13:39:53 RRSAgent has joined #personalization 13:39:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-personalization-irc 13:39:55 RRSAgent, make logs public 13:39:58 Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference 13:39:58 Date: 02 August 2021 13:40:30 agenda? 13:40:59 zakim, clear agenda 13:40:59 agenda cleared 13:41:24 chair: sharon 13:41:50 agenda+ TPAC meeting (COGA, i18n, Overview [silver, EPUB, Low vision]) - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021#Suggested_agenda_topics 13:42:04 agenda+ Verify that TPAC meetings are set by APA 13:42:19 Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items  https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22 13:42:28 agenda+ Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items  https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22 13:42:31 agenda? 13:43:55 agenda? 13:50:42 Regrets Becky, Charles, Lionel 13:53:27 janina has joined #personalization 14:00:35 mike_beganyi has joined #personalization 14:00:40 present+ 14:01:28 Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization 14:01:33 present+ 14:02:45 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144 14:02:51 present+ 14:03:58 present+ 14:06:56 scribe: mike_beganyi 14:07:26 zakim, drop item 1 14:07:26 agendum 1, TPAC meeting (COGA, i18n, Overview [silver, EPUB, Low vision]) - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Meetings/TPAC_2021#Suggested_agenda_topics, dropped 14:07:38 zakim, next item 14:07:38 agendum 2 -- Verify that TPAC meetings are set by APA -- taken up [from sharon] 14:08:26 janina: nothing set up quite yet. know which meetings we want. COGA came back with a list of items. 14:08:36 janina: who would cover what pieces (covered last week) 14:11:09 janina: who owns slide decks, what the topics are, content, etc. are the useful pieces for now 14:11:22 zakim, next item 14:11:22 agendum 3 -- Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items  https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%221%29+content+module%22 14:11:26 ... -- taken up [from sharon] 14:11:44 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144 14:11:46 sharon: start with 144? 14:13:07 janina: call with i18n before or after TPAC? 14:15:24 janina: will respond to issue 144 conversation on git. they may be interested in meeting before or after TPAC. 14:17:39 janina: one of the strong communication ideas at the moment is the ability for people who know different symbol sets to write e-mail to each other. communication gap in AAC. if you know one set you might not know another set. Bliss might be able to facilitate such communication. 14:18:08 janina: might be worth listing 2 or 3 such tools that would be able to communicate across symbol sets. 14:18:42 sharon: John references Mulberry symbol sets. Bliss is also another tool. 14:19:58 janina: after directionality, we want to make sure these have correct coding. equivalent to ISO language in HTML. inviting AAC to generate symbol set ISO numbers for facilitating communication among users of different symbol sets 14:20:46 sharon: on 144, will look for other symbol sets and information alongside Mulberry and Bliss. Janina you will set up that call 14:21:24 sharon: let's look at 182 now, the ones that you raised Matthew 14:22:05 Matthew_Atkinson: a couple of these need an answer. been through a few that may have potential resolutions already 14:22:56 sharon: looks like 192 has before and after. is that ready to be merged? 14:23:02 Matthew_Atkinson: yes it's ready 14:24:27 sharon: PR 191, should the examples be indented? 7 and 11 are short enough not to need wrapping. are there rules around that? 14:24:55 Roy: will check for correct formatting. 14:24:56 q? 14:25:56 Roy: merge pull request and will check it later 14:26:01 sharon: will merge the PR 14:27:20 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/184 14:27:52 The discussion in the minutes seems to start at https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html#x103 14:28:58 JF has joined #personalization 14:29:04 Present+ 14:31:24 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/183 14:32:03 sharon: need to get Charles to merge 184 based on discussion from meeting on May 24 14:33:01 Matthew_Atkinson: issue 183. hoping we could find pointers we could use as references. 