14:14:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #personalization
14:14:06 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-personalization-irc
14:14:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:14:11 <trackbot> Meeting: Personalization Task Force Teleconference
14:14:12 <trackbot> Date: 06 December 2021
14:14:44 <sharon> zakim, clear agenda
14:14:44 <Zakim> agenda cleared
14:14:52 <sharon> chair: sharon
14:15:19 <sharon> agenda?
14:15:43 <sharon> agenda+ Follow-up on i18n issue #144 actions - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
14:15:54 <sharon> agenda+ CR draft status
14:16:09 <sharon> agenda+ Help Module - COGA to review requirements and provide use cases
14:16:20 <sharon> agenda+ Progress on getting implementors
14:16:31 <sharon> agenda?
14:58:06 <janina> janina has joined #personalization
14:58:18 <janina> agenda?
14:58:23 <janina> present+
14:59:32 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson has joined #personalization
14:59:49 <Matthew_Atkinson> present+
15:00:20 <Matthew_Atkinson> agenda?
15:00:36 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, who's here
15:00:36 <Zakim> Matthew_Atkinson, you need to end that query with '?'
15:00:39 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, who's here?
15:00:39 <Zakim> Present: CharlesL, sharon, Roy, Matthew_Atkinson, LisaSeemanKest_, JF, janina, mike_beganyi, becky, Lionel_Wolberger, LisaSeemanKest, janina_
15:00:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see Matthew_Atkinson, janina, RRSAgent, sharon, Roy, jamesn, hadleybeeman, Joshue108, Zakim, trackbot
15:01:01 <Roy> present+
15:01:13 <Matthew_Atkinson> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:01:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson
15:02:26 <CharlesL> CharlesL has joined #personalization
15:02:33 <LisaSeemanKest> LisaSeemanKest has joined #personalization
15:02:42 <CharlesL> present+
15:03:20 <LisaSeemanKest> present+
15:03:56 <JF> JF has joined #personalization
15:04:01 <JF> Present+
15:04:20 <JF> agenda?
15:04:44 <Matthew_Atkinson> scribe: Matthew_Atkinson
15:05:02 <Matthew_Atkinson> Zakim, next item
15:05:02 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Follow-up on i18n issue #144 actions - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144 -- taken up [from sharon]
15:06:04 <Lionel_Wolberger> Lionel_Wolberger has joined #personalization
15:06:09 <Lionel_Wolberger> present+
15:06:25 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: [has been drafting a response and shares it on-screen in zoom and is reading it]
15:07:32 <sharon> q?
15:08:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
15:10:53 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: [Proposed wording describes i18n's concern; our example (HT CharlesL, Steve Lee and Lionel_Wolberger) and the notion that when only one symbol number is included in the symbol attribute, the order of the rendering will be correct. Also references E.A. Draffan's example included in this thread. ]
15:10:58 <janina> q+
15:11:11 <LisaSeemanKest> fantastic
15:11:24 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
15:11:27 <sharon> q?
15:13:05 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Sounds good, but currently the spec _does_ allow for >1 ID per data-symbol attribute; ref example 2: https://w3c.github.io/personalization-semantics/content/#symbol-example
15:14:06 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: [ Clarfies E.A. Draffan is an internationally-acknowledged expert on AAC, especially Arabic AAC, out of the University of Southampton, UK ]
15:14:18 <Lionel_Wolberger> q+
15:14:24 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: [ Reminds us that E.A.'s expertise specifically relates to Arabic and English AAC. ]
15:14:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> ack Matthew_Atkinson
15:14:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> ack janina
15:14:38 <sharon> ack Lionel_Wolberger
15:14:40 <mike_beganyi> mike_beganyi has joined #personalization
15:14:51 <mike_beganyi> present+
15:15:59 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: ACK the spec does allow for >1 symbol ID per attribute. We need to check with i18n what they think about the latest example and answer.
15:16:37 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: It will take some time to get a renderer built; we would like to move to CR with this issue acknowledged (and we know we need at least one further CR later).
15:16:41 <Lionel_Wolberger> q+
15:16:46 <JF> Q+
15:16:53 <sharon> ack Lionel_Wolberger
15:17:02 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We're not at the point where we'd be building rendering technology.
