►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2022-02-15
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
A
D
D
If
you
interact
with
active
places,
that's
likely
to
be
through
one
of
our
platforms.
So
we
have
active
places,
power
which
is
the
interactive
mapping
and
reporting
tool,
and
that's
where
the
majority
of
users
are
going
to
access
and
and
see
the
data
and
then
that
other
platform
is
the
active
places
data
platform.
So
the
data
platform
is
where
our
site
owners
and
data
validation
team
are
managing
that
Sports
facility
data.
So
next
slide,
please.
D
So
this
is
just
some
of
the
examples
of
some
of
the
outputs
that
you
can
create
within
active
places
power.
So
it
is
a
mapping
and
reporting
tool,
so
there's
map
outputs,
tabular
and
you
can
download
a
lot
of
these
elements
as
well,
but
it's
very
much
about
the
what
to
wear
and
and
who
as
well.
So
it
allows
you
to
answer
kind
of
a
lot
of
questions
and
we'll
circulate
a
brochure
after
the
event,
which
has
a
lot
more
detail
on
the
types
of
tools
within
that
platform.
D
D
Attributes
are
common
across
all
facilities,
so
some
of
the
attributes
like
disability
access,
build
history,
but
then
you
also
get
facility
specifics,
and
these
are
specific
to
that
facility
type.
So
for
an
artificial
grass
pitch,
that's
the
type
of
information
that
we
would
record
if
we'd
have
looked
at
swimming
pools,
we'd
get
a
slightly
different
set
of
attributes,
so
there's
a
rich
set
of
data
there
and
data
attributes
that
can
be
accessed
openly.
D
D
D
So
we
do
recommend
that
you
sign
up
to
get
those
breaking
change
notifications,
so
we
have
the
API
and
then
finally,
on
the
last
slide,
so
just
to
touch
on
the
data
within
active
freezes.
These
figures
are
probably
a
little
bit
out
of
date,
but
we
have
somewhere
around
42
000
sites,
they're
associated
with
I,
think
it's
now
around
116
000
facilities.
D
They
cover
15
facility
types,
as
I've
mentioned,
all
of
the
sites
and
facilities
are
uniquely
identifiable
via
their
IDs,
and
we
do
maintain
the
data
on
a
daily
basis.
So
if
I
were
to
look
at
the
data
today,
it's
literally
as
at
now
in
terms
of
that
data
maintenance,
it's
undertaken
by
psyched
owners
and
our
data
validation,
team
Fair
undertake
rolling
annual
data
audits,
so
each
site
is
contacted
at
least
once
a
year
as
part
of
that
audit
process.
However,
we
are
continually
updating
the
data.
D
So
wherever
we're
made
aware
of
a
change,
we
will
update
the
database
to
reflect
that.
So
we're
always
looking
for
feedback,
and
we
have
a
lot
of
cross
support
from
across
the
sector
in
in
those
updates,
as
well
as
our
traditional
Roots.
We
are
also
currently
looking
at
more
dative
Integrations
and
alternative
Technologies
to
support
us
in
updating
the
data
and
then
the
last
thing
I
just
wanted
to
include.
D
A
F
It
was
previously
also
not
that
license,
but
again
good
work
was
done
too.
I
think
that's
a
couple
years
to
switch
it
over
to
City
Line,
and
so
it
is
very
much
an
open
data
set
as
other
open,
active
open
data
sets
are
available
for
anyone
to
access
using
just
using
it
and
share,
but
additional
helpful
context
for
anyone.
A
E
E
F
A
good
I've
got
a
question
on
that.
Oh
I
got
a
question,
though.
That's
that's
a
great
great
thing
to
to
be
happening
in
terms
of
bringing
things
together.
I
wondered
why,
just
in
terms
of
the
decision
that
was
made
there
of
the
direction
of
that
integration,
so
why
was
it
decided
to
I
guess
the
two
ways
of
solving
that
problem?
Are
it's?
Let's
say
that
every
organization
has,
let's
call
it
a
place
ID
or
something
within
their
database?
So
NGB
is
my
other
place.
F
D
So
the
ngb's
don't
change
their
database
in
any
way
and
that
still
stays
with
them
and
they
retain
their
own
place.
Ids.
