W3C OpenActive Community Group, 29 Mar 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2023-03-29

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

So uh I'm Andrew, Newman, I'm, principal great specialist, the air, conditioner Institute and as part of that role, I've been asked to pick up. The chair of the w3c working group. um Howard is going to continue joining us here as our technical expert, um so between us. Hopefully, we can make these schools work quite well.

A

um If you aren't already a member, uh please join the w3c community group. um There's a link uh on this slide, which will be in the deck when you receive them, and uh you can also find it really easily on the open, active website uh or via Google.

A

um Today on the agenda, we wanted to talk about mapping activities for to facility types um and kind of describing add-on for services or services that are at a facility. So actually this is about how we describe the places activities happen essentially um and at the end uh we want to have a discussion about future topics and how we prioritize them um so that we can have a bit more of a plan about how we run these calls and the things that we do at these schools in the future.

A

um So I think at that point. um Howard can I hand over to you to talk about the the activism facilities type problem.

A

Is how it's still here.

B

Yeah I'm sorry.

A

Yeah cool, thank you. Howard.

B

I'm, not gonna I'm, not gonna, do a great deal of talk today. I'm gonna hand over to see if that's okay, but under that um heading is a link. If so, it might help if you just want to click on that and that will bring relevant screen up.

B

um But if it's okay, Sarah I, can hand over to you, because I can I can barely speak today. Yeah.

C

Absolutely um yeah, so this issue is to do with the activity. The opacity type activity, mapping, and so the mapping um already exists, um and this issue is more to define the exact nature of that of that mapping, um and uh what I would like to see is that they are um strictly equivalent.

C

So when going from a facility type to a mapping um by this I mean that a tennis Court should map directly to tennis, but an indoor sports Hall should not have any activities mapped to it, because it is not strictly equivalent to any activities, as you can do lots of activities.

C

um This is helpful because there are some um the facility providers that exist currently that provide that give you an activity, um but not a facility type um I, think they're, predominantly Legend in Gladstone, Building Systems at the moment, um just Legend, well just Legend um yeah, um so lots of our implementers are using the facility type query parameter, and so we need to do that.

C

Mapping in order to surface the facility users um and the the second use for this is if um there is a use case where somebody was booking a a tennis court, and you also wanted to suggest some tennis lessons to them. It's useful to know what the tennis court, what activity, what session activities these would a facility type, would not take um so yeah, it's it's about the nature of the uh of the mapping and how they should be strictly equivalent.

C

um The the pr that I've raised addresses uh some of these non-equivalences, um so I think the drama Studio mapped to dance um and what I've done there I think I've removed drama Studio because well I've removed doubt sorry from that mapping, because you can do multiple things in a drama. Studio um I've changed the cricket net mapping to the activity qriket Nets. Instead of the activity cricket and a few more and yeah.

C

That's that! Does anyone have any questions.

D

Are you setting this up, so it's a two-way mapping so or is it just kind of like a like a tree treasure foreign.

C

I, don't think it's a two-way mapping, because um in most cases you can do activities in multiple facility types. So, for example, if we want to attend us, there could be an indoor tennis court or an outdoor tennis court or some something else, um whereas so you can't yeah if you've got something that has a mapping of tennis, you can't necessarily say that it has to be in a transport, but the other way mapping the facility type to activity mapping is. There is well I think this might be deals.

E

So this is I'm, not quite sure. I'm following I might have been just a little bit dim here. So what we're saying is the current functionality? Was it we're looking to change it to you, and this is coming from a specific customer or a provided operator or as this generic rolled out across all operators and all software providers.

F

um There was a long discussion about our facility type um being used instead of activities for facilities um and the um the reason for that was that there was uh earlier on in the evolution of an active. There was this idea that you could label facilities with a activity type, and that would be the most useful way of doing it.

F

So this example, instead of labeling a football pitch as a football pitch, you would label it as football instead of labeling um a tennis court as a tennis court, you've labeled it as a tenor um that worked in a very limited sense or some of the data and some of the use cases.

F

But when expanded out to broader use cases, especially around schools, it quickly became obvious that we can't it's more complicated than that when you go outside the basic football tennis, netball Etc, because you get into drama Studios and um classrooms and dance studios and multi-use games, areas and a whole bunch of other things, um and those spaces need to be called from, also use games, area or a drama Studio or a dance studio, rather than trying to make them into a tennis court or sorry. Trying to say what sport happens so yeah so.

