW: looking to create some concensus. we could add a note that ActionDestination (or some other notation) is an open idea

14:27:04 [JF]

Don;t want to get hung up on terms

14:27:46 [JF]

LW: understand why @meaning becomes a problem, so perhaps using camelcase or hyphenated term

14:28:09 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack Lionel_Wolberger

14:28:10 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:28:41 [JF]

BG: concern is that we are going to CR - if we have 3 different proposals, we're going to lose time

14:28:47 [janina]

q+

14:28:54 [JF]

we had 2 proposals, now it seems we have 3

14:29:18 [JF]

BG: we were going to have 1 or 3, now this is a new proposal (2)

14:29:19 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:29:29 [JF]

suggests that we haven't discussed this a lot

14:29:42 [JF]

but this seems to be opening up the discussion even more - root of concern

14:29:42 [becky]

ack becky

14:29:52 [JF]

Q+

14:30:14 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+

14:30:26 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:30:26 [JF]

BG: so, are we introducing more confusion?

14:30:51 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:30:54 [JF]

this seems we're not making it clear - it was pick one or the other, now it's pick one of three

14:31:31 [JF]

BG: less concerned on what we call it - the concern is that there is now 3 different approaches

14:32:09 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:33:55 [Lionel_Wolberger]

scribe: Lionel_Wolberger

14:34:22 [Lionel_Wolberger]

JF: this was driven by a realization that action and destination were often confused, or not reliably distinguishable

14:34:27 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:34:33 [JF]

ack JF

14:35:24 [JF]

JS: want to underscore the context - if we are just updating the Working Draft not too bad. But if this is for CR then that introduces more concern

14:35:41 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:35:48 [JF]

JS: now hearing a question - what is being proposed here? 2 alternative approaches or 3?

14:36:10 [JF]

worry that we add those questions to a CR document - maybe just update the working draft for now

14:36:18 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack janina

14:36:29 [JF]

JS: important that we are clear on this before we go to CR

14:37:06 [JF]

MA: not looking to delay things. Just want to ask that once final edits are completed, really implore that you look at the table (matrix) at the bottom

14:37:11 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:37:22 [JF]

shows the implications (as we understand them today) of the different approaches

14:37:47 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:37:54 [JF]

MA: trying to make it clear that we propose to continue as is, but also want to anticipate some feedback

14:38:05 [JF]

Q+

14:38:10 [JF]

ack Ma

14:38:26 [JF]

MA: review of the matrix will help

14:38:27 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack Matthew_Atkinson

14:38:55 [JF]

LW: clarification of edits

14:39:30 [JF]

LW: We have a useful document, we are engaging with this

14:39:40 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:40:33 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:40:58 [JF]

JF: suggests moving matrix to top of document (the TL;DR as it were)

14:41:11 [JF]

BG: noting scrolling issue in Chrome

14:42:25 [JF]

[discussion: the table/matrix is an embedded content with markdown]

14:44:03 [JF]

LW: 3 attributes (Action/Destination/Purpose) or 1, now we might have a 3rd option (Action+Destination/Purpose)

14:44:35 [becky]

q+

14:44:37 [JF]

LW: we need a 'name' for the combined Action/Destination - can use hyphen, CamelCase, or something else

14:45:37 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:46:10 [Lionel_Wolberger]

+1

14:46:22 [Lionel_Wolberger]

Lionel agrees with Becky, adding meaning is confusing

14:48:02 [Matthew_Atkinson]

I'm OK with changing my "@purpose (for action-destination) and @meaning (for form controls)" example to "@action-destination and @purpose" as that's clearer.

14:49:35 [JF]

[discussion]

14:50:37 [JF]

LW; we can have Mathew do some cleanup - confusion around @meaning (and resultant discussion)

14:50:45 [Matthew_Atkinson]

q+ to confirm revisions needed (there are three I think)

14:50:52 [becky]

ack bec

14:50:55 [JF]

LW: so we need to have the author(s) do some edits

14:50:56 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:51:07 [JF]

ack JK

14:51:08 [Lionel_Wolberger]

ack JF

14:51:35 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:52:07 [JF]

JF: proposes that Matthew makes some edits, shares the changes via email (and some other cleanup ideas)

14:52:16 [Lionel_Wolberger]

+1 table on top

14:52:31 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:52:56 [JF]

ack Ma

14:52:56 [Zakim]

Matthew_Atkinson, you wanted to confirm revisions needed (there are three I think)

14:54:16 [JF]

LW: so Matthew will make the edits, we should all read that once he's done (will send out an email) so that we can finalize next week

14:54:39 [JF]

LW: [discussion on scrolling table in wiki]

14:54:49 [JF]

BG: what if we do it in HTML markup

14:54:52 [JF]

+1 BEcky

14:55:26 [JF]

s/do it in HTML markup/do it in markdown

14:55:49 [JF]

BG: wil take a stab at it

14:56:10 [JF]

BG: it's a tedious process

14:56:53 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:57:02 [JF]

MA: will try doing this via a conversion process - will communicate with Becky if he needs help

14:57:10 [JF]

BG: it's only the one table that fails

14:57:50 [JF]

MA: rendering the data in a table is useful

14:58:19 [JF]

-1 to an appendix to a linked note

14:58:31 [JF]

Q+

14:59:01 [JF]

JS: we will need to continue the discussion of the name of the page - important!

14:59:10 [Lionel_Wolberger]

q?

14:59:26 [becky]

scribe: becky

15:00:28 [becky]

LW: want to change the name sooner rather than later but Janina believes we should discuss the name next week

15:01:14 [becky]

Janina: want to make sure the name is set before share with the public

15:01:21 [Roy_]

Roy_ has joined #personalization

15:01:27 [becky]

rrsagent, make minutes

15:01:27 [RRSAgent]

I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/06/14-personalization-minutes.html becky

15:02:22 [becky]

zakim, end meeting

15:02:22 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'end meeting', becky

15:02:35 [becky]

zakim, close meeting

15:02:35 [Zakim]

I don't understand 'close meeting', becky

15:02:39 [becky]

rrsagent, bye

15:02:39 [RRSAgent]

I see no action items