What
we're
supporting
them
in
doing
is
adding
our
ID
into
their
database
so
that
they
can
use
that
information.
So
the
reason
it's
that
way
around
I
guess
is
where
their
facilities
database,
so
it
means
if
we
were
to
do
that
for
every
NGB.
You
can
imagine
that
our
database
would
then
start
to
get
very
big
and
we'd
have
to
look
at.
D
F
D
F
D
D
So
that
idea
is
inherently
in
there,
because
they've
pulled
our
data,
then
we
can
then
take
the
feed
from
them
on
Pitch
quality
information
and
use
and
feed
that
back
into
active
places
to
allow
us
to
improve
our
data
quality,
but
also
we
are
currently
working
on
an
integration
whereby
we
take
the
pitch
quality,
information
and
Supply
that
to
local
authorities,
so
that
active
places
is
becoming
the
One-Stop
shop
for
the
information
not
only
on
the
facilities
but
also
quality
information.
The
local
Authority
doesn't
then
need
to
approach
us
and
the
football
Foundation.
A
D
So
we're
chipping
away
at
it
with
the
different
ngbs
so
we're
currently
working
with,
for
example,
the
LTA.
So
we
try
to
do
some
analysis
for
the
LTA
and
I
identified
that
we
needed
some
information
from
their
database
for
their
analysis
and
some
information
from
our
database.
So
we
couldn't
do
the
analysis
on
either
database.
A
D
So
we
use
a
combination
of
Geo
kind
of
geospatial
analysis,
but
then
also
automated
string
validation,
if
you
like.
So
what
do
they
call
the
site?
What
do
we
call
the
site
and
looking
for
that
pattern?
Matching
that'll
get
us
so
far,
but
there
is
going
to
come
a
point
where
we're
going
to
have
to
just
do
it
manually.
So
it
isn't
so
it'll
get
us.
A
E
And
it
just
depends
on
the
size
of
the
operator,
because
for
me
it
was
getting
a
list
of
the
IDS
from
active
places
and
then
applying
that
to
our
database
somewhere.
So
because
we've
got
quite
a
few,
then
yeah.
It
was
quite
a
long
task
to
do,
but
maintaining
it
going
forward
shouldn't
be
as
onerous
because
as
you
introduce
new
sites
when
we
should
be
applying
and
active
places
iot
at
that
stage,.
A
D
That's
the
whole
aim
is
it's
one
off
we've
got
to
do
this,
actually
with
a
lot
of
the
ngbs.
What
we
find
is
that
their
data
was
originally
based
on
active
places
anyway.
So
there
is
a
lot
of
matches.
So
there's
a
lot
of
inherent
similarities
in
the
database
in
naming
and
things
but
yeah
you
do
it
once
you've
got
your
ID
in
and
then
it's
just
every
time
that
you
add
to
your
site,
you
would
add
a
site
to
your
platform.
A
So
we
had
a
quick
look
in
it
called
open,
open,
active
and
active
places
had
a
call.
A
couple
of
days
ago
we
had
a
quick
look
at
you
know
the
kind
of
alignment
of
these
things
and
we
went
back
to
a
spreadsheet.
This
is
the
open,
active
facilities,
types
page
and
you
can
see
our
full
list
is
here
in
adjacent
format,
but
down
here,
there's
a
spreadsheet
and
we've
quickly
spotted
it.
Here
we
have
active
places.
A
Is
that
since
2006
I
think
so
it
predates
open
active
by
sometime,
but
it
seems
that
the
there's
more
detail
in
the
open,
active
facilities
types-
and
there
are
various
reasons
for
that,
but
we
spotted
a
number
of
challenges
trying
to
kind
of
relate
these
two
before
before
I
get
onto
that
Nick
I,
don't
know.
Do
you
have
any
comments
on
the
history
of
this
kind
of
creating
these
facility
types
and
the
links
to
active
places
was
that,
but
were
you
around
for
that.
F
Yeah
sure
and
there's
a
there's,
a
long
GitHub
issue,
I
think
in
the
repo
that
kind
of
detail.
Some
of
that
for
anyone,
that's
interested
the
the
summary
of
that
is
that
yeah,
the
active
places
list
was
one
of
the
inputs
into
this
initially
and
and
so
that
I
I
think
a
bit
like
this
is
saying,
probably
across
the
piece
everyone
starts
back
to
places,
don't
they
and
then
they
do
some
stuff.
