<sharon> Blockers to CR? Summary and review of action items https://
<sharon> Regrets Becky, Charles, Lionel
Verify that TPAC meetings are set by APA
janina: nothing set up quite yet. know which meetings we want. COGA came back with a list of items.
janina: who would cover what pieces (covered last week)
janina: who owns slide decks, what the topics are, content, etc. are the useful pieces for now
sharon: start with 144?
janina: call with i18n before or after TPAC?
janina: will respond to issue 144 conversation on git. they may be interested in meeting before or after TPAC.
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.
janina: might be worth listing 2 or 3 such tools that would be able to communicate across symbol sets.
sharon: John references Mulberry symbol sets. Bliss is also another tool.
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
sharon: on 144, will look for other symbol sets and information alongside Mulberry and Bliss. Janina you will set up that call
sharon: let's look at 182 now, the ones that you raised Matthew
Matthew_Atkinson: a couple of these need an answer. been through a few that may have potential resolutions already
sharon: looks like 192 has before and after. is that ready to be merged?
Matthew_Atkinson: yes it's ready
sharon: PR 191, should the examples be indented? 7 and 11 are short enough not to need wrapping. are there rules around that?
Roy: will check for correct formatting.
Roy: merge pull request and will check it later
sharon: will merge the PR
<Matthew_Atkinson> The discussion in the minutes seems to start at https://
sharon: need to get Charles to merge 184 based on discussion from meeting on May 24
Matthew_Atkinson: issue 183. hoping we could find pointers we could use as references.
sharon: not sure if references to be on Wiki?
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
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
<JF> +1. Not peer reviewed, and often similar to "scratch-pad" documents
<Matthew_Atkinson> Note: Janina suggested https://
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.
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
Matthew_Atkinson: should I ask Lisa about peer-reviewed sources for content useable? this is relating to 183.
group: yes that's a good idea
janina: ensure you use "peer-reviewed" term
sharon: issue 182 open for discussion now
<Matthew_Atkinson> The discussion (for #182) seems to start at https://
Matthew_Atkinson: summary for this is to leave it as it is. discussion was directed by Lisa
JF: I don't disagree with the thinking. problem with importance is that it's subjective. no way to police that.
janina: are we OK with leaving importance without default? I am
JF: I am also
<sharon> +1 to no defaults
Matthew_Atkinson: leave distraction as is. seems like we have discussed all this and closing it seems reasonable
sharon: OK. let's close 182.
Matthew_Atkinson: would be good if someone could review the summary just for an extra check re: clarity
sharon: will check and then close 182
sharon: 170 has a note from JF that he would review
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
sharon: assign action and discuss next week
<JF> AACTION: JF to finish a write-up for Issue #170
Action: JF to finish a write-up for Issue #170
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Finish a write-up for issue #170 [on John Foliot - due 2021-08-09].
sharon: issue 128 to be discussed with Charles next week. we're getting close to closing these
<JF> ack "imp
janina: how many issues left?
sharon: 5 issues. getting through them shortly, hopefully
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?
Matthew_Atkinson: would like to link from Wiki to demo.
janina: publish updated working draft might be simplest way. this needs updating anyway. Roy, ca we do this before CR?
Roy: this should be doable.
<JF> +1 to Just Do It
Roy: would be best to e-mail the mailing list
janina: CFC for updated working draft. no response to e-mail means consent provided.
JF: do CFC for Explainer and Module 1? might make sense at the same time
janina: agrees with JF
sharon: e-mail comes out via mailing list. once CFC is received then link will be functional Matthew
janina: fine if we make the deadline for CFC Thursday night
JF: no need to go 5 to 7 days
sharon: Thursday midnight Boston time deadline then
sharon: will get e-mail out to mailing list