►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2021-05-26
Description
FacilityType, Surface, and Venue
A
So
the
issue
with
facility
type
surface
type
and
venue
is
simply
that
they
have
all
got
a
bit
tangled
with
each
other,
because
they've
all
got
overlaps
with
each
other
to
some
extent,
and
we
had
a
sort
of
controlled
vocabulary
for
these
things
contributed
to
some
extent
by
by
sport,
england,
which,
which
jumbled
all
of
these
together
and
we
kind
of
keep
on
converging
into
melding.
All
of
these
three
things,
these
three
concerns.
A
A
And
then
there's
an
overlap
between
what
the
facility
is
made
of
and
whether
it's
indoors
or
outdoors,
so
whether
football
pitches,
an
internal
pitch
or
an
external
pitch,
also
leads
into
it
a
bit,
and
it
does
seem
like
we
need
to
represent
all
of
these
things.
None
of
them
are
disposable,
but
trying
to
create
a
neat
way
of
dealing
with
this
has
turned
complicated.
A
A
And
then
have
facility
type
used
for
both
surface
and
activity
or
the
activity
type
for
which
it's
intended,
but
despite
having
those
in
one
controlled
vocabulary,
using
scoss
constructs
to
separate
those
two
out
for
machine
parsing,
so
it'll
be
one
controlled
vocabulary
just
flat,
but
it
would
be
annotated
with
is
surface
or
a
similar
property
if
it
were
about
surface
and
it
would
be
unannotated
or
annotated
differently
if
it
were
for
the
facility
type
that
is
being
represented.
That
is
about
it
in
terms
of
the
complexity.
A
B
Okay,
we'll
go
and
describe
our
data
and
they've
looked
through
the
the
specs
and
they
found
the
activity
list,
which
is
like
600
something
activities
and
they've
and
they've
asked
the
question.
So
we
need
to
tag
our
drama
studios
and
our
dance
spaces
with
the
activities
in
the
activity.
That's
doing
and
well.
B
We
haven't
got
dance
studio
in
there
yet,
but
you
know
that
there
might
be
some
things
like
that
coming
and
this
this
is,
I
guess,
a
discussion
that
would
potentially
expand
that
list
out
to
include
other
types
of
spaces
and
then,
but
then
on.
The
other
side
is
that
activity
tag
is
still
required
from
an
open,
active
perspective.
So
they're,
then
in
a
position
where
they
have
to
go
and
tag.
I
think
they
said
something
like
900
yeah,
different,
exactly
900
different
activities,
sorry
spaces
with
different
activities.
B
So
to
exactly
that,
so
I
guess
maybe
there's
a
yeah
I
mean
I
realize
I
might
be
just
jumping
into
the
next
part
of
the
discussion
without
realizing
tim
you're
on
the
agenda.
But
so
I
guess
maybe
is
it
it's.
It
seems
like
we've
got
facility
use
already
in
play
with
a
number
of
organizations.
I
know
that
matt
was
on
the
course
implemented.
That
gladstone
has
implemented,
that
I
don't
know
tom
and
jamie
you've
already
implemented
facility
use.
Have
you
or
not
yet.
C
B
B
C
Yeah
just
to
add
nick,
so
I
shared
the
list
with
you
yesterday.
All
of
those
spaces
are
fairly
self-explanatory.
There's
only
a
small
number
of
activities
that
could
take
place
within
those
original
like
say
a
pitch
or
a
court
or
a
etc.
However
yeah,
as
soon
as
you
go
modes
multi-use
it
just
exponentially,
the
options
are
quite
crazy.
B
A
So
I'm
not
actually
too
sure
what
the
point
of
contention
is,
because
it
seems
it
seems
like
from
what
you've
just
said
it
would
make
sense
to
have
multi-use
facility,
and
this
touches
on
on
what
jamie
said
earlier,
or
you
know,
space
higher
or
something
like
that.
You
know
you
can
have
these
very
broad
generic
kind
of
categorizations
that
are
understandable,
I
think
by
most
consumers
right
and
that
would
be
a
facility
type,
and
that
would
be
easy
enough
to
simply
include
in
a
facility
type
controlled
vocabulary.