F
So
that's
that's
kind
of
what's
happened
here,
active
places,
plus
some
input
from
play,
finder
and
some
other
organizations,
sport,
England,
I,
think
we're
involved
and
maybe
EMD
there's
a
few.
There
was
a
few
active
voices
in
the
conversation
which
we
could
you
can
see
in
that
thread,
history
and
basically
that
led
us
to
two
two
lists:
basically
a
facility
type
list
and
what
is
now
facility
attributes
facility
types
are
the
well
you
can
see
here
and
the
attributes
of
things
like
surface
type.
F
Initially,
they
were
combined
in
one
big
list,
but
that
was
quite
confusing
because
they
had
quite
different
things
and
you
obviously
want
to
add
this
service
type
attribute
so
attributes
you
add
to
a
thing,
whereas
these
are
about
describing
the
thing
and
so
they've
they've
been
separated.
Now,
for
that
reason,
yeah
and
I
think
when
it
was
initially
put
together,
there
was
some
effort
spent
maintaining
columns,
A
and
B
on
this
to
align
with
whatever
they're
aligned
with
on
the
facility
types.
F
A
Yeah,
okay,
I
think
you
touched
on
one
of
the
one
of
the
areas
that
we
spotted.
That
was
different.
So,
for
example,
let
me
see
in
open
active.
We
would
have
something
like
a
hockey
pitch
and
then
an
attribute
which
would
say
where
there
was
what
kind
of
surface
it
was
would
be,
whereas
if
I
can
find
it
just
here
in
the
cellotypes
you'd
start
with
this
artificial
grass
pitch
and
you
might
find
hockey
under
there
or
you
might
find
it
under
grass
pitches
as
well.
A
So
there's
that
kind
of
the
structure
of
the
of
the
of
the
two
lists
is
is
a
little
bit
different.
You
know
why.
Why
does
it
matter?
Part
of
this
phase
in
open
active
is
trying
to
move
us
from
data
fragmentation
to
data
standardization.
So
we're
always
looking
for
areas
where
we
can.
We
can
be
more
aligned
and
build
up
that
bigger,
interconnected
picture
of
of
the
sport
and
physical
activity
sector.
So
being
able
to
talk
about
the
same
things
in
a
convenient
way
is,
is
obviously
helpful,
but
there
are
some
ways.
A
D
So,
currently
we
cover
facility
types,
and
that
is
always
we'll
increase
that
so
so
16th
on
its
way,
we're
just
collecting
data
for
that
so
yeah.
There
is
always
going
to
be
facility
types
in
your
list
that
we
don't
have
so
that
there
is
going
to
be
those
gaps.
I
think
whether
we
are
talking
about
the
same
things-
and
there
is
the
potential
that
we
could
align-
sort
out-
columns,
A
and
B
in
the
spreadsheet
to
make
sure
that
alignment
is
clear.
D
There's
going
to
be
some
elements
where
that's
tricky,
so
I
think
we
were
looking
at
in
your
list.
For
example,
badminton
court
we
wouldn't
record
badminton
court.
The
presence
of
badminton
markings
within
a
hall
is
is
an
attribute,
so
we
don't
have
a
facility
type
badminton
court.
The
facility
type
is
Sports
Hall,
for
example,
so
that
would
be
one
where
it
doesn't
align.
F
It's
probably
helpful,
then,
to
to
kind
of
frame
the
what
this
is
for,
which
is
the
the
facility
use
which
gets
tagged
with
this
is
a
product
rather
than
a
kind
of
space.
Fundamentally
so
it's
owned
by
that
I
mean
you're
buying
a
hour
slot
to
play
badminton
or
you
know
an
hour
space
in
a
multi-un
use
games
area.
F
That's
the
thing
that
you
purchase
so
and
that's
why?
Because
it's
not
space
Centric!
It's
product-centric!
You
end
up
with
this
slightly
different
focus,
I,
suppose
it's.
What
is
the
consumer
looking
to
buy
and
expectations
with
that?
If
there's
a
Barrington
Purchase
made,
then
presumably
the
operator
will
put
Nets
out
or
you
know
Etc.
So
it's
it's
slightly
more
than
this
space
and
in
fact
there
is
no
connection
to
the
space
directly.
