►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2017-03-13
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2017Mar/0000.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
All
right:
okay,
as
I
did
last
time,
I've
got
a
few
slides
just
going
to
help
us
structure
the
agenda,
so
I'm
going
to
share
those
with
you.
Hopefully
you
can
all
see
those
slides
now
and
shout
if
you
can't
so
as
I
said
in
the
agenda,
for
this
call,
I
want
to
focus
on.
A
Looking
at
the
other
properties,
ways
that
we
need
to
describe
might
need
to
describe
events,
but
I
got
a
few
just
kind
of
general
updates
on
some
of
the
latest
spec
changes
and
open
discussions,
so
I
think
I'm
just
going
to
jump
straight
into
that,
so
we
could
make
the
most
of
the
time
we've
got
together
day.
A
So
as
just
as
my
general
update,
so
where
we
are
in
the
specification
hope
you
all
have
seen.
The
latest
latest
draft
and
I've
had
some
detailed
feedback
from
I'm
sporting
and
so
far,
so
the
latest
revision
incorporated
a
schema
diagram,
I've
redrafted.
A
couple
of
the
sections
expanded
the
concept
section
to
add
some
notes
around
organizers
and
the
wobble
currently
calling
the
activity
opportunities,
which
is
the
concept
that
Andy
raised
as
being
important
for
some
types
of
activity,
expanded
the
data
model
section.
A
Although
there's
more
work
to
be
done
there
and
wrote
a
section
on
kind
of
future
extensions
to
the
specification.
So
we
had
a
bit
more
of
an
understanding
about
how
this
could
evolve
in
future
for
the
next
revision
I'm
going
to
take
the
the
feedback
that
I've
had
on
list
so
far,
and
the
employee
I
get
from
you
alter
down.
This
call
to
create
a
another
revision
for
circulation
to
the
list.
A
The
the
bits
that
I'm
expecting
that
will
go
in
we've
got
a
major
new
sections
will
be
the
event
property
stuff
which
we're
going
to
discuss
today
and
also
I'm
a
bit
more
detail
on
recurrence
rules
for
capturing
chopard
jewels.
I
also
want
to
start
being
in
some
conformance
criteria,
so
identifying
which
properties
we
recommend
people
always
try
and
include
when
they're
sharing
this
data,
so
that
we
can
nudge
people
towards
sharing
the
most
useful
information.
A
We
can
start
to
build
that
into
some
of
the
validation
tools
as
well,
and
I
also
want
to
include
more
examples,
I'm
going
to
put
some
more
examples
in
a
specification,
but
also
put
them
up
on
github
I'm,
drawing
on,
for
example,
some
of
the
activity
lists
that
have
been
shared
on
list
already
and
some
of
the
other
examples
from
from
at
both
the
ODI
research
and
the
the
open
days
that
people
are
already
starting
to
publish
through
the
real-time
page
in
spec.
A
So
it
feels
to
me
at
least
like
we're
in
a
pretty
good
shape
with
the
the
core
model,
but
we
obviously
need
to
think
about
how
to
make
sure
that
that
is
useful
for
people
actually
publishing
data,
and
so
I've
got
two
other
things
on
my
kind
of
list
of
lists
of
tasks
I'm
considering
publishing,
creating
a
separate
spec
that
focuses
more
on
the
mechanics
of
actually
publishing
the
data
so
ways
to
structure.
This
data
is
json-ld
as
CSV
and
other
formats
that
doesn't
have
to
be
a
separate
spec.
A
It
could
be
just
an
extra
section
or
few
sections
in
respect.
We've
been
working
on
so
far.
So
I'd
like
to
get
some
feedback
from
you,
whether
you
think
having
a
separate
spec
on
just
those
kind
of
technical
details
with
of
the
publishing,
would
be
useful
and
I'm
also
planning
to
do
revision
to
the
paging
specification
that
people
have
started
to
use
already
and
to
direct
them
towards
the
data
model,
so
that
people
start
to
use
that
people
who
are
using
that
spec
will
start
to
publish
the
data
in
a
more
consistent
way.
A
So
I
think
I'm
with
with
those
tasks
done
which
I
aim
to
again
get
revisions
done
by
in
the
next
week
or
so
or
the
end
of
next
week
and
I
think
we're
in
a
position.