A
B
E
B
Right,
okay
and
maybe
the
contention
because
we've
already,
I
know
jamie's
kind
of
got
a
lot
of
stuff
hanging
off
the
activity
list.
If
we
were
basically
to
say-
and
this
is
like-
maybe
this
is
the
the
contentious
proposal.
If
we
were
basically
to
say
all
the
things
that
I've
just
put
in
the
chat
there,
which
is
the
combination
of
what
jamie
and
tom
both
found
used
on
the
activity
list,
which
actually
includes
things
that
aren't
in
the
activity
list.
B
In
book
tech,
you
can
actually
add
custom
entries
and
you've
got
things
like
drama
classes
and
educational
activities
and
all
sorts.
So
if
we
were
to
to,
for
the
sake
of
facilities,
only
move
away
from
the
activity
list
and
actually
have
the
facility
type
list
as
the
list,
which
is
what
is
used
centrally,
make
sure
it
includes
football
pitch,
make
sure
it
includes
all
the
main
types
of
facility
and
they
can
be
tagged
against
activities.
B
C
Just
from
our
perspective,
to
add
that,
from
the
end
you,
when
an
end
user
is
searching
for
something
to
book,
we
found
that
they
initially
select
the
sport
or
that
activity
that
they
would
like
to
do
and
then,
secondarily
we'll
go
on
to
that
space
and
book
that
space
I
feel
like
this
spec
might
not
allow
for
that.
It's
kind
of
the
other
way
around
where
it's
space,
then
sport
related
activities
to
it.
B
It
would
allow
both
so
yeah.
It
would
mean
that
you
could
you
could
search
by
sport
and
you
can
search
by
space.
The
difference
is
that
the
people
who
have
the
spaces
wouldn't
worry
about
the
sports
that
make
sense
yeah
yeah
yeah
yeah.
So
if
you
have
that's
cool
space
example,
you've
got
900
spaces.
You
only
have
to
tag
dance
studio
once
and
then
we
can.
There
can
be
one
central
list
of
dance.
Studio
includes
yoga
blah
blah
blah
and
then
that
automatically
will
then
infer
for
a
dance
studio.
C
A
B
D
D
As
a
you
know,
consumer
of
this
data
via
playfinder,
no
we'll
generally
have
the
last
day
of
you
know
what
activity
you
know
we're
going
to
list
it
as
there
is
an
element
of
curation
now.
Is
it
striving
for
a
kind
of
perfectly
automated
world?
Where
you
know
you
really,
as
a
as
a
consumer
looking
to
put
on
the
marketplace,
you
don't
even
need
to
specify
whether
a
puppy
pitch
can
be
used
to
play
football.
B
Yeah,
so
that's
a
really
good
shot,
so
the
the
idea
would
be
that
the
the
facility
type
list
as
as
a
list
stands
alone
and
it
sounds
like
playfinder-
would
potentially
use
that
list
without
the
activity.
References,
but
the
activity
records
are
there
for
kind
of
tom's
use
case
where
perhaps
there's
less
curation
for
other.
D
C
C
They
would
never
search
for
multi-use
space,
I
would
suggest,
or
they
would
never
use.
You
know
I
mean
that
was.
That
was
the
way
I
was
seeing
it
and
that's
what
why
I
think
every
thing
should
have
a
correlating
activity
like
even
if
say,
a
sports
hall
has
a
correlating
basketball
and
five
aside
football,
because
they're
all
the
sports
that
can
be
played
there.
I
think
the
end
user
would
still
book
it.
Based
on
that
that
requirement
for
a
sport
all
right.
D
No,
I
agree
I
just
yeah
so
pay
final
bill
will
always
check
and
there's
quite
a
lot
of
other
work.
We
do
around
each
friendly
page
to
make
sure
that
it's
all
looking
pucker
and
you
know
yeah,
probably.
I
should
be
aiming
for
a
kind
of
fully
automated
scenario
where
you
just
plug
and
it
gets
all
the
data
from
open
active.