15:17:44 <sharon> ack JF
15:18:52 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Can we ACK the concern and commit to monitring the issue, but move to CR with it unresolved?
15:19:24 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: That would be a management decision. We have to go through CR twice (at least).
15:19:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Why're we making the distinction between XHTML and HTML?
15:20:02 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Due to the use of EPUB for this example.
15:20:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Suggest saying XHTML/HTML in your response.
15:20:39 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Done
15:21:53 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Suggestions about how to describe that the correct ordering would be clear to people in multiple languages.
15:21:59 <CharlesL> q+
15:22:04 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Suggest "we believe that"
15:22:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Suggest we let i18n agree and close the issue.
15:22:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: There's no renderer at this time, and CR is usually when these things are developed, so we will respectfully request to keep this issue open whlist we search for implementations during CR.
15:22:47 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
15:22:52 <sharon> ack CharlesL
15:23:04 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: Did we find a better word for "argued" at the top?
15:23:11 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Suggests "suggested"
15:23:19 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
15:24:24 <Lionel_Wolberger> q+
15:24:49 <sharon> ack Lionel_Wolberger
15:25:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: The response makes it look like the attribute will only have one value (which we may/may not want to do, but we haven't changed the spec, so need to change the wording, or the spec).
15:26:46 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: We can re-word/remove this point for now.
15:27:17 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, next item
15:27:17 <Zakim> agendum 2 -- CR draft status -- taken up [from sharon]
15:28:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: What's the status on the approval of the CR transition materials?
15:28:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Submitted, but not sure when we will hear back yet.
15:28:46 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: It is held up by issue #144.
15:28:48 <sharon> q?
15:28:59 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, next item
15:28:59 <Zakim> agendum 3 -- Help Module - COGA to review requirements and provide use cases -- taken up [from sharon]
15:29:01 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
15:29:55 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: LisaSeemanKest was asking about use cases from COGA?
15:30:33 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: After TPAC, Matthew_Atkinson talked COGA through some Module 1 attributres. We need to arrange a further meeting to start talking through Module 2.
15:30:49 <janina> q+
15:31:38 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: The question is: what do we want Module 2 to be? Will the help be page-level, or relate to a section of content? What we want from COGA is use cases for Module 2 in terms of the help and support needed.
15:32:16 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
15:32:21 <LisaSeemanKest> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TDPA3R1Y4hVn4Eq9NlRTZ_hg4cpd_8ZtpWoFiVuF_lk/edit
15:32:26 <sharon> ack janina
15:32:30 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: (re-phrase for data-symbol still needed)
15:32:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: (ACK)
15:32:43 <sharon> q?
15:33:08 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We need to discuss with COGA modules 2 and 3. Find out the priorities. We are looking for a document for the use cases.
15:33:17 <becky> becky has joined #personalization
15:33:24 <JF> Q+
15:33:30 <becky> present+
15:33:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Just put a link in to a document that's a few months old. ("Metadata for Support for COGA")
15:34:29 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Good idea to re-visit this as a group as there are new people to engage, and we can determine if the decisions made as part of preparing that document are still current, and engage people to come forward with new ideas.
15:34:33 <sharon> ack JF
15:34:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Hopefully we will be able to do this early next year.
15:35:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Slight concern about the document title: we need to be clear it's _element-level_ metadata; when most people read the word "metadata" they will think about it being applied to a document as a whole.
15:35:33 <LisaSeemanKest> q+
15:35:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1
15:35:38 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: +1
15:36:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: That's slightly blurry, as there could be section-level metadata. Also thinking about how the vocab could support metadata for a section or an element, and remembering that a section is also an element.
15:36:46 <sharon> q?
15:36:50 <sharon> ack LisaSeemanKest
15:36:54 <LisaSeemanKest> ack l
15:37:42 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Agree, as far as the user's concerned the documet is just more accessible to them. For content creators, we need to make the distinction, as our taxonomies are designed with an attribute-oriented key-value nature.
15:38:05 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: Could we specifiy, e.g., that module 1 is at the element level and module 2 is at whichever specific levels?