F
So
six
badminton
courts
could
be
available
to
book,
but
they
might
be
in
two
different
halls
or
in
two
different
spaces
within
the
Leisure
Center
or
you
know
different,
there's,
there's
no
kind
of
mapping
to
us.
The
decision
was
made
very
very
early
on.
You
know
practice
not
to
try
to
take
the
complexity
of
how
do
you
split
a
sports
all
up,
like
you
know,
two
bands
in
court:
sorry,
six
bands
and
chords
to
basketball
courts.
You
know
different
half
basketball
courts
either
side.
F
All
of
that
in
one
space
we
could
have
tried
to
represent
all
of
that
in
the
data,
but
because
the
decision
was
made
to
be
product
Centric
so
that
all
of
that
complexity
was
kind
of
removed
from
from
the
the
feed.
So
it
was
less
about
whether
that
particular
half
of
Abington
Court,
sorry
that
particular
half
the
basketball
court
could
also
be
three
badminton
courts.
F
If,
when
you
book
a
badminton
court,
half
basketball
court
disappears
because
it
turns
out
it's
the
same
physical
space.
You
know
that's
the
kind
of
interaction,
but
the
user
wouldn't
know
that
badminton
court
was
the
same
space
as
the
half
basketball
court
at
all,
whereas
obviously
that
that
tightly
that's
tightly
connected.
This
is
communities
they
sort
of
active
places,
because
the
whole
purpose
is
what's
the
sports
Hall
and
what
are
the
markings
on
it?.
A
Yeah
yeah
I
think
I
can
still
see
it.
You
know
if
in
active
places,
sorry
in
open
active
data
for
a
site-
that's
known,
if
a
new,
if
certainly
they're,
able
to
offer
badminton
courts,
whereas
previously
they
weren't,
then
that
might
be
a
flag
to
you
to
say
maybe
they've
divided
markings
and
that's
now
something
maybe
I
would
even
be
updated.
So
there's
still
some.
You
know
the
I
think
there's
there
is
value
in
being
able
to
kind
of
read
between
the
two
for
both
parties.
A
D
Question
would
be
on
that.
One
is
where
we
are.
I
can
totally
see
like
badminton
court.
Why?
You
have
that
and
we
wouldn't
have
that,
but
where
we
do
have
that
similarity
so
and
that
first
one
there
you
had
you'd
Called
It
Sports
Hall
and
it
was
aligned
to
our
activity
Hall.
So
is
that
our
activity
Hall,
and
should
we
both
use
the
same
term
so
that
we
know
what
we're
talking
about
or
is
that
our
Sports
Hall,
in
which
case
it's
an
activity,
Hall
a
ban
or
a
main
hall?
D
E
D
A
Think
I
think
those
distinctions
between
a
main
hall,
an
activity,
Hall
and
a
barn.
You
know
which
you
know,
make
sense
to
to
your
world
view.
If
you
like
the
way,
the
way
your
data
is
created
and
maintained,
they
probably
don't
have
the
same
importance
or
meaning
to
to
someone
in
an
activity
finder
trying
to
book
a
space,
I
guess
because
those
definitions-
sometimes
it's
a
size
thing,
and
sometimes
it
relates
to
the
purpose
originally
built
for
and
all
those
kind
of
things
so
yeah.
D
F
A
F
Going
to
say
yeah
that
it's
definitely
the
I
suppose
because
we're
describing
different
things,
though,
from
a
kind
of
ontology
perspective.
You
know
level
up
so
you
know,
we've
got,
we've
got
a
list
of
apples
in
the
list
of
oranges.
Sometimes
apples,
look
like
oranges,
you
know
or
whatever,
but
but
it's
almost
it
is
worth
aligning
them
as
a
kind
of
one-to-many.
Maybe
that's
not
the
right
analogy.
Maybe
it's
like
different
types
of
fruit,
salad
and
apples
or
something
it's
worth
drawing
a
line
between
where
the
you
know
bits
of
fruit.
F
Salad
includes
an
apple
or
whatever,
on
the
on
the
different
side,
so
that
that's
useful
information,
but
the
idea
that
we're
going
to
reach
a
complete
alignment
where
fruit,
salad,
a
is
Apple
a
fruit.