D
But
then
you,
the
trade
lab,
is
the
trade-off.
Is
you
need
someone
to
curate
that
list
and
it
sounds
like
that's.
A
no
question
here
is
who
creates
that
list
of
activities
that
can
be
played
at
a
facility
type?
Is
that
you
know
centrally,
through
open,
active
or
is
that
the
providers
of
you
know
managing
the
software.
C
B
Level,
that's
good
for
me.
Well,
so
that's
the
question
I
had
around
this
is
allowing
for
that
extra
level
of
activity
selection
and
maybe
that
maybe
that's
where
it
becomes
an
optional
thing,
because
this
is
where
staff
base
was
saying.
You
know:
we've
got
900
spaces.
Do
you
want
us
to
go
through
and
tag
everything
every
single
one
that
can
can
have
yoga?
I
definitely
make
it
optional.
Yeah,
okay,.
C
Well,
this
is
this
is
like
just
a
new
thing
that
we
were
discussing
earlier.
Is
that
like,
if
someone's
setting
up
a
space
on
the
system
at
a
system
level,
they
would
kind
of
have
an
option
between
single-use
facility
and
multi-use
facility?
Single-Use
facility
would
be
something
that
say
a
tennis
court
that
you
can
only
play
tennis
on
and
then
would
be
like
a
different
flow
to.
If
you
had
multi-use
space,
which
then
you
would
essentially
choose
the
different
sports
that
can
be
played
at
that
in
that
space.
C
B
Yeah
that
makes
sense
for
that
use
case.
Would
you
would
you
consider
using
and
I'm
just
just
in
terms
of
moving
away
from
the
activity
list
in
case?
That's
something
that
would
make
sense
here,
because
all
the
activity
list
entries
that
I've
put
in
the
chat
there.
You
can
reframe
the
activity
so
cricket.
B
C
Yeah,
I
I
would
suggest
there
would
be
a
better
list
than
the
activity
list
to
manage
that
because
yeah,
it's
so
extensive
and
you're
not
likely
going
to
have.
I
know
like
spinning
in
the
multi-use
space,
I
think
there'll
be
an
exhaustive
list
that
could
be
created
that
suits
facilities
more
than
than
that
so
yeah
I'd
advocate
for
that.
If
we
could
pull
that
together,.
B
Yeah,
that's
that's
it
so
then,
because
then
those
those
then
could
could
also
you
know
things
like
images
jamie.
I
know
we
were
talking
about
before.
If
images
were
associated
with
those
facility
types,
so
basketball,
court,
tennis,
court
etc.
That
might
make.
Basically,
if
we
have
a
if
we
have
a
list,
that's
tailored
specifically
for
facilities
and
we're
not
trying
to
kind
of
bring
the
two
things
together.
Then
that
also
makes
a
lot
of
the
other
things
more
straightforward.
Things
like
search,
for
example,
because
facilities
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
hierarchy.
B
It's
just
if
you've
got
a
badminton
court,
it's
a
badminton
court.
If
you've
got
a
basketball
court,
it's
a
basketball
court.
If
you've
got
a
multi-use
space,
you
might
tag
something
with
both
of
those
things
but
with
with
activities
if
you've
got
yoga,
you've
also
got
you
know,
hotpod,
yoga
and
other
things
beneath
it
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
logic
around
this
hierarchy
and
the
hundreds
of
stuff
that
sits
behind
it.
B
C
So,
just
to
from
a
hierarchical
perspective,
the
way
it's
set
up
on
our
side
is:
it
goes
what
kind
of
organization
and
venue
then
sport
and
then
facilities
like
so
yeah
could
say
basketball
and
it
would
show,
however
many
basketball
courts.
There
were.
The
challenge
you
have
is
when
say,
there's
two
different
size:
basketball,
courts
for
example.
Then
you
might
have
to
use
like
a
a
name
to
define
it
at
that
level
or
that
might
be
a
secondary
level.