15:38:36 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: The modules were split in order to help us get to implementations; I understand all three were intended to expose semantics on elements.
15:38:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> LisaSeemanKest: does this limit us?
15:39:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: I don't see why it should limit us. Agree this is probalby a more technical conversation, we don't need to expose COGA to it.
15:40:41 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: For EPUB our initial work was all about document-level; what we're doing here is element-level, which we've never had before. The closest thing is MathML WG's "intent" attribute (e.g. Chemistry). That will be at the element/block level.
15:40:55 <sharon> q?
15:41:16 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: What's the value-add of trying to make this distinction to COGA? For the TAG, that makes sense. But from the perspective of COGA (user requirements) is that needed?
15:41:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> CharlesL: In practice, element-level can be very helpful (for users and tools).
15:42:32 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Agree with that functional definition. If we update the title to reflect that we're talking about element-level, that will address the taxonomical distinction.
15:43:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: To summarize: we're going to wait until January. Are we suggesting the title change?
15:43:27 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: +1 on title change
15:43:42 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 to element-level
15:43:57 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: +1 ("element-level" is concise and technically accurate)
15:44:21 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We'll review in January
15:44:34 <Matthew_Atkinson> zakim, next item
15:44:34 <Zakim> agendum 4 -- Progress on getting implementors -- taken up [from sharon]
15:45:23 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Jeanne Spellman has been helping us reach out to various people. I have a contact in academia (CompSci + AAC).
15:45:32 <JF> Q+
15:45:33 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: Think we discovered that our existing extensions no longer render.
15:45:58 <Matthew_Atkinson> q+
15:46:34 <Lionel_Wolberger> q+
15:46:36 <JF> https://www.tiny.cloud
15:46:37 <sharon> ack JF
15:46:43 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: UserWay is interested in contributing. [Probably server-side.]
15:46:47 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: An extension would be good too.
15:47:12 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: I did some research into TinyMCE. Looks like we could build a plug-in for the editor (ping Matthew_Atkinson) so that content authors could be marking up their code.
15:47:22 <Matthew_Atkinson> +1 that'd be very cool
15:47:29 <LisaSeemanKest_> LisaSeemanKest_ has joined #personalization
15:47:30 <sharon> q?
15:47:55 <sharon> ack Matthew_Atkinson
15:49:05 <sharon> ack Lionel_Wolberger
15:49:13 <Matthew_Atkinson> Matthew_Atkinson: Have given some internal presentations; will continue to do so.
15:49:35 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Have been talking to potential partner organisations (some in financial services).
15:49:50 <Matthew_Atkinson> s/UserWay is interested in contributing. [Probably server-side.]/UserWay is interested in contributing./
15:50:28 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: UserWay's contribution would most likely be an extension. A proxy is also very interesting.
15:50:35 <JF> Q+
15:50:59 <sharon> ack JF
15:51:06 <Matthew_Atkinson> Lionel_Wolberger: Some orgs wouldn't get approval to put extra JS on the page, but they _could_ get approval for extra mark-up to go into the page that an extension on the client side could interpret.
15:51:33 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: Financial organisations may be concerned about security and privacy, particularly with respect to a proxy service.
15:52:04 <sharon> q?
15:52:09 <Matthew_Atkinson> JF: janina and I have talked and been enthusiastic about the idea of proxy servers in relation to this sort of work for many years, but just wanted to raise potential concerns.
15:52:29 <Matthew_Atkinson> sharon: Any further items we need to cover?
15:52:40 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: We didn't get to CR in 2021 but we should be able to hit the ground running in 2022.
15:52:45 <Matthew_Atkinson> janina: One further meeting: next week.
15:53:15 <Matthew_Atkinson> RRSAgent, make minutes
15:53:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/06-personalization-minutes.html Matthew_Atkinson
15:54:29 <becky> becky has left #personalization
15:55:00 <LisaSeemanKest_> LisaSeemanKest_ has joined #personalization
16:39:59 <LisaSeemanKest_> LisaSeemanKest_ has joined #personalization
17:34:51 <LisaSeemanKest_> LisaSeemanKest_ has joined #personalization
19:00:48 <CharlesL> CharlesL has left #personalization