E

It's the same thing as the Sports World Sports world is multi-use, so it might be badminton. It might be networking basketball.

F

Exactly that that's right, and with um with as a Everyone Active um example, um Everyone Active cell uh access to a badminton court for a fee within the sports school, so the product you're purchasing is badminton courts. You know once.

E

Any Leisure operator, not necessarily everyone, acted, so it would be the same thing yeah. That's.

F

Right, absolutely absolutely, and and sometimes in a school you've been just up a whole special as the thing that you're purchasing, so you can actually have you know, and that would be facility type so and, and that led to the conversation about, we should probably have facility types as a thing instead of activity so rather than trying to label everything with the activities that could happen in there, because when you've got a sports tour and a multi games area like 15 different activities which isn't helpful for searching or for the end user, if the end user is actually just looking for a sports store or looking for a multi-use games area in their search experience so help them find the things they're looking for.

F

um Therefore, we want to switch the label, so the conclusion was switch. The labels to facility use um sorry facility types facility types um is something that has been implemented by everyone: who's publishing facility data, um except for Legends, um because their implementation predates that um and Gladstone luckily um includes both so Gladstone have implemented. um Aws implements both activity and facility type against the uh facility use as options.

F

So you could just not tag an activity in there and only Tag Facility um type and without any code change you'd be able to conform to the the new approach, I suppose or facility uses.

F

Does that help us out.

C

um Yeah, and specifically with what this is addressed, the old um functionality was slightly vague and it didn't didn't specify that the the equivalence nature between facility type and activity um in in the macron. So um what I'm? What I've suggested here is that if there is an activity on um in them in the mapping against a facility type, it must be exactly equivalent. It must be tennis court to tennis it can't be tennis court to Indoor Sports, so.

A

Well, can I ask a a question so if you've got tennis court mapped to tennis, would that in any way prevent that tennis court being used to host I know badminton.

C

um No uh no well, yes,.

F

It's the labels. So if you imagine um real real use case talk to the Everyone Active operator, sorry to the right now and he's on my screen uh and uh and doesn't even work for Everyone Active, so um so Legend.

F

uh If we talk about, um let's say a legend operator, uh let's say who is um legal trust um who've got to tag their activities in Legends such they can be useful for people that using their data, so that operator that person who's um administering the system will have a list of activities in front of them from the activity list, which is you know, there's 500 something different activities and we want to be able to give them clear instruction to say in order to be featured in the searches of all the many searches that are around that use facility type, not activity now as their primary search function.

F

You need to pick some stuff in this list in front of you that's going to map across to what's in the list. Everyone else is using, and so basically there's 500 options, but here's a little cheat sheet of 30 that you can choose that will actually work in the new Andy Old World um and that only works because there's no problems so any of those dirty that are chosen. If you choose Cricket net you'll know that the qriket nest is mapped to Cricket next um fertility type.

F

So it's a 120, whereas at that moment qriket Nets is that to Cricket. So if they chose qriket Nets it we can actually label it correctly.

F

um So it allows for that kind of cheat sheet to be provided and that that um temporary, but possibly not temporary, because we don't know when Merchant's gonna get around to doing that work. So it might be a couple years until you know that that needs to you teaching for that type of activity is.

F

um uh It expires.

F

It's interim things: if you like it's about making sure that the insurance Works effectively, because then this this was put together, that fix wasn't being used.

A

uh I guess my question was about just just putting this fix in place, break anything else and make anything out restrict anything else from being possible.

F

Don't believe so because the uh the this is a mapping, that's within the list itself, rather than on any any systems that are connected to it yeah, so there's no work required for anyone else in the ecosystem. Just this just enables uh users of data to um map for data such that it can be standardized across.

E

So this will be a standardized list that will be offered via URL as such that they can actually just map to rather than potentially having as they want us at web. So there's a list being standardized. Basically, what will become the facility is.

F

There's already a list of facility types: this is standardizing the mapping of what activities map to certain types. So, if you're like in in Legend, where you've got to choose from the 500 options, which of those are mapped to the the new list,.

A

As well, hi Debbie.

G

Oh yeah, I just don't know whether we've got something already in place that does this I. Don't know, um I need things in simple terms: I apologize because throw it you guys.