Then,
when
we
can
start
to
really
focus
in
on
getting
some
implementation
feedback.
I
think
we'll
have
a
reasonably
good
basis
for
people
to
actually
start
attempting
to
publish
data
using
the
spec
I
think
it
will
be
at
the
point
when
people
try
to
use
it.
A
That
will
get
a
more
detailed
feedback,
so
I'm
kind
of
keen
to
get
to
that
point
as
quick
as
possible
and
then
iterate
further
from
there.
And
so
that's
where
we
are
on
the
spec
so
far
that
we've
got
a
couple
of
open
discussions,
so
we've
been
just
gonna
sing
activity
list
for
a
while.
A
Now
we've
had
another
couple
of
being
shared
to
the
mailing
list
recently,
so
I'm
going
to
be
using
those
to
just
create
some
examples,
so
I'm
just
going
to
take
all
of
the
existing
lists,
we
have
I'm
and
put
them
up
then
get
up
in
a
way.
That's
consistent
with
the
modeling
opportunity
data
specification,
so
we
can
all
see
how
it
looks
in
practice
and
we
can
use
those
as
the
basis
for
the
further
guidance
around
publishing
so
I
think
that's
that
kind
of
with
a
pretty
good
spot.
A
There's
discussion
on
github
and
in
schema
double
project.
Around
recurrence
rules
for
scheduled
events.
I've
got
a
proposal
that
I'll
share
with
the
list
and
later
today
ran
that.
So
we
can
dig
into
that
in
a
bit
more
detail
and
I
when
I
circulated
the
spec
recently
I
did
ask
for
people
to
start
looking
at
it
from
an
implementation
point
of
view.
So
I'm
going
to
want
to
reiterate
that
to
everyone.
A
A
So
that's
that's
where
we
are
for
the
kind
of
specification
work,
I'm
just
going
to
pause
there
for
a
minute
and
just
see
whether
anyone
has
any
feedback
or
questions
shows
or
comments
on
that.
So
far,.
B
Just
Nick
here
can
we
schedule
kind
of
talk
about
a
few
things
around
the
housekeeping
staff
I
mean
particularly
just
trying
to
fire
up
still
faint,
quite
hard
to
find
sort
of
stuff
on
the
website,
and
it
might
be
stuff
that
we
just
need
to
think
about
that.
You
know
if
you
look
on
the
current
open,
active
websites
of
where
we
are
with
the
kind
of
main
document.
It's
not
very
clear
in
terms
of
where
that,
where
there
is
I,
think
Sally's
got
some
ideas.
B
The
other
thing
was
just
the
other
housekeeping
stuff
is:
can
we
get
into
more
with
schedule
of
meetings
or
stop
to
think
about
that
and
I
know
we
mean
on
Monday
today,
I
think
Monday's
is
the
best
day
for
all
people,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
pre
scheduling,
kind
of
management
meeting
extensively
on
those.
That's
my
reflect
of
reason
why
we've
got
less
people
wear
today,
yeah.
A
A
So
I'm
going
to
publish
what
lists
we've
been,
providing
it
so
far
as
in
a
connect
consistent
way
using
the
model
in
terms
of
getting
everybody
to
agree
on
which
one
of
those
lists
or
how
they
will
be
brought
together.
I
haven't
got
a
timescale
around
that.
D
Yeah
in
terms
of
having
something
that
we
can
start
using,
that's
yes
for
the
negativity
list
which
is
hierarchical
and
will
help
users
search
for
what
they're.
Looking
for
okay!
That's
something
I'm,
keen
to
start
testing
out
I'm
fairly
soon.
A
D
It's
more
just
a
structured
list,
I'm
particularly
interested
in
sort
of
having
something
this
got:
some
broader
categories,
EG
football
and
then
subcategories
eg5
aside,
and
that,
for
instance,
at
the
moment,
we've
got
a
situation
with
get
active
where
you
could
search
for
football
and
not
find
five-a-side,
because
it's
not
we're
not
using
a
hierarchical
list
and
I
became
to
start
testing
out
something
which
has
of
parent-child
relationships
between
sports
and
subcategories
of
sports.
D
You
know,
for
instance,
judo
being
a
child
of
martial
arts
and
I
think
there
is
maybe
some
discussion
to
be
heard
about
how
that
will
fit
together
button.
