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