G

A lot of you live and breathe this, but we come in it once every two weeks and it's not because when I was familiar with all the terminology that you just throw out there constantly so, um but when I look at the open data manager from a Gladstone perspective, I've got a facility use which is golf simulator and the only facility type I can tick, is driving range or Golf Course.

G

So what are you saying? Would change about that? Behavior.

F

Well, actually, what we need to change in that case is making sure the golf simulator is on the list of facility types which isn't because that's a great example of a gap which probably someone if someone's searching for a golf simulator you know, would want to be able to see that. But.

G

The fact that that activity has an activity, reference of golf means that those are the only two facility types being given to me as an option currently.

B

Tell it here can I just jump in Demi is that those options uh are visible to you on your internal system. Is that right.

G

Well, it's the godstone yeah.

B

Open that yeah, so at some point either those are being drawn from a central list or there's a you know: Gladstone have created a list, I think what I've put in the chat is the um is a link to the the kind of centrally hosted list of facility types which is the one that Nick has just suggested is: is missing, golf's limited simulators um and under each concept to their Sports Hall.

B

You know a few lines down and there are no mapped activities um and that's the point we're saying, because the Sports all could be used for for a great deal. um And then, if you look at squash code, then it's linked to some specific activities.

B

What we're saying is that um those mappings have been reviewed um and that there are some refinements to be made.

B

I think I think that's that's what we're trying to say in a minute. So at the minute this facility types list exists. It's a little bit, um it's not as clear and as visible as the activity list. We've talked quite a bit about the activities over the last couple of um calls and I'd like to see the facility types list.

B

um You know, given the same kind of Precedence and Clarity around what it's there for and how it works. So we can keep things like up to date. If, if you've got new facility types that are out on the list, we need a process to kind of keep it up to date. So I'll stop talking now perform voice calls, but that was a I just wanted to say that.

G

So if you're, ultimately going to change that list- and that's don't appear to have appear to be using that list- then what that means from our perspective is- we would have to go in and update all the facility type selections against all the activities after the changes have been made. Is that right.

C

Yeah um but there are very few changes that have been suggested.

A

C

Yeah I think I think it's just all changes. Maybe five changes, um okay, that I'm not quite equivalent so, for example, um squash court here- is a good example.

C

um Links to fives um so I've removed that, because a five score is different to a squash court um and uh moved um squash 57, which is the new name for racquetball away from squash court and put it into racquetball court yeah.

G

C

If, if a facility says that it is a the activity that it provides, is racquetball, then we can now map that to say: oh, this is a racquetball court. Instead of saying this is a squash ball.

G

Okay, so I think, like from an operator's perspective, I find it really difficult to keep track of these changes, so when you make uh so that when we can go and update all of our stuff, what's that process does it exist.

F

I think that's what Howard was talking about. Yeah I part of this. uh The the previous conversations you had about the activity list is that there isn't a processor at the moment um for well. There was a process for activity list stuff.

F

It wasn't working that well, there's been a suggestion, I think in this form of a new process for activity, that's stuff which is going to include a better communication around, what's happening, more transparency, a clearer process and and there's how it's just suggested there that that should include this list as well as the activity list. So it's a holistic approach.

A

um Notifications I mean both this. uh Both this data facilities, types of data and the activity lists are reference data and actually people who are using that reference data should be aware that it will change over time and have a process in place for adopting the change data, and you may do that by actually linking to the the list itself and using that data from Source or you might do that by having a process for taking a copy of the data on a regular basis and updating it.

G

um Yeah I think that's a bit naive if I'm, honest sorry just to say like we're.

B

G

Here cross-referencing a a list once every month to see if anything's changed, we need to be told if something changes so that we can take action against it and where these facility is in here that are only Associated to one facility type, then the Management console or whatever it is of godstone or legend or whatever, should, by default, just associate to that facility type to save the operator work, because all we're doing with all these conversations is pushing more work onto US to manage that data and it does become really own saunas like and then we're just told the data's rubbish.

G

Well, that's because she changed something in times it was changing. So then we couldn't go back and update it, because we haven't got time to sit and validate all that list change this month. So now we need to go and look at everything.

E

Yeah I I'd Echo that because it changes happening in then yes, if it's something that we need to do from a development perspective, we obviously need to factor those pictures in. In this case it doesn't look like it is it's it's an extension to what's being offered at this moment of time in the mapping, which is great, there's a communication between software operators and we're all set on behalf of Everyone Active. So if there's a change, it's probably better that comes from us. If not it's in this instance.