14:33:01 Q+ 14:33:11 q+ 14:33:13 sharon: not sure if references to be on Wiki? 14:34:03 Matthew_Atkinson: not sure if it's my place. there's a lot of expertise in these attributes and it'd be nice to provide an audit trail for these. how/if we do this s up to the group. might help to anticipate questions we may get 14:34:14 ack JF 14:35:30 JF: I understand the desire. conceptually, I agree. problem is we won't find all that kind of stuff. I think we've done well to document what we have. not as accurate as what you're hoping 14:35:36 ack janina 14:36:17 +1. Not peer reviewed, and often similar to "scratch-pad" documents 14:36:34 q+ 14:37:08 Note: Janina suggested https://www.w3.org/TR/coga-usable/ 14:37:17 janina: somewhere between Matthew and John. can't find all particular documentation. these references are really handy. COGA generates a lot of paper, most of it is not peer-reviewed. a lot of it is captured in Google Docs. those are not persistent links. best source for what we have from COGA is content useable. 14:37:36 ack Matthew_Atkinson 14:39:15 Matthew_Atkinson: agree with you both John and Janina. would like to ask Lisa if there are any peer-reviewed research papers that could provide a good reference 14:39:44 Matthew_Atkinson: should I ask Lisa about peer-reviewed sources for content useable? this is relating to 183. 14:39:51 group: yes that's a good idea 14:40:02 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/182 14:40:05 janina: ensure you use "peer-reviewed" term 14:40:39 sharon: issue 182 open for discussion now 14:40:52 The discussion (for #182) seems to start at https://www.w3.org/2021/05/24-personalization-minutes.html#x170 14:42:23 Q+ "importance" is subjective 14:42:39 ack JF 14:42:41 Matthew_Atkinson: summary for this is to leave it as it is. discussion was directed by Lisa 14:43:33 JF: I don't disagree with the thinking. problem with importance is that it's subjective. no way to police that. 14:44:02 janina: are we OK with leaving importance without default? I am 14:44:17 JF: I am also 14:44:22 +1 to no defaults 14:44:52 Matthew_Atkinson: leave distraction as is. seems like we have discussed all this and closing it seems reasonable 14:45:21 sharon: OK. let's close 182. 14:45:36 Matthew_Atkinson: would be good if someone could review the summary just for an extra check re: clarity 14:45:41 sharon: will check and then close 182 14:46:09 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/170 14:47:16 sharon: 170 has a note from JF that he would review 14:48:26 JF: didn't assign myself an action, but in sum the outcome would be similar and address most use cases. technology approach is significantly different. content authors having multiple ways to achieve a goal is a good thing. slightly different technique thus slightly different outcome 14:48:41 sharon: assign action and discuss next week 14:48:45 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/128 14:48:48 AACTION: JF to finish a write-up for Issue #170 14:49:06 ACTION: JF to finish a write-up for Issue #170 14:49:07 Created ACTION-90 - Finish a write-up for issue #170 [on John Foliot - due 2021-08-09]. 14:49:58 q+ 14:50:20 sharon: issue 128 to be discussed with Charles next week. we're getting close to closing these 14:50:24 ack "imp 14:50:25 janina: how many issues left? 14:50:27 ack is 14:50:31 ack sub 14:50:35 sharon: 5 issues. getting through them shortly, hopefully 14:50:36 q? 14:50:43 ack Matthew_Atkinson 14:53:53 Matthew_Atkinson: a couple of threads on the list worth sorting out. one is I'm still looking into the code samples. Wiki needs compliance with spec. the other question was about not precluding work on roles regarding importance of information. last thing was the test suite for the spec that I wrote. would like to include link from Wiki to demo. could we do another review before CR or just implement CR and edit after? 14:54:15 Matthew_Atkinson: would like to link from Wiki to demo. 14:54:53 janina: publish updated working draft might be simplest way. this needs updating anyway. Roy, ca we do this before CR? 14:55:17 Roy: this should be doable. 14:55:21 +1 to Just Do It 14:56:04 Roy: would be best to e-mail the mailing list 14:56:58 janina: CFC for updated working draft. no response to e-mail means consent provided. 14:57:40 JF: do CFC for Explainer and Module 1? might make sense at the same time 14:57:50 janina: agrees with JF 14:59:19 sharon: e-mail comes out via mailing list. once CFC is received then link will be functional Matthew 14:59:49 janina: fine if we make the deadline for CFC Thursday night 15:00:31 LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization 15:00:45 JF: no need to go 5 to 7 days 15:01:00 sharon: Thursday midnight Boston time deadline then 15:01:55 sharon: will get e-mail out to mailing list 15:01:56 RRSAgent, make minutes 15:01:56 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/02-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson 15:16:30 Roy has joined #personalization 16:12:54 stevelee has joined #personalization 18:20:28 stevelee_ has joined #personalization 21:25:06 janina has left #personalization