C
Underneath
sport,
where
we,
where
we've
run
into
problems,
that's
not
to
say
that
it
it
can
be
handled
it's
supposed
to
be
handled
within
spec,
but
just
something
to
flag
that
there's
a
little
bit
of
nuance
behind
that
and
also
yeah
when
you've
got
multi-use
space
you
basically,
then.
So,
if
you
use
this
alexa
sport,
that
space
shows
up
in
those
all
those
different
sports
and
just
the
relationship
between
that.
That's
just
something
we're
struggling
with.
B
B
Yeah
vaccine
center-
everything
it
can
be
used
for
so
you
could
basically
you're
using
the
the
proper
space
names
because
a
multi-use
space
is
is
used
for
as
a
squash
court,
also
as
a
basketball
court
as
a
badminton
court.
So
we
we,
we
basically
get
away
from
needing
to
worry
about
the
activity
list
at
all
and
we
can
just
use
tags
of
facility
types
potentially
to
achieve
that.
E
B
Yes,
I
think
this
is
that
was
the
discussion
exactly
with
what
jamie
was
saying
about
the
central
linking
or
not
do
we
want
to
have
a
squash?
Do
we
want
to
have
the
word
squash
court
linked
to
the
activity
squash?
That
might
make
sense,
because
it's
there's
a
few
like
that-
that
centrally
maybe
just
need
to
be
put
in
once
and
then
there's
a
question
about
whether
we
want
to
allow
people
to
also
be
able
to
tag
themselves
if
a
space
can
use
particular
things
on
the
activity
list,
which.
E
I
think
the
the
whole,
for
example,
like
multi-use
tools,
have
to
be
like
bespoke
tagged
because
a
school
sports
hall
might
not
have
the
equipment
to
have
a
bamboo
court
in
it.
For
example,
that's
something
that
I
personally
dealt
with
with
school
space
in
the
last
couple
of
weeks,
which
is
they
don't
have
bantam
courts,
but
they've
got
a
massive
sports
hall
that
has
a
basketball
net
and
a
volleyball
net
blah
blah
blah.
E
So
I'm
not
sure
that
there's
any
point
linking
activities
to
multi-use
sports
hall,
because
it
could
be
a
variety
of
things,
but
the
link
between
badminton
court
and
badminton
makes
a
lot
more
sense,
but
the
link
between
multi
sports
hall
or
badminton
doesn't
so,
maybe
they
can't
be
centrally
mandated.
I
think
that.
B
Makes
sense
so
I
guess
maybe
the
question
left
there
is.
Would
you
say
that
for
the
would
you
say
that
for
the
bamboo
court
scenario
you
would
prefer
you
would
expect
to
see
multi-use
as
one
tag
and
then
badminton
court
has
another
tag
that
represents
that
there's
a
badminton
court
in
a
multimeter
venue
or
is
it
that
you've
got
badminton
multi-use
venue
as
one
tag
and
then
badminton
the
activity?
If
you
sort
of
mean,
as
a
separate
field,
to
say
that
there's
there's
an
activity
possible
in
in
multi-use?
B
E
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
it's
also
important
to
note
that
it
is
a
multi-use
space.
It's
a
bamboo
called
within
a
multi-use
space
because
there
are
definitely.
I
know
this
is
getting
specific
to
badminton,
but
there
are
definitely
dedicated
badminton
places
that
are
not
a
multi-use
space
and
exactly
the
same
with
tennis
and
like
real
tennis,
for
example,
you
can
play
real
tennis
on
a
real
tennis
court
or
you
could
play
real
tennis
in
a
in
a
sports
hall
somewhere.
B
So
that
sounds
like
it.
It's
a
point
in
the
in
the
in
the
box
for
using
facility
type
for
both,
because
then
you
can
search
by
badminton
court
and
find
badminton
courts
in
a
multi-use
space
and
not
whereas
if
we
had
an
activity
tag,
barrington
used
in
some
cases
and
badminton
court
used
in
other
places
that
could
be
confusing
from
a
search
perspective.
D
That's
my
my
fear
on
that
one.
