Meeting minutes
Steve: Cognitive and Authoring tools work within the W3C.
Kathy: I'm with the Access Board, co facilitator of ACT
FYI on normative references to registries
Judy: Normative references to registries. opens to George and Janina on thread I provided.
<Judy> https://
WAI Coordination list , wanted to speak to the fact that this was start of thread. Subject name Normative reference to schema.org in EPUB Accessibility?
Judy: Still active thread as of today.
Judy: George and Janina, if you could read thread, you could follow up with me if you'd like after reviewing.
George: Work may be done in task force or community group. The accessibility meta data work would be done in schema.org and that is where registration items would be figured out.
Judy: States that it appears someone on thread is doing what is needed.
George: First goal was to figure out where we were going to comment. Whether we could relate to community group on normative references was question.
Janina: I think the working group that picks this up would have ability to advance it. On schema, do we need to move to W3C space before locking it in for normative specifications?
Judy: Interest groups could do normative . It is best to read thread, then follow up if needed. Ralph and Phillipe would be best to reach out further if not answered within thread.
Janina: I know Silver is trending toward need for schema for media.
George: Vocabulary comes from other standards groups, IMS. I think Dan and others are trying to get this sorted.
Judy: Opens to Michael on Silver need.
Michael: I don't think Silver may be considering that at moment. I think ARIA would be possibly doing something.
Janina: I did talk to Jeanne on it , and feel it would be beneficial to talk more about it to make sure. Action to follow up with Jeanne on Silver on schema.
Michael: I think Personalization was looking at schema for properties, on normative schema.
Janina: Personalization ? I'm not sure it was recently for normative.
Judy: Can chairs check with groups to see if they need normative schema references ? We'd need clarity on this within groups.
Michael: I think it is we more, we may use if the mechanism is available.
Judy: could Michael or Janina check to see if there is a need as an action item?
Judy: Is there a broader need than just EPUB?
Janina: That is why we are having a joint meeting , APA, EPUB, Silver would be there.
Action: Judy, bring back an agenda item on normative reference to respositories after TPAC
<trackbot> Error finding 'Judy,'. You can review and register nicknames at <https://
Action: Judy bring back an agenda item on normative reference to respositories after TPAC
<trackbot> Created ACTION-15 - Bring back an agenda item on normative reference to respositories after tpac [on Judy Brewer - due 2021-09-29].
Update on WAI-Wide Glossary work, and Glossary plans during TPAC
Judy: On topic of Glossary work, opens to Michael.
<George> George is back and now trying Chrome
Michael: Speaks to WAI Glossary . Gathered Glossaries available, in several WAI documents , put them all together.
… There is a large list , each term , the definition, indicator of spec it came from (source).
Examples include AI, Accessible Name, etc. Some have multiple meanings and duplicates , Janina mentioned that we may need a pass as trimming down. I've created a Google doc, but showing in HTML for viewing .
<Judy> https://
Judy: Places the link for glossary in IRC
Judy: Does anyone need any other clarity as to what the process is or the project is for ?
https://
The version from Katie above is another source to pull from.
<Ryladog> https://
Judy: Kathy?
Kathy: I followed the link Michael provided. I can review the ACT definitions , can I view other definitions ?
Michael: I can post this in a non editable space.
<MichaelC> https://
Michael: places the URL to the non editable version in IRC
Janina: Are we inclined to systemitize this ? If so, can we talk to this on TPAC on glossary ?
Judy: Do we have resources to review this thoroughly at moment; and, how much of a priority is it currently?
Michael: Some specs define terms in various ways. Incremental work could help move this forward.
Judy: If we have X about of conflicts, would it be worth resolving those incrementally?
George: If there is a database with fields , with restricted values , it could be manageable over time. If we are relying on a style guide of sorts, it could be difficult to manage.
Perhaps within the space that work on defined dictionary space, etc.
Janina: Talks to nuances of different specs and how the documentation of a dictionary source would benefit, i.e. definition 1 , definition 2. Sounds problematic if we are asking people to reference
Judy: Can I ask how many different WAI groups are currently in this ?
Michael: Almost all Task Forces .
Janina: There are glossaries in various task forces.
This is OLD , but we did have a page, https://
Michael: Resolving conflicts may not fully be able to resolve .
George: Doesn't this apply to community groups as well?
Michael: WAI specific use then general uses . Compiling our work with theirs would be a lot of effort.
Kim: I think the idea of a unified glossary is really good. I don't think it would take a huge effort to make it better over time. It would be helpful to point to terms and how they are defined.
… I think cleaning it up and making suggestions and changes would be beneficial. Definition 1 and 2 would be worthwhile and useful.
Kim: I would be willing to help with it.
Kim: If we need to flag or combine without changing, I could help with.
Judy: Are you in a place where Kim could help with that?
Michael: Yes, once the Google doc is where it needs to be , help from Kim would be great.
James: I'm worried about a unified approach. Based on specs work, etc.
Judy: I think the term unified may not be the term to use , based on how specs use the glossaries. Michael or Janina?
Janina: Use of Google docs would be difficult to use personally, but I'm happy to contribute. Looking at tooling to edit and control would be integral to quality assurance and dating process.
Judy: James, did that help?
James: Not really. Talks to ARIA spec and more consistent with how tooling works on referencing other specs and definitions. We've moved definitions from ARIA .
… We've taken out items we shouldn't be defining , i.e. defining element . ARIA shouldn't own that definition for example.
Judy: Kim thought it was important to have and help. I think a discussion in email thread on topic, or perhaps another agenda item in another meeting to talk through.
Janina: I meant a joint meeting , not TPAC breakout per se.
Judy: I can review further on availability.
Michael: I think an after TPAC agenda would be beneficial.
Janina: I am ok with it being after if that is where it fits in.
James: Every spec editor would need to go through what shouldn't be shared.... James, let me know if this is what you meant (Chris)
James: If you don't export the term, it is not a conflict ... Respec is a tool, which has xrefs , search terms
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to wrap this agendum for now
Checking in on WG chartered milestones, timelines updating, TF findability
<jamesn> https://
Thanks, James !
<Judy> https://
Judy: I wanted to talk to findability. Should be findable in list of WAI task forces. Could we review and see if you need to update in any way?
James asks what process if for cleaning up this list? I.e. http://
Judy: Does this capture all task forces ?
Michael: The AG task forces are documented here .
Judy: Opens to George or Michael. The structure and coordination still occurs , we could dissolve the task force.
<Ryladog> Ciao...have to drop
George: Dpub ARIA is being worked on but could be done in publishing ?
Michael: I'd have to review this as action item.
Publication announcements https://www.w3.org/WAI/cc/wiki/WAI_Announcement_Drafts
Judy: Publication announcements , there are more people being involved in this process. Thank you. There are templates that help guide . Does everyone have access to the the template?
George: I haven't tried to get access to the templates.
George: Am I supposed to post to this and then pushed to email?
Judy: It is a way to fill in the drafts in a comparable way.
George: This is just there to develop the announcement ?
Judy: Yes.
George: Shawn takes what is template and move forward?
Judy: Yes.
Judy: Any other comments ?
Janina: There is additional work needed.
Judy: Who will update that ?
Michael, can you update?