Salad
B
is
Apple
D.
It
doesn't
kind
of
work
because
they're
describing
quite
different
things
unless
you
have
a
fruit,
salad
entirely
made
of
apples,
but
even
then
you
see
it.
If
just
we
could
draw
an
equivalent
say.
Oh,
we
found
one
it
matches
because
it's
describing
a
different
thing.
It
doesn't
quite
make
sense
to
draw
the
direct
equivalence
there.
A
Yeah
you're
right
direct
equivalence.
Isn't
it
should
necessarily
be
the
aim
it's,
but
we
look
for
opportunities
to
to
add
value
on
either
side.
Don't
we
so
I'm
going
to
move
on
because
we
we
have
more
to
fit
in,
but
I
just
wanted
to
show
this.
So
I
have
gone
to
the
open,
active
data
visualizer
and
just
surfaced
some
data
from
one
of
the
feeds
and
I
wanted
to
look
at
this
example
here.
A
We
know
the
place,
sale,
Leisure,
Center.
What
we
don't
have
is
information
about
the
accessibility
and
the
parking
and
things
like
that.
That's
information
that
is
held
it
can
be
shared
in
an
open,
active
feed.
It's
also
held
in
the
active
basis
database.
So
if
we
had
the
ID
for
this
for
sale,
Leisure
Center,
let
me
see
if
this
link
will
work.
We
could
return
that
information
back
from
the
active
places.
Api.
A
Designated
accessible
provision
and
things
like
that,
accessible
parking
has
changed
rooms,
accessible
changing
rooms,
all
that
information
could
be
turned
via
the
ID
just
at
the
at
the
click
of
a
button.
So
I
just
think.
That's
that's
interesting
and
to
think
of
where
that
merging
by
Place
ID
would
occur
up
front
in
the
data
publisher
world.
To
then
share
that
information
out
in
an
open,
active
feed
or
in
the
activity
finder
world
to
to
take
the
ID
that
shared
and
bring
in
that
information.
F
I'm
trying
to
dig
out
exactly
where
that
link
that
reference
is
but
basically
the
reason
they
identify
a
property
is
described.
The
way
it
is
across
all
data
is
to
allow
for
active
places,
ideas
to
be
included
in
open,
active
data,
and
so
this
idea,
I
guess,
is
a
bit
like
this
was
saying
other
systems
already.
Maybe
doing
this,
that
you
could
reference
an
open,
active,
an
active
places,
I
do
in
the
data,
and
then
someone
who
was
consuming
data
feeds
could
have
because
the
the
active
Place
status
already
transport
format.
F
They
could
pull
the
open
active
data.
Sorry
the
active
places
data
they
could
pull
that
they
could
then
look
at
the
IDS
from
the
open,
active
feeds
and
they
could
put
them
together
and
present
that
together.
So
that's
a
way
that
at
least
currently
is
supported
by
the
stuff
I'm
trying
to
find
out
where
the
exact
documentation
is,
if
I
can't
find
it.
A
I'd
seen,
let's
see
if
I
can
get
that
to
appear,
is
that
there
was
this
mapping
here.
Nick
I,
don't
know
if
that
was
what
you
were,
thinking
of,
which
is
a
way
of
displaying.
What's
returned
from
the
open
active
active
places
API,
oh,
my
goodness,
that's
going
to
do
my
head
in
in
open,
active
feed
kind
of
language,
I
think,
but
something
to
explore
something
to
to
for
us
to
to
explore
in
time,
but
I'm
going
to
move
on
now,
because
we
have.
A
We
have
a
little
bit
more
to
cover
today.
So
if
that's
okay,
I
will
move
on
and
we
wanted
just
to
summarize
some
of
the
changes
that
we've
made
around
the
management
of
the
open,
active
activity
list.
So
I
mentioned
before
we
want
to
explore
ideas
to
improve
data
standardization
across
the
sector
and
I.
Think
the
activity
list
is,
could
be
a
really
useful
tool,
a
piece
of
key
reference
data
for
the
sector,
helping
to
ensure
that
we're
speaking
the
same
language,
we're
talking
about
the
same
things.
A
A
And
also
it's
not
really
as
open
and
transparent
as
all
the
other
workings
around
open
active.