Perhaps
we've
already
got
all
of
that
information
from
the
list
we
have
already.
A
Okay,
okay,
all
right
well,
I
think.
The
first
step
is
then,
is
to
get
the
existing
this
into
a
consistent
format,
and
then
I
think
that
that
they'll
need
will
need
to
take
a
view
on
which
which
list
is
the
most
comprehensive
I'm
open
for
suggestions
on
the
best
way
to
approach
that,
whether
it's
reviewing
the
detail
of
the
list
or
trying
it
out
trying
out
a
different
list,
four
different
different
applications
or
different
use
cases.
B
Are
they
I
think
the
thought
of
the
main
thing
is
to
get
one
of
the
little
you
know,
combination
make
sure
we
haven't
missed
any
activities
of
them,
but
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
strip
it
down
to
its
basics.
So
you
know
like
Ben
was
saying:
let's,
let's
go
down
to
judo
karate
have
them
all
their
first
then
have
a
look
at
it.
E
Yeah
something
for
me,
it's
remembering
that
this
is
about
what
a
consumer
is
looking
for,
so
the
more
granular
we
can
have
it
with
as
many
different
variants
of
the
activity.
I.
Think
that's
better
for
now,
at
which
then
I
said
over
time.
You'll
learn
how
consumers
actually
do
search
for
physical
activity,
opportunities,
yum.
A
Okay,
anything
else
that
want
to
raise
now.
C
On
that
one
on
the
lists,
I
think
I'm
and
another
good
exercise
might
be
to
just
check
the
list
that
we
have
an
across
each
which
activities
are
common
to
those
so
that
we
kind
of
effectively
consolidate.
So
so,
if
we've
got
four
lists
right
now
and
judo
is
on
all
four,
then
maybe
we
use
judo
in
the
in
the
in
the
list
that
we
we
have
to
start
with,
or
something
like
that.
So
it's
kind
of
based
on
consensus,
because
we've
got
quite
comprehensive
lists
and
then
may
I
just
suggested
approach.
C
Maybe
it's
just
that
5s
didn't
feature
in
all
four
lists
and
therefore
it
hasn't
been
included
in
the
corset
as
a
criteria
which
is
a
bit
more
as
opposed
it's
it's
it's
it
it's
easier
to
kind
of
defend
in
terms
of
the
way
that
this
and
it's
been
created,
or
something
no,
no,
because
otherwise
I
just
wonder
whether
we're
going
to
get
into
quite
a
lot
of
small
discussions
around
the
inclusion
of
different
things
earlier,
either
than
just
getting
something
that
works.
But
majority
of
cases.
G
Yeah,
yes
right,
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
you
know
also
have
the
have
the
the
central
role
of
thoughts.
There
is
Nick
in
terms
of
when
you,
when
you
start
looking
at
fitness
classes
and
things
like
that,
it
it
it
can
almost
seemed
like
every
week.
There
is
a
there's,
a
new
type
of
fitness
class,
so
you
know
I
think
that
we
should
wish
certainly
start
with
the
ones
that
are
well
known
and
I
used
in
multiple
places
before
we,
you
know,
try
to
try
to
factor
in
everything
really.
A
Okay,
okay
yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
doing
some
analysis
on
the
lists
that
have
shared
to
identify
commonalities
is
a
good
idea
and
a
definite
wondering
and
for
the
purposes
of
defining,
a
way
to
publish
and
share
these
lists.
I
think
we
do
want
to
avoid
getting
into
discussions
about
the
kind
of
nitty-gritty
detail
of
all
of
the
variations
where
that
people
will
have
so
so,
let's
continue
with
my
current
plan
to
kind
of
get
them
all
shade
in
a
consistent
way.
A
I
look
to
see
if
there's
ways
to
identify
the
overlaps,
better
I
will
see
where
that
gets
to
us
as
a
first
pass.
A
Okay,
right,
I
think
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
bit
of
the
discussion,
which
is
around
describing
events
just
share
my
screen
again.
A
Okay,
so
they
were
I,
wanted
to
try
and
focus
the
mostly
description
this
time
on
some
of
the
additional
event
properties.
So
the
relevant
bits
of
the
specification
you
want
them
to
hand
is
section
3.3,
which
is
in
the
concept
section
and
then
4
3
2,
which
is
in
the
data
model
system.