E

Here it's a list, that's been updated, so that could be said through us or it could be a communication that goes out. Do all the operators. It depends what's being implemented.

A

Yeah I would I would agree on this. Stephen you've been very patient.

E

H

Just thanks Andrew just wanted to go and just make a couple of comments about. Some of the comments have been made already. I mean Sid, made an example about the racket, um racquetball um and I. Think as an operator I think everybody knows that you play racquetball on a squash court, Leisure, centers and Facilities that we run don't have racquetball courts, they don't exist. We have Squash Courts, so in that example, I mean.

H

Maybe that was just a random example: SIV that you're gay but I I we're not going to change our branding our marketing and then our side is just to say: we've got racquetball courts so that we can signpost. People have actually gone far a different route to make a booking racquetball court because it just don't exist, they're, not there and then you've got another activity type.

H

uh Sorry another activity to take table tennis, for example, um which and I don't quite know how we've mapped ours to the facility type, because you can do table tennis on any activity. At any space. Squash court Studio, spin studio, Sports wall Fireside football Court. You can do it anyway. You can put a table. Tennis table anyway, so we're not restricted by facility type as to where we do table tennis.

H

So I just wanted to throw those into the Melting Pot as considerations, because um whilst I know that within the Open Play System, the flow we've got facility type and we map all our activities activity templates to our facility type. um We don't want to be restricted necessarily by that um so I'm. Just calling that out, just just as a consideration.

H

C

That's fair about the racquetball one um I think that's probably the more contentious change, one of the more contentious changes that I've um suggested, um which probably on a you know, think about it practically um I think you're right. The other changes I've suggested are much simpler, which are things that if you tag something with the activity, if you tag a facility with the activity, Cricket net yeah um it maps to the facility type Cricket net, um it's that sort of thing um it yeah.

E

A

Sorry you're a bit quiet, Sandy.

E

I'm work, yeah, okay, um so Steve I mean I, hear you're, saying that these are suggestions of things. But what Forum are these being floated around? More so from The Operators perspective to get their buy-in? Is it viable? Does it work rather than if the list that's compiled and we're gonna throw out? There is.

C

So there's nothing already exists and is being used by everyone.

E

I understand the mappings existing, but where you're saying you're, proposing tweaked to change the structure. Where are those where where's the research taking place and with what operators and such to form that findings.

C

um The well no West uh this forum, I suppose.

F

Can I just um sorry can I, just sorry can I just say: I think we might be two different things here. So there's the list and adding golf simulator to the list as an example which sounds like it requires some consultation to everyone who's using the list to know the golf simulator has been added and then to use golf simulator, that's one thing: there's the list being updated in general and the system's. Knowing it's updated, Andrew to your point. It's automatically everyone's currently using it live. Is there any updates we'll go through?

F

There's no need for any any system intervention there. um That's the second thing, um so the first bit is there at this point there will be work required if we add something like golf simulator. Everyone needs to know about that. The second thing is System point which actually does no work required. So that's that's, okay. To know about that. What Andrew's, then saying is you know, where's the consultation, if there's big changes being made.

F

um This particular thing we're talking about here is a mapping, nothing to do with the um the kind of list that you're seeing in terms of the end user or anything like that, and the mapping value, as I mentioned before the primary use case, for that is the person who's using Legend, knowing what they can choose as a cheat sheet from their list of uh the activity list in order to correctly label the facility types. So that's just saying, I've got a list of 500 things. I want to call this a squash court.

F

I know I need to choose squash from that list in order that it comes through a squash court.

E

Sorry, I might be, I might be jumping on this. You reference Legend, but we need to keep this generic. It doesn't matter about the operator and the operating system. The software.

F

Sorry I understood it's more because Legend's, the only one that hasn't got um the capability to associate facility types directly, so everyone else is using this list as a a list as Stephen mentioned, and as as it and it's in Gladstone as well. This list has been used as the list um within the legend system, uniquely the list isn't available and they're using the uh the activity lists instead, and so that this is the mapping and there might other be the other systems in future that have a similar problem so you're.

F

Absolutely it should be it's a generic um generically available mapping that can help other people as well, um and it's helpful to have that there. um The the use case, if you like for the mapping, is quite it's quite Limited.

D

Yeah I think I'd point out that we did actually use this mapping when migrating from um activities to activity types. Sorry facility types, um so this was actually very helpful for us when we moved over.

