2012-01-24 Meeting
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 --
• if you add something it is important to tell what category it belongs to.. or some such.
• (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