If,
if
you
have
a
badminton
court
and
a
sports
hall,
let's
say
listed,
the
people
who
you
know
create
those
you
know
opportunities
will
probably
look
at
badminton
court
when
they
see
it,
they'll
select
it
and
then
they'll
not
know
what
to
do
when
they
want
to
try
and
select.
You
know.
Football
pitch
should
also
happen
there.
D
B
D
Think
what
I'm,
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
I
wouldn't
bring
the
sport
as
much
as
possible
within
the
within
the
description
of
the
space,
so
we
use
a
kind
of
space
and
then
activities
can
be
played
in
that
space.
So
sports
will,
you
know,
have
badminton
basketball
that
will
be
made
in
it,
but
I
just
wouldn't
I
wouldn't
want
to
put
down
as
the
space
name.
You
know,
sports
sorry
badminton
court,
just
on
the
basis.
D
B
Sorry
so
yes,
the
proposal
I
was
suggesting
here
was
the
facility
type
would
be
a
tag
rather
than
the
meme.
So
you
might,
you
might
name
the
space
as
drama
studio
or
sports
hall
yeah,
and
then
you
might
have
an
image
of
the
drama
studio
or
sports
hall.
But
then
you
might
tag
that,
for
the
sake
of
of
search
and
the
categorization
with
the
types
you
might
have
so
you
might
have.
The
headline
is
sports
hall
there's
a
photo
of
a
sports
hall
and
then
on
the
side.
B
As
I
expect
is
to
model
kind
of
real
world,
I
would
imagine
in
a
sports
hall
like
in
a
you
know,
a
school
sports
hall
or
whatever.
If,
if
it
can
be
used
for
badminton,
it's
probably
got
badminton
markings
on
it.
That's
that's
often
how
you
find
it.
You
need
a
big
sports
hall
which
has
basketball
markings
and
netball
markings
and
badminton
markings
on
it,
and
so
I
would
imagine
that
the
the
the
school
would
probably
refer
to
badminton
markings
as
badminton
courts,
even
though
they
are
on
a
bigger
pitch.
B
So
the
way
the
way
we
model.
That
is,
obviously
you
can
have
parent
and
child
relationships
between
courts.
So
you've
got
your
sports
hall
on
which
you
can
play
netball
or
basketball,
and
then
there
are
three
child
courts
which
are
badminton
courts
on
which
you
can
play
badminton
or
it
could
be
hired
to.
B
A
B
So
I
think
I
expect
there
will
always
be
some
element
of
the
activity
name
going
along
with
the
thing
that
is
bookable,
even
though
you
might
not
be
booking
that
particular
activity
on
that
thing.
That
is,
that
is
so.
I
guess,
there's
always
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
confusion
there
potentially
yeah
so
yeah,
because
otherwise
what
would
you
call
that
section
of
the
court
where
you
could
play
badminton
quarter,
portion
of
full
hall.
D
C
Onto
just
to
add
on
to
the
point
around
the
kind
of
whether
the
user
needs
to
know
whether
it's
a
multi-use
space
or
not,
is
that
not
like
a
separate
field
that
can
be
defined
by
the
provider?
In
the
case
I
suggested
earlier
where
they
would
essentially
select
single
case
single
use
multi-use,
then
that
would
represent
a
field
which
then
can
be
displayed
to
the
end
user.
So
they're
aware
that
it
is
taking
place
on
a
multi-use
environment.
B
You
know
the
the
sports
hall
tag,
the
the
the
badminton
court
tag
or
whatever
and
as
opposed
as
matt
says,
you
can
attribute
badminton
court
to
a
part
of
a
sports
hall
or
a
whole
thing
or
whatever
quite
a
lot
of
flexibility
there
in
terms
of
getting
into
the
weeds
on
one
of
those
things
and
defining
multi-use
or
not
multi-use.
It's
an
interesting
question
I
mean
because
we
yes
it
could
it
could
be.
It
could
be
value
in
that
I'm
just
just
reflecting
that.
B
It
might
be
that
having
a
tag
that
just
says,
you
know
sports
hall
or
something
that
infers
that
might
be
because
you
could
you
could.