F

They're useful, so yes, these are useful habit that absolutely they use the the use case um is more of an operational one for the operator just to label the things as they want to label them, rather than it's, the the nuanced of like whether we should include golf simulator, which is a good discussion, is kind of a different type of conversation, I suppose, because this is just more of an operational, getting things mapped across and people can press the button, so so I.

A

Think in terms of managing the list you know adding changing, updating and stuff. We we should be able to do a lot. We should. We should be able to create a process fairly easily based on the work that we've done around the activity list and things we've agreed there. So I think that's something we can do. The management of the content of the list is at the top level or something we can. We can improve fairly quickly, I think um and Howard.

A

Maybe that's something we need to pick up with Chris when he's uh feeling better um and it's a logical extension of sort of the activity list work that he's been doing. So that's, that's fine, I, I, think the thing that's still wobbling around in my head is this: this equivalence point, so you know I'm relatively new to this I'm struggling to understand. If what I'm struggling to understand is, if we say a tennis court is a tennis court and we link it to the activity of tennis.

A

Does that prevent anyone? Then you having that tennis court bookable for badminton and I, think that comes to Steven's Point as well, about not having um fives courts having Squash Courts.

F

Yeah, that's right, it doesn't happen.

A

Because you, wouldn't you just wouldn't use the mapping, is that right.

F

F

You mentioned would choose spams. Of course they wanted to use. They wanted to label something for us, abandonment Court. They would know lots of badminton court yeah.

F

List is used, it's just a list that can be used.

C

So I think what I'm trying to get at with this list and I think I think you're right about the Prides and the the racquetball so I'll make those changes, but the the one example I think is that makes things really clear is um if you tag something with dance. If you tag a facility with the activity, dance it and then use this mapping, um that would mean the thing. The thing that you tagged with dance is a drama Studio, and that is not correct, because it could be a drama Studio.

C

It could be a multi-use space, it could be a dance studio. It could be lots of other things.

C

um So what I've done is in the the drama, Studios uh facility type I've removed the activity of darts, so that, if you tag something with dance, it's not saying that this is a drama Studio and that's the nature of the mapping that I'm trying to well I'm suggesting that we sort of nail down is that if you, if there is an activity that is tagged onto a facility type, if someone were to tag something with that activity, then it is correct to say that that thing is that facility types.

C

So if you tag it with dots, you're saying that it is a drama studio, for example, is what you could take from the mapping as it is, and I would say that that is incorrect.

C

Does that make a bit more sense? I'm, sorry, I haven't presented this in the best possible way.

A

That does make more sense. If thank you um does that reassure other people.

H

Guys, I'm, okay with this I I, don't I, don't doesn't bother me if you add more facility types to the list.

H

You know it's a generic list, isn't it Nick if I remember at least, therefore, what open Play presenting to me is the agreed list as per the standard which I'm assuming in fact, I just went back and just double checked, while we're on the court when we're discussing it about table tennis table, at least as an example, I want to see where we've actually located it to me and because we couldn't decide where to put it, we put it in the multi multi-purpose, Sports area, I think which they don't exist either, but because you can put a table tennis anywhere, we decided that's, probably the best label, but then I noticed.

H

Actually you have got a facility type called table tennis table which actually isn't a facility type anyway, it's just a piece of apparatus. Isn't it so? That's that's exception to your facility type rule, because I couldn't see any of the facility types that weren't pieces of apparatus, they're all spaces.

A

Oh, that's a table tennis one's really interesting I was.

H

A

Was a sport England thing on Monday and talked to someone from table tennis England and they very much view tennis tables as facilities in their own right, and then they can put those facilities anywhere in any in any geography in any location.

A

um The other example was um kit bags that are available from cafes to borrow in parks that was I also started, winning how we'd model that yeah.

H

That's interesting, but that doesn't quite work from a configuration perspective, though that approach I, think from the table, tennis people, but nevertheless I think you get the point of making so listen. I haven't got a problem. If you want to add more more facility types, then go ahead and do them.

F

Does that mean that Stephen, you would and now you've seen table tennis? Actually, if you configured table tennis instead of not to use games, that would work for your configuration.

H

Yeah, because we don't use this for programming, don't forget! This is only purely for open, active.

F

Yeah great, oh great, oh good, so yeah.

