2012-01-24 Meeting
- jutta treviranus
2012-01-24 Meeting Minutes
   •
Attendance
   • Gregg Vanderheiden
   • Andy Heath
   • Gottfried
   • Liddy Neville
   • Jutta Treviranus
   • Alexandros Mourouzis
   • Vassilis Koutkias
   • Trifon Trifonov
   • Kasper Markus
Assign minute taker
Gregg Van
1. Review Action Items
   • [ANDY] Recruit participant experts in Digital Literacy: (Andy will make a cold contact.)
      • in process
   • [GREGG V] To get a contact with Deaf - Blindness
      • Very interested in participating along with a group of deaf-blind individuals -- wants to know what they should do
      • Jutta said that there is a list of what we want them to do on the WIKI
   • The first consultation with end user experts representing aging has met. This has gleaned a number of new needs and preference facets related to privacy, security, trustworthiness and credibility assessment. Further consultations will be taking place over the coming weeks.
   • Jutta: Make a list of user groups involved, and those whose needs haven't been captured yet
2. Discussion of timeline and deliverables
   • Don't want to wait til we have full list of properties or we will never be done -- never be able to start
   • so want to have an extensible list
   • so should use a Registry Model
      • Standard defines the structure for storing them  (name-value pair)
      • and the process for adding them.
   • this allows us to put together a list of properties
   • Value pairs can include context variables as well as features or settings or material descriptors
   • Allows more organic process for adding things.
      • Method for adding to the Core
         • informal?
         • informal?
   • Pairs idea is great but not enough.  Places you want to express relationships
   • Start simple and add as needed.
   • Start with core set and allow people to add
      • a few rules -- Â
         • if you add something it is important to tell what category it belongs to.. or some such. Â
         • (is this new or a refinement of something there)
   • TWO ideas
      • one - have a CORE set of key value pairs and a LIVE set of
         • allows both a stable set and a
   • Alternate views of the value pairs - different groups
   • people asking for a credibility assessment when being asked for private information
      • how safe is it to give this web site information.
      • so this would be a value pair of  SITE CREDIBILITY
   • perhaps have different levels  1 to 4
   • Better to have the values mean something to user
   • categories can help group things and there is precedent
   • methods for grouping/relating items
   • in this instance of the new standard we need to take into account the user perspective
   • Use TAGGING instead of CATEGORIES since things may belong to more than one category
   • for next meeting focus on structure and registry maintenance
   • after that focus use cases and semantic issues (defining the set of descriptors)
   • CORE handled through registry maintenance
   • Split into two groups ???
      • one on structure and process etc (that would be standardized)
      • one that would be value pairs that would be registered.
   • Or is this just a sequence issue.  structure and then content -- but needs to be iterative because the interact.
   • Which of the available structures we want to use.
      • flat ?
      • algorithmic?
      • Categories? Tags?
      • Shouldn’t be inventing a system.
   • Structure and Content need to involve common people
      • structure needs to attend content
      • content may be less interested in structure (til its done)
   • Registry maintenance allows for
      • should include items being kicked out
3. Scope and structure of standard to be developed
4. Housekeeping
5. Other business
5. Next week
   • Formalized registry vs less formal way to include things.
   • structure
   • separate overall group for collection of needs and prefe
Adjournment
   • at 20:05 UTC