Is
it
specifically
around
or
additional
properties
and
descriptive
elements
of
events?
A
So
what
we've
got
so
far
in
the
in
the
specification
we
can
describe
the
activity
or
activities
that
are
taking
place
particular
events
week
and
if
we
can
describe
the
location,
is
taking
place
and
we
can
describe
the
time
that
they're
going
to
take
place,
so
we
got
the
cool
event
model
there.
So
what
I'm
interested
now
is
what
additional
in
additional
structured
information
do
we
need
to
capture
and
I'm
emphasizing
structured
there,
because
we
can
already
attached.
A
A
So
I
circulated
a
few
questions
to
the
list
recently,
which
we
can
perhaps
dig
into
in
a
minute,
but
it's
just
identify
what
properties
might
be
most
relevant
when
people
are
searching
for
events
or
looking
for
descriptions
of
events,
so
that
might
identify
some
additional
properties
that
we
want
to
include
in
the
specification
and
then
potentially
I'm
for
those,
whether
we
want
to
have
a
consistent
set
of
terminology,
so
the
values
of
those
properties.
A
So
the
based
on
the
research
that
the
idea
I
did
and
some
feedback
we've
had
in
some
of
the
descriptions
that
touched
on
this
already
I've
kind
of
loosely
categorized,
the
types
of
additional
information
that
get
associated
with
these
type
of
opportunities.
So
this
stress
this
is
a
loose
categorization,
just
as
a
way
to
help
guide
the
discussion
of
some
of
the
thinking.
This
isn't
necessarily
a
recommendation
for
a
specific
set
of
properties,
or
even
that
all
of
these
things
need
to
go
into
the
spec.
A
It's
just
just
wanted
to
share
what
has
been
uncovered
so
far.
So
there
are
restrictions
which
you
know
the
an
event
is
suitable
for
particular
gender
age
ranges
Heights
and
weights.
The
suitability
of
an
event
for
a
particular
audience,
which
is
often
seems
to
be
around
age
ranges
again
fitness
levels.
There
might
be
prerequisites
so
things
that
you
need
to
have
done
or
things
that
you
need
to
bring
as
part
of
taking
part
in
the
event.
And
then
there
are
so
the
last
four
categories:
a
shin
purpose
structure,
the
next
three.
A
Being
the
obvious
one
and
I'm
pretty
sure,
there's
going
to
be
a
whole
slew
of
additional
information
relating
to
that
booking
category,
and
what
I
kind
of
initial
thinking
is
that
those
probably
should
be
deferred
when
we
get
into
booking
in
a
bit
more
detail
rather
than
trying
to
do
a
partial
job
with
it
now.
But
those
are
the
those
are
the
types
of
things
that
we've
identified.
A
So
we
need
to
work
out
whether
we
want
to
get
into
specifying
some
all
of
these
now
and
for
the
first
version,
the
specification
or
whether
we
think
just
the
existing
properties
so
time,
activity,
location
and
textual
description
is
enough
to
get
people
started.
So
in
terms
of
where
we
go
from
here,
but
and
thinking
about
what
the
outcome
of
our
discussion
should
be.
I
think
we've
got
three
options,
so
first
is
just
to
capture
some
of
those.
A
These
requirements
as
things
that
we
want
to
dig
into,
but
don't
get
into,
don't
add
them
to
the
specification
right
now.
So
we
just
focus
on
helping
people,
publish
that
key
information
about
events
and
defer
a
additional
kind
of
spec
work,
whether
it's
around
identifying
the
properties
identifying
common
vocabulary
to
a
later
version
and
specification.
A
Second
option
is:
we
are
able
to
identify
some
common
properties
that
are
used
in
a
majority
of
the
systems
or
different
types
of
event,
and
we
think
are
pretty
critical
to
help
describe
the
discovery,
type
use
cases
and
we
make
sure
that
those
go
into
the
first
version
of
the
spec
and
the
way
that
we
can
approach.
That
is
just
by
defining
the
properties
and
not
necessarily
getting
into
having
a
recommendations
on
what
an
age
range
should
look
like,
or
what
the
different
types
of
intensity
levels
are
up
for
a
session.
A
We
leave
it
up
to
people
to
just
publish
whatever
they
have,
but
in
a
consistent
way,
and
then
the
third
option
is
to
identify
those
properties
and
also
try