So
we
wanted
to
move
management
of
that
list
to
this
group,
so
it's
managed
in
the
open,
alongside
all
the
other
standards
alongside
the
the
RPD
feed
the
data
model,
the
Open
Booking
API
Etc.
So
we
We've
made
that
change.
We've
spoken
to
the
committee
members
and
invited
them
to
join
this
group
as
and
when
required,
so
we're
not
losing
out
their
experience
and
voices.
A
We
can
still
be
heard
so
the
plan
is
to
streamline
the
process,
develop
a
fast
track
process
based
on
some
some
criteria,
and
if
it
meets
all
those
criteria,
then
we
can
just
feed
that
change
into
the
list.
If
it
falls
outside
that
process,
then
we'll
schedule
those
exceptions
to
be
discussed
at
this.
These
regular
chats
that
we
have,
but
those
will
be
scheduled
in
advance
and
we'll
invite
all
the
relevant
parties
to
join.
A
In
the
same
time,
we
want
to
look
at
the
way
activities
are
grouped
and
the
hierarchy
structure
and
to
make
sure
that
makes
sense,
because
I'm
not
convinced
that
it
does
right
now,
but
both
those
things,
the
criteria,
the
process
and
the
principles
around
hierarchies
will.
We
will
share
this
group
and
agree
them
before
we
before
we
move
on
Chris.
Do
you
want
to
jump
in
and
just
quickly
walk
through
this.
C
Yes,
hi
everyone,
as
Howard
has
said
so
we're
looking
now
an
exceptions
process
really
in
terms
of
the
activity
list,
so
we've
got
a
set
of
criteria,
a
few
basic
ones
you
know
around
is
it
a
recognized
activity
is
a
predominantly
physical
activity.
Is
there
a
governing
body?
Those
kind
of
questions
there's
nothing
too
intense
or
onerous
to
look
at
if
it
meets
all
of
those
criteria
or
some
of
the
criteria,
then
it
would
just
be
a
simple.
C
You
know
turn
around
in
a
couple
of
days,
whereas
previously
we're
looking,
you
know
one
to
two
to
three
months
to
get
a
list
added
to
the
current
activity
list.
So
you
know
we
just
put
together
a
simple
process
map
just
along
here
to
show
you
that
you
know
a
requirement
to
add
an
activity
to
this
comes
in.
It
currently
comes
in
in
a
Google
form.
I
think
we're
looking
at
ways
to
either
tighten
up
that
Google
form
because
there
are
currently
no
mandatory
Fields.
C
So
anyone
can,
just
you
know,
add
an
activity
to
it
hit
submit
and
it
comes
through.
So
we're
trying
to
look.
You
know
to
change
that
to
some
mandatory
fields
or
potentially
something
on
GitHub,
but
we're
trying
to
look
at
a
few
different
possible
ways
to
submit
a
proposal.
Then
you
know
the
next
stage
down
so
the
creation
of
it.
You
know
here
at
the
ODI,
so
we
received
that
proposal
we're
going
to
review
it
against
those
guidelines
that
we've
put
together.
C
If
it
falls
outside
of
those
guidelines,
then
it
will
be.
You
know,
as
how
I
said
it
will
come
here,
for
the
exceptions
process
to
discuss
any
changes
and
then
it's
either
accepted
and
then
we'll
make
the
changes
and
then
the
review,
the
change
and
Implement
in
the
service
or
it
gets
rejected,
and
then
we'll
go
back
to
the
person
who
originally
raised
it
to
explain
the
reasons
why
it's
not
been
added
to
the
to
the
list.
C
We
do
find
that
there
are
a
lot
of
duplicated
entries
coming
through
or
some
very,
very
basic
terms
that
will
come
through.
You
know
that
we're
not
really
quite
sure
what
they
are,
so
we
do
have
a
backlog
at
the
moment
where
that
we're
going
through
and
to
decide
whether
they
get
added
or
they
come
here
or
they
just
get
rejected.
B
A
Think
I
think
this
is
about
the
the
hierarchy
kind
of
thing,
I
think
if
and
Chris
you
might
have
had
an
example
in
document,
but
if
there,
if
it's
a
form
of
another
exercise
just
with
their
own
unique
spin
on
it,
then
I
think
it
should
be
grouped
under
that,
rather
than
appearing
in
the
main,
the
top
level
of
the
hierarchy.