H

Tables yeah, but what we don't want to do is confuse the customer. That's the whole thing. So if we're giving it a label of of multi-purpose area- and that doesn't exist in our latest sense, because not all of them have got multi-purpose areas, then that could cause a little bit of confusion. But now I can I can flag it. I can link it to facility type table tennis table that kind of makes a bit more sense because that can be put anyway.

F

That is great news and just to kind of round off on the the different points. um Racquetball I just had a quick check on Google very um useful source for these kind of things, although obviously people know a lot more racquetball courts. The 40 me 40 feet long 20 feet wide and 20 feet. High official squash courts are 32 feet, long 21 feet wide and 18 feet high. So it sounds like a racquetball court is a distinct thing from a squash court.

F

It's just that in this case, squash courts are being used to play racquetball if I understood. That rightly.

H

Yeah yeah I think you have it I I, don't know anywhere in the UK. That's got dedicated racquetball courts, I. Think it's an American thing if I remember rightly um so, they probably have got dedicated racquetball courts in the States, but I haven't seen any in the UK. In any of my travels and you know, we've got 250 letter locations haven't come across one. So therefore racquetball is played on a squash court.

F

Well, this is it so I I guess I was thinking here. If the point of this equivalent is to give people like Legends the ability to label racquetball as a racquetball court or for squash as a squash court, it sounds likely that, if you're playing racquetball in this country, you're going to be booking a squash court, you're not going to expect to book a racketball court, because you know that there aren't any yeah.

H

And Debbie correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure Dave will have the same experience I'm almost certain.

A

I'm gonna assume you're right, Debbie, didn't say anything. Oh.

G

A

G

Did say yes, but whether well I didn't come through the mic. I, don't know fair.

A

H

G

Quickly, maybe it was too quick.

H

F

H

Sounds like in that case maybe.

F

Having the racquetball evidence- and that would be helpful because it.

B

Miles people too.

F

Reference record, but as a as a study topic they want to, and in this and this country, in all cases, we're aware of at least it probably won't be used because they're all squash scores, um but we don't want to be calling the racquetball courts because they're not records I, guess it's. The thing I was trying to put my head around.

F

It sounds like we want to make sure they're labeled correctly out of the Scottish court, because they're only the they're, only the ones that we have, rather than just they're, so they're, trying to say something like racquetballs courts and squash courts and the same thing. So we just want to label anyway, you can play racquetball as a racquetball court, but that sounds you see what I mean. That's probably not the right way around.

C

That's great I will um undo the the change that proposed there. um The the other activity under squash court is maybe even more uh confusing than the racquetball example, which is fives.

C

um There are five squats in the UK, but there are very few and far between um and I think most people that want to play Vibes play on a squash court.

C

So what what do we do there, because um Livescore is very unique because I think it was modeled in some eaten Corridor or something ridiculous and has like a Nook and a cranny in the court or something so well. What do we want to do for that example? Where do if someone offers, if someone tags a facility as the activity fives are we saying that that is is probably a five score, or is it probably a squash sport or because it's unclear, should we not map it to any facility type whatsoever.

A

So, just in the interest of time- because there was another issue we wanted to talk about today- I think we should come back to this in a future conversation, and perhaps people should have a think about equivalence of facility types, two activities.

A

So so it feels like we've kind of moved the conversation on some way, but perhaps not to a conclusion, um but I think perhaps if perhaps the action here is that people going away and consider this, and then we have a 10 minutes on the next call, where we actually make a decision around this.

A

um So we I think we all understandable challenges now.

A

H

Puts it into the slack Channel happy to comment on it separately.

A

um We'll do that definitely um so uh that was really interesting. Thank you.

A

um So the other issue that we wanted to talk about today, uh which is similar, is around add-ons, so I think this is the principle that um I don't know if you book a uh astro turf tennis uh football pitch um that football pitch can also offer you food lighting, or if you book a tennis court, there are tennis rackets, available, um I, guess the examples go on and on and on um so I'll just open the issue up, so people can see it.

A

um This was proposed by Nathan, but I. Don't think he's on the call so Howard do you want to just give us a.

H

Bit any more info.

A

D

um Background, if that's helpful,.

A

Oh that'd be good. Sorry, you disappeared off the top of my zoom yeah.

D

Okay, so essentially, um this is something that we built into book Tech um a while ago and basically to support people that wanted to provide racket hire. um But we found, as we've released this feature, um that it's used for a lot of different things.

