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

Browser not supported