I
think
that's
that's
the
kind
of
rules
that
we
were
exploring
because.
A
Doesn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
when
you,
when
you
just
when
you
just
look
at
the
top
level
list,
there
are
things
that
are
huge:
National
Sports,
but
they're
buried
down
three
levels:
deep
in
the
hierarchy
in
some
cases,
whereas
something
Niche
and
new
is,
is
at
the
top
level.
So
I
think
it's
those
kind
of
things
just
to
to
relate
it,
that
that
was
my
thinking.
C
Not
only
so
far
as
that,
you
know,
I've
tried
to
have
a
look
at
the
list
and
trying
to
come
up
with
that.
You
know
an
example
of
potential
hierarchy
of
how
it
could
you
know
I
mean
because
I
think
currently
glass
counts.
There
are
709
activities
on
the
list
at
the
moment
and
that's
how
I
said.
There's
you
know
you.
C
It
starts
off
what
American
football
and
then
you
have
aerobics
and
it's
ballooning,
and
you
know
those
are
your
top
level
ones,
so
I've
kind
of
looked
at
narrowed
it
down
to
like
10,
11,
12
sort
of
you
know
top
level
terms
that
we
could
use
around
and
then
we
sort
of
Branch
off.
But
it's
very
much
a
work
in
progress
at
the
moment.
So
once
I've
kind
of
got
something
together
more
than
happy
to
share
out
with
the
group
and
and
to
get
feedback
and
comments
from
that.
A
I
think
so,
and
I
think
we
can
be
informed
by
those
other
groupings
that
are
already
in
place.
So
the
the
active
live
survey
and
Sport
England
they
use
they
have
a
another
top
level
kind
of
breakdown
which,
which
you
know
perhaps
we
could
adopt
or
align
with
so
I'll,
move
on
from
that.
But
there
was
one
other
thing
about
the.
F
Sorry
can
I
make
a
quick
comment
on
the
previous
yeah,
which
is
just
I'm,
not
sure
it's
kind
of
in
here
directly,
but
maybe
there's
a
consideration
here
around
consumer
expectations
as
a
key
driver
as
the
way
that
we
construct
our
list,
because
obviously
the
reason
the
list
exists
as
distinct,
proactive
lives
and
others
is
to
help
people
find
stuff.
So
the
usefulness
of
that
list-
I
guess
it's
measured
by
the
average
person
looking
for
X
thing.
A
A
F
I
think
it's
difficult,
because
different
sports
will
know
what
their
consumers
I
think
and
so
I,
don't
you
know.
Obviously
the
idea
of
the
Activities
Committee
was
privacy
to
have
engagement
from
those
sports.
But
if
you
talk
to
someone
in
kayaking,
they
will
give
you
a
very
clear
idea
of
the
five
types
of
whatever
you
know
if
you're
a
kayaking,
this
is
a
space
that
you
understand.
These
are
the
things.
A
Yeah
and
I
think
the
but
having
a
kind
of
a
renewed
interest
in
the
activity
list,
which
is
what
we're
trying
to
promote
and
taking
that
you
know,
is
a
kind
of
tool
to
go
out
to
national
government
bodies
and
say
help
help
us
refine
this.
You
know:
are
your
sports
correctly
labeled
and
described
all
those
kind
of
things,
I
think
it's
an
opportunity
to
kind
of
engage
there
as
well.
I
will
move
on
if
that's
okay,
because
we've
got
a
few
minutes
left,
but
I
wanted
to
ask
this
question.
A
So
what
are
the
impacts
to
more
regular
changes
to
the
list
and
are
there
any?
You
know,
thoughts
around
I,
guess
I'm
interested
in
how
people
use
this?
Do
they
download
a
static
copy
and
build
that
into
the
system?
You
know
and
periodically
check
and
see
if
anything's
changed
or
are
they
reading
from
the
live
Json,
and
is
it
going
to
mess
with
your
user
interfaces?
A
If
there
are
changes
constantly,
one
solution
might
be
to
we
have
the
live
list,
but
we
we
published
just
an
annual
snapshot,
so
the
people
who
want
to
take
advantage
of
the
latest
activities
can
do
so,
but
those
that
are
built
in
like
a
slower,
more
stable
systems.