D

um So for sporting activities, it's normally equipment higher, but it can also be um things that require setup. So um the uh what was the example, the for like Cricket notes and stuff um like bringing Cricket balls, even if there's no cost involved in that or any kind of other setup that's required.

D

So um one use was for a more used, Gaming Arena to put up some uh tennis Nets um and just things like that to be able to specify a little bit more detail kind of additional things to the required as part of your booking um and another use case is uh like catering and stuff for um space hire.

D

So all of these use cases we call add-ons- um and it's just a uh either an optional or required addition to a booking that um has a cost or not a cost, depending on what is.

A

Okay, cool, thank you, um so I guess other people's thoughts on this as an idea.

H

Well well interesting: we don't offer that now through our existing open Play solution flow doesn't allow us to do add-ons.

H

E

Would you like it yeah likewise well,.

H

There's a lot of things we'd like it to do actually Andrew. um uh It all depends where, where it appears on the list, you know we've all got lists as long as our arms dead people have an equivalent list for Andrew and uh Randy, and we've got an equivalent list for summer open place so um yeah. Of course it all makes sense everything. You know all these things have uh um better facilities and features for our customers to make their experience better.

H

um You know, but but of course, ultimately, we've got to be able to fulfill that at the other end you know, so we've got to make sure that stock is available when they turn up. If somebody's booked, a squash court or and they want squash rackets as an example, they want to buy squash balls. You know, we've got to make sure we've got them there, so you know I I, don't know it's. It's a good idea. Do I need it now, probably not it's I mean it shouldn't get done. No, it doesn't.

A

Cool, thank you. uh Andy I think you were trying to come in on that as well. No.

E

I was literally just confirm the same Stephen. You know that it probably is something that would everyone out there would love to have on the list, but it's not current offering at the moment.

A

D

I think I would should mention a couple of things about this. First off it is entirely optional.

D

um So the way that we've structured it um it doesn't require you to supply add-on information um and when you're booking you don't actually have to supply add-ons if you're um broker doesn't support it.

D

um The other thing that we've intentionally kind of semi-excluded is um monitoring stock levels and just because that's probably a little bit too complicated and would require another another feed in order to monitor that. So we do have an error which basically says that there's not enough stock available at the time of booking and so during the C2 request.

D

um But apart from that, we just kind of ignore stock levels entirely.

A

Yeah all right well um any other thoughts.

H

If we, um this is not available through the open-based solution at the moment, Andrew um uh and Nathan, so but it, but if, if it was- and we decided to ignore it, then because it's optional then what's the value.

D

Foreign, the value is, it does allow you to capture this information in kind of like a nice standard way.

D

So if you've got lots of booking platforms which do support add-ons as a broker, then you don't have to worry about how they support add-ons, which is kind of entirely what the specification is for to reduce the amount of discussion required, and these kind of in these kind of things.

B

G

I guess the danger, with all of these things that you add in is that we're in this position, where the clients are told it's possible and then they want it. So then we're backed into a corner of having to do something about it, even though it's not available on even on our own booking systems.

G

So if both myself and Stephen are saying, this is not really a priority for us at all, then why would you consider putting it in because then the pressure just loops around, because whoever it is that um you know Converses with our clients and says it's possible that just comes back around to us and we have to do it. It's like having something as optional when it's not really optional, because as soon as somebody sees it, they want it.

D

A

So I see what you mean and I do appreciate.

D

The concern so.

A

From a specifications point of view, this probably isn't something we're building to the specification at the moment, based on what I'm hearing, but it's an extension that we know exists in in the kind of playground of book Tech world that if at some point we did find a requirement, we could then bring into the specification. Is that how we would deal with that.

D

uh Yeah I think so I think that makes a lot of sense. Okay,.

F

Cool Community question is: do we do we put it in as beat, or do we put it in as a specific book, Tech extension, because if it was beta, then other people can experiment with it, and that means that when they come to actually I I totally agree, it shouldn't go straight into the spec because we're near enough implementation experience for that to be the case yeah and it sounds like there's not going to be that for a while, given what even Debian said, um but it might be that other booking systems will be implemented in this in future.

F

You know if they're interested, so it might be a benefit to put it in beta and allow that experimentation, which also deals with Debbie's point, because it's in beta it won't be something that is going to be asked for as a core part of the spec, in the way that other things could be and to be fair. Even if it's an extension, it could still be asked for by a client. So nothing protects us from that. However, it's documented, um even if it's not an extension, it could be processed as a client.