Even
I
mean
you
could
even
take
the
types
that
are
multi-use
and
tag
them
as
multi-use.
As
you
said,
I
mean
like
one
level
removed,
so
a
sports
hall
is
multi-use.
By
definition,
a
multi-use
games
area
is
multi-use
by
definition.
B
So
if
you've
got
one
of
those
tags,
you
could
infer
multi-use
rather
than
kind
of
creating
a
very,
very
specific
distinction,
because
mainly
because
I
don't
know
if,
if
we
went
down
the
road
of
very,
very
specific
distinctions,
how
many
others
there
might
be
like
that
that
we
need
to
model
as
well.
But
it's
just
just
a
thought.
I
don't
know
everyone
else
thinks.
B
B
Yes,
it's
a
squash
court,
but
you
can
book
it
for
other
activities,
so
I
think
everything
is
multi-use
in
that
regard.
It's
just
what
are
the
available
uses
on
that
pitch
and
who?
Who
who
defines
that?
And
that's
got
to
be
the
people
who
are
running
the
center
shortly,
because
it's
not
up
to
open
active
to
tell
them
that
they
that
badminton
courts
can
be
used
for
this.
They
say.
Yes,
you
can
use
our
hand
in
badminton
court
for
zumba,
whatever.
E
B
C
Yeah
just
to
add
to
that
actually,
we've
actually
got
a
customer
who
has
basketball
courts,
but
quite
a
lot
of
the
bookings
are
for
filming,
like
music
videos,
for
example,
like
that's
like
from
a
end
user
perspective,
someone
that's
searching
to
book
for
music
videos,
wouldn't
necessarily
find
it
by
going
basketball.
Then
there
then,
then
there
so
just
a
consideration
to
add
but
yeah.
I
I
tend
to
agree
but
yeah.
It's
kind
of
should
be
in
the
control
of
the
provider
as
such
to
define
what
can
take
place.
A
Okay,
so
how
does
it
sorry,
I'm
a
bit
lost,
so
the
we've
got
a
sort
of
series
of
tags.
You
know
things
like
multi-use
or
badminton
court
or
whatever
very
very
open-ended.
That
way,
and
we
want
to
associate
them
with
activities
and
clearly
it
has
to
be
on
the
provider
to
state
what
activities
are
considered
suitable
for
that
particular
space
and
those
would
be
taken
from
the
activity
list.
B
I'm
not
sure
we've
got
quite
that
fast.
So,
potentially,
we've
got
a
so
bag
of
tags
for
the
facility
types.
I
think
the
question
of
whether
they
are
associated
centrally
for
the
obvious
cases,
squashes
squash
court,
etc,
whether
to
allow
people
to
tag
the
space
with
activities.
So
maybe
that's,
maybe
that's.
The
final
thing
to
to
kind
of
specifically
cover
is,
is
is
there,
but
is
there
value
in
in
using
the
activity
tags?
B
B
So
you
know,
they'll
have
yeah
all
sorts
of
different
types
of
zumba,
as
that
continues
to
evolve,
so
whether
it
just
makes
sense
to
just
disentangle
that
from
facility
types
entirely
because
facility
types
don't
grow
anywhere
near
the
same
rate,
and
maybe
we
we
don't
need
people
to
be
tagging.
What
the
space
can
be
used
for
from
a
activity
perspective
to
matt's
point.
It
could
be
used
for,
basically
anything
I
mean,
there's
nothing
to
stop
determining
a
particular
type
of
zumba
in
a
particular
type
of
badminton
court.
B
Was
it
I
suppose
the
question
is:
is
there
value
in
asking
providers
to
or
or
having
the
option
of
of
you
of
specifying
activities
alongside
activities
from
the
activity
list
right
rather
than
because,
because
if
the
facility
types
list
was
extended
to
include
all
types
of
activities
that
are
relevant,
the
chat
window
kind
of
covers
some
of
them?
But
you
know
badminton
court,
about
basketball,
courts
etc.
B
Is
there
still
a
need
to
explicitly
allow
providers
to
to
tag
activities
or
are
we
just
then
creating
more
work
for
potentially
the
providers
to
to
do
that
and
is?
