Meeting minutes
TPAC 12-16 September 2022 - Discuss meetings and form needed by 31 May at the latest: https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/1/LogisticsTPAC2022/
sharon: the form does include a field, do you want to meet with other groups
janina: sounds like the usual
Naming - Next steps and WAI-Adapt Overview (draft) https://deploy-preview-8--wai-personalization-standards.netlify.app/personalization/
janina: The CFC is in process, please chime in
… we can change the shortname in future
Lionel_Wolberger: Lisa raised concerns: https://
Lionel_Wolberger: I think we can allay her fears about this.
janina: expect decision on Thursday morning East Coast Time
Lionel: Let's respond to Lisa's concern
… she wrote, "I have a concern that we will limit ourselves in the future because of the name change. IE not do things, that are included in personalization but not in adaptation. Such as identifying the right version, via metadata for the page as a whole"
janina: I will respond with COGA coordination
… We don't see that this new name limits us in this way.
… I can't possibly see how it would limit us in the specific case that Lisa mentions
… Regarding our consensus in general BTW: Consensus is not unanimity. If one member does object, perhaps very strongly, the test is, 'can you live with this group decision.'
… If you find frequently that you 'cannot live' with the consensus, consider whether you are being part of the problem or part of the solution
… This is restating what is already stated in the process document.
… Relying on a super majority, without defining the specifics on how to measure that super majority
<Matthew_Atkinson> FYI here's the section (I think) of the process doc: https://
Caption line on WAI-Adapt draft overview https://deploy-preview-8--wai-personalization-standards.netlify.app/personalization/
janina: This is up to your group, we can make this decision internally, no need for checking in with external groups
… I like the last one, "Enabling users to personalize content presentation"
+1
<sharon> +1
Matthew_Atkinson: I, too, like the last one, particularly as it mentions Personalization
… the end of the phrase could, by some people, be seen as limiting
… Enabling users to personalize content presentation. Note the "content presentation"
janina: The end user is always primary in this picture
Matthew_Atkinson: I think presentation means getting the user the right content in the form they want
<CharlesL> +1 to last option as well "Enabling users to personalize content presentation
<CharlesL> "
janina: I can recall that Lisa did also speak about content replacement, which tread on the toes of copyright concerns
… but i dont see this as a problem
… we build technologies that enable people to simplify things
… and give those to the author. The author controls it.
Lionel_Wolberger: I agree that those two words are not perfect. I have thought that the personalization is the experience, or the user agent mediated experience
Matthew_Atkinson: We just need to discuss it enough to be able to answer any concerns that people may have in future about these two words
… This phrase is pithy and brings most of what's important to mind
janina: and we can always expand and clarify
… and it gives a good basis to talk about it.
RESOLUTION: The subtitle (the 'tag line') is "Enabling users to personalize content presentation"
Follow-up on i18n issue #144 https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/144
<janina> https://
<Matthew_Atkinson> Check out this latest comment on #144 at the time of writing: https://
Matthew_Atkinson: i18n has closed the issue
Lionel pops a champagne cork !
Implications of issue 203 for the data-symbol attribute - https://github.com/w3c/personalization-semantics/issues/203
janina: These issues prove that we are venturing into little trod territory
… the fact that Lisa and other experts cannot advise us
… (referring to Agenda item 6 (a) and (b)
… Lisa was not confident that the issue was addressed in the Bliss document she sent
Matthew_Atkinson: The cup of tea sample has a multiple symbol example in it: cup of tea has three symbols
Matthew_Atkinson: Perhaps we just pay attention to the samples in the specification. Should there be a multiple symbol sample in the spac?
janina: Keep in mind, the spec will improve in future
+1 to Matt on just looking at the samples
Lionel: Bliss seemed to be the only symbol set that expressed abstract grammatical, syntactial semantics like "of" or "to"
… we learned that in modern day practice, symbols are very symbol and broad
<CharlesL> +1 to simpler examples
Matthew_Atkinson: The multiple attribute samples feels like we are recommending something, where we are not
janina: Let's run it by Lisa
+1 to simpler examples
RESOLUTION: Change the cup of tea sample--currently with three symbols in one attribute, to be a cup of tea sample with one symbol in each attribute.
janina: The chairs should see to it that Bliss is contracted regarding using W3C registries as a master lookup index for the symbol values that they publish
… ion "The Fundamental Rules of Blissymbolics" published by Blissymbolics Communication International, © Blissymbolics Communication International (BCI) 1982,2020. Bliss-characters and Bliss-words used herein conform to the BCI Authorized Vocabulary as published by BCI. For more information see www.blissymbolics.org
sharon: We need to turn our attention now to messaging.
janina: Everyone: remember to vote on the CfC!