Perhaps
we
can
just
use
a
snapshot.
Any
thoughts
on
that.
F
I
could
I
could
start
with
talking
to
the
guidance
and
the
way
that
people
have
implemented
it
when
we've
worked
on
that
24-hour
updates
in
by
and
large,
so
every
they're
pulling
every
night
from
the
activity
lesson
using
that
something
that
I'm
in
as
a
company
does
as
well,
so
it
the
activity
this
was
designed
from
the
beginning
to
be
fairly
regularly
updated.
You
know
not
waiting
weeks
for
those
updates
to
come
through
and
that's
the
advice
we've
been
giving
all
the
way
through
implementation.
F
The
the
other
side
of
that,
though,
is
that,
while
the
the
list
might
change
new
items,
get
added
things
get
moved
around
things.
Getting
deleted
is
a
thing
and
that,
but
I
think
I
mean
is
there's
a
challenge
there.
We
don't
have
a
deletions
process
or
there's
no
way
of
doing
that.
Well
at
the
moment,
and
so
the
consequence
of
deleting
an
item
from
the
list
currently
is
not
a
good
one
in
that
anything
that
was
previously
tagged
with.
That
will
then
disappear
from
the
search
results
because
it
doesn't
exist
anymore.
F
The
other
reason
that
deleting
is
difficult
is
because
there
are
situations
where
IDs
are
hard-coded
part
of
the
guidance
around
IDs.
Is
that
they're
very
unlikely
to
change?
Although
the
description
might
change
the
word,
tennis
won't
change
so,
for
example,
British
cycling.
The
cycling
types
in
the
list
are
hard-coded
into
the
British
cycling
system
and
used
to
publish
data
from
there.
F
So,
although
there
so
if
there
was
a
new
type
of
cycling,
added
British
cycling
wouldn't
adopt
that
immediately,
because
it's
hard-coded
so
for
system
for
systems
where
hard
coding
makes
sense,
because
there's
less
options
and
they've
already
got
strong
alignment
there.
It's
hard-coded
difficult
to
change,
but
systems
where
that's
not
the
case.
It's
generally
a
nightly
thing,
however,
deleting
is
going
to
be
a
difficult
problem
in
both
cases.
B
So
for
the
use
case
that
we
have,
is
we
download
a
list
of
the
the
activities
around
every
month
or
something
like
that,
and
then
we
explicitly
link
all
of
the
open,
active
IDs
with
our
facilities.
So
removing
an
item
from
that
list
would
potentially
leave
a
load
of
facilities
without
an
activity
or
cause
horrendous
data,
deletion,
Cascades
or
whatever,
but
yeah
I
would
probably
say,
but
deleting
something
from
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
bad
idea.
B
A
Okay,
someone
had
asked
about
campaign
tagging,
and
so
this
is
filtering
on
activities
and
the
specific
example
they
asked
was
about
this
girl
can
and
how
you
can
do
that
in
the
activity
list
and
in
the
data
feed
and
so
or
in
the
activity
finders.
So
here's
an
example
of
a
a
concept
collection
which
is
basically
a
reduced
version
of
the
activity
list
and
this
one's
specifically
for
this
girl,
Cam
and
again
it
can
be.
A
A
So
that's
just
a
very
quick
plug
for
that.
If
anyone's
got
any
more
questions,
we
can,
we
can
discuss,
get
in
touch
and
the
other
final
thing
I
wanted
to
share
was
just
the
data.
Quality
Reporting
work
is
ongoing,
we're
almost
at
the
stage
where
we
can
generate
summaries
at
the
individual
feed
level,
and
we
know
that
there
were
other
requests
so
at
the
site
level,
for
example
as
well,
but
just
overall
we
had
700
000
opportunities
the
other
day
and
some
decent.
A
Some
decent
figures
I
think
the
the
much
higher
than
the
original
estimates
that
I'd
done
when
I'm
looking
at
the
data.
So
there's
still
some
things
to
work
on,
but
just
thought
I'd
share
that
there
brilliant.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you,
Beck
and
Liz
for
joining
and
and
talking
about
active
places
and
everyone
for
all
the
input
and
and
ideas.
Much
appreciated
and
I'll
be
interesting
with
the
agenda
for
next
time.
All
right
cheers.