Is
it
is
it
I
mean
it
might?
It
might
have
been
a
good
idea
when
we
thought
that
the
activity
list
was
like
the
central
thing.
That
would
work
for
everything,
but
as
more
and
more
of
these
nuances
and
use
cases
have
come
out
and
we've
found
challenges
around
classrooms,
multi-use,
games,
areas,
etc,
images
all
the
rest
of
it.
B
D
For
that
I
would
not
be
social
writing
or
duplicating
work.
You
know
private
side
football,
I
think,
will
be
an
activity
as
well.
You
know
game
of
tennis.
I
think
that
if
you're
duplicating
you
know
the
the
the
the
work,
then
I
think
you're
gonna
end
up
with
with
more
confusion,
not
less
now
I
think
people
recognize
the
activity
less
for
what
it
is,
which
is
you
know
the
the
activity
type,
but
I
would
just
make.
B
B
Well,
I
suppose
it's
being
clear
about
exactly
what
data
so
so
maybe
two
world
potential
options.
Just
for
the
sake
of
illustration,
in
one
option
you
have
the
facility
type
sports
hall,
an
activity,
barrington
basketball,
a
separate
field
in
another
world.
You
have
facility
type
sports,
hall
and
facility
type
badminton
and
barrington
court
and
facility
type
basketball,
court
and
and
there
and
so
in
in
both
worlds.
You
get
the
same
information.
B
D
This
is
where
I
can
get
a
bit
confusing,
but
I
would
say
that
you
know
the
first
case.
You
said
that
where
you
have
the
facility
type
of
sports
and
then
the
activity
type
of
badminton,
I
think
that's
the
you
know
preferred
method.
In
my
perspective,
if
you
have
more
than
one
type
of
facility
type
within
the
same
space,
I
think
you
just
there's
no
real
concept
of
space
and
you
know
connected
from
what
I
can
gather
from
there.
So
you
have
the
facility
type
and
you
have
associated
activity.
C
C
If
that
the
in
the
like,
if
it's
a
form
and
they,
then
they
have
this
huge
activity
list
of
stuff-
that's
completely
irrelevant
to
most
of
the
most
of
it's
completely
irrelevant
to
up
to
space
and
what
they
then
do
is
have
bad
user
experience,
because
there's
loads
of
stuff
to
choose
from,
and
they
select
probably
as
many
things
as
they
can,
which
then
makes
it
irrelevant
to
the
end
user.
Who
is
seeing
courts
when
they're
searching
for
spinning
or
whatever
it
might
be.
A
B
That's
a
good
question,
so
so
there's
a
there's,
a
yeah
there's
a
there's,
a
modeling
dilemma
here,
because
either
we're
modeling
the
space
or
modeling
what
you
can
do
in
the
space
and
the
problem
with
modeling.
What
you
can
do
in
the
space
is
that
a
lot
of
the
edge
cases
that
have
come
to
light
classroom?
B
You
know
multi-use
games,
area,
things
that
have
been
raised,
don't
really
fit
in
the
kind
of
what
you
can
do
in
the
space
category,
they're
kind
of
more
about
the
space
and
so
yeah.
So
so
we
could.
We
could
definitely
create,
because
what
we
end
up
doing
then,
is
introducing
non-activities
into
the
activity
list.
So
we
end
up
introducing
multi-use
games
area
into
the
activity
list
and
then
we
would
potentially
have
someone
who
could
target
class
with
that.
I
guess
unless
they
didn't
filter
out
on
their
side.
D
D
D
E
D
C
A
D
C
A
A
A
That,
then,
is
put
into
three
again.
So
I
think
if
we
could
just
maybe
list
out
use
cases
at
the
end
of
the
issue
linked
to
and
pick
this
up
again
in
next
week's
call
the
regularly
scheduled
call.
Then
maybe
we
can.
We
can
hammer
it
out
there,
because
I
feel,
like
we're
kind
of
picturing,
slightly
different
scenarios
that
we're
trying
to
support.