F

It's something that could be added as an extension, so you can't get away from that entirely, but maybe maybe Vita might be uh might be preferable as a thing I.

D

Think that makes sense, because we don't we don't want to be in a situation where the spec doesn't allow you to add extra features in um and therefore potentially harm adoption. If you wanted to add in features but aren't supported in the spec.

A

Okay, that's interesting! Thank you, so you know I'm new. How would we make a decision here as a as a committee or how do we decide? I would.

F

This is a very low bar for beta field, uh getting getting one out of them, so.

B

Yeah I think well the kind of principles mindful of the burden on on the people of the sharp end. Obviously, um but we want to create the opportunity for standardization and Nathan's, you know provided an opportunity if that's hidden away to some extent as an extension for one operator, then the the risk is someone else is going to do something different and move away from that standardization. So it feels like the beta is the correct approach, um and you know, and that that's I think my view, but.

A

No I would agree that sounds sensible. So is there anyone who would completely object to us making this a beta.

D

I think that would probably come down to myself because I'm the one promoting it yeah.

A

And I guess you don't object because you've raised it.

D

No exactly and we're building it in the Tsar part of our integration between book Tech and play finder at the moment, cool.

A

D

So we'll have the most implementation experience going forward. Excellent.

A

That sounds good, that that was I respect. That must be a harder discussion, the first one, but somehow it was easier, so yeah, it's interesting, okay, I feel for this group as we go along. um So the last thing we wanted to do was look at kind of future topics and have a good prioritizing. Some of those sorry.

F

Just just to get clarify next actions on that um uh as a beta field, it was only to be documented in issues in the relevant specification repositories, which it has been anything from that um the next action would be creating pull requests in the NS beta repository with the relevant additions to the namespace referencing this issue, um and then that that is then approved.

F

The more process there um and therefore the validator would recognize the fields as when that gets improved, at which point it's a meter that also ends up going into the impact of documentation as meter Fields, with all the caveats around it, and that's all driven from the that repository, so that next that'll be the next action and then no further work, because the beta fields are self-documenting.

F

The documentation links back to this issue, so anyone I'm implementing would then look at this issue, read to the box and then make some brilliant appendices, and all explanation in that issue is what they would read to understand. What to do and comment as well. If they're interested cool.

A

Thank you, Nick for the qualification, that's helpful, um excellent, so yeah. We wanted to talk about some things that some things that were on our kind of to-do list um and to try and prioritize them a little bit. um Howard's barely got any voice left. So um I think these are things that Howard has drawn out of past discussions and kind of issue lists on GitHub and stuff, like that, is there anything uh and I think the question is you know? Where should we be focusing? What order should we be dealing with these in?

A

Is there anything your dad Howard.

B

No just that we're in that that position we're mindful of any any kind of um enhancements things we're trying to drive forward good things, good ideas, great ideas, whatever Innovations, um ultimately there's a in time. There might be a knockout effect in terms of burden on The Operators of the systems, um but we can't not talk about these things. You know these kind of positive steps forward things like accessibility and how we present that information, so I think that's just introducing the um my thoughts on this.

B

The list came from conversations we had from this group and I think the topic of safeguarding came down from the steering committee and some of the ones in italics. We've already started. We have covered here in certain discussions.

F

A

Have to stop there, okay, so um as we only got three minutes left um I think what I will propose that we do is a forthcoming meeting. We actually have a proper roadmapping session, where we can uh go through some of these areas in a little bit of detail and then do some sort of group prioritization exercise together to prioritize these things, to add things to the list that we want to add so I I.

A

Think for now, if we flag that there are things that we want to prioritize and the next probably at the next meeting. We'll do we'll have a bit of a workshop session and we will do that. Prioritization um I think that's enough and I think what that enables people. Members of the query to do is to go away and to think about uh what things they would want prioritizing. So you know we've got this list, but is that is the stuff that isn't on this list? That would be a candidate.

A

So uh yeah, we all have a prioritization session next time uh we we get together. um Two minutes left. Is there anything else anyone wants to raise today.

A

Great, thank you, I think you've all been quite kind to me for my first w3c call. So thank you for that. I've enjoyed the discussion. It was really interesting um and uh we'll see you at the next call. Thank you for your time today.