A
B
A
A
I
think
that's
it
we're
trying
to
sync
up
the
operator
and
the
consumer
and
they
don't
necessarily
represent
things
the
same
way
and
I
think
yeah,
the
consumer's
hungry,
for
a
lot
of
information,
and
we
want
to
prevent
the
operator
from
having
to
supply
lots
of
information
and
how
yeah,
where
that
comes
from,
where
that
extra
information
gets
injected,
is
a
live
question.
I
think.
D
But
I
think
also
like,
if
we're
talking
about
things
like
the
test
suite
we
don't
want
to,
we
don't
want
it
to
fail,
because
someone
has
got
a
space.
That's
not
listed
within
facility
use
or
an
activity
is
not
listed
within
the
activity
list,
and
you
know
one
thing
I
would
suggest
just
making
that
much
more
flexible.
B
Well,
so
I
think
that's
that's
a
really
interesting
question,
because
we
we
should
well
if,
if
this,
if
the
activity
list
is
done
well,
then
we
shouldn't
be
in
a
position
where
people
are
tagging,
things
that
are
not
in
the
list
and
it's
pretty
comprehensive.
Now
I
mean
from
a
kind
of
non-facility
perspective,
it's
rare
that
that
that's
that's
an
issue
because
there's
always
something.
E
B
I
suppose,
immature
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
how
evolved
it
is,
but
I
I
wonder
whether
we
can
get
just
just
because
we
haven't
spent
as
much
time
on
it
as
we
have
the
activity
list
and
we've
spent
obviously
a
lot
of
time
into
this.
So
I
just
wonder
whether
it
would
be
possible
to
get
I
mean
we
probably
would
need
some
quick
iteration
at
the
beginning
on
the
on
the
facility
uses
list.
B
A
Yeah
use
cases
and
diagrams
as
appropriate,
I
mean
use
cases
seems
like
ultimately,
what
things
are
going
to
boil
down
to,
but
if
looking
at
this
in
terms
of
ui,
if
thinking
about
functionality
that
way
is,
is
more
correct,
then
let's
do
it
that
way.
I
think
we
just
need
to
have
more
documentation
of
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
performing.
B
D
But
I
mean
I
so
so
just
a
general
observation:
I've
had
from
our
own
implementation,
but
also
helping
schools
passes.
You
know
the
the
specifications
can
be
quite
restrictive
in
some
cases
and
I
just
wonder
whether
we
need
to
err
on
the
side
of
providing
more
flexibility
rather
than
trying
to
funnel
people
into
specific
use
cases.
The
whole
time.
A
B
This
is
yeah.
It's
also
worth
saying
that
one
of
the
the
bits
of
feedback
that
the
various
external
people
who
kind
of
looked
at
the
the
the
data
we've
got
at
the
moment
is
there's
too
much
flexibility
and,
although
obviously,
we've
argued
in
in
all
the
all
places
that
that
flexibility
is
necessary
because
we're
modeling
a
complicated
domain.
Nonetheless,
that
extra
effect
that
flexibility
does
create
more
work
for
anybody,
who's
he's
trying
to
use
the
data
and
so
yeah,
I
guess,
there's
a
but
yeah.
B
D
A
Yeah
and
it's
interesting
because
I
think,
unlike
activities,
it's
very
hard
to
abstract
about
spaces,
I
think
I
mean
spaces
have
got
particular
characteristics
that
are
that
are
sort
of
immutable,
so
it
might
be,
it
might
be
a
slightly
different
kind
of
it
might
be
a
less
controlled
vocabulary,
but
I
hope
not
for
all
the
reasons.
Nick
just
said.
B
Also,
you've
still
got
name
as
a
free
text
field
for
the
facility,
so
they,
if
they
come
up
with
you
know,
if
they're
trying
to
sell
a
space
in
the
pirate
ship,
they
would
still
have
pirate
ship.
Is
you
know,
room
in
kavanaugh?
Pirate
ship
is
the
name
of
the
space,
and
then
it
might
just
be
tagged
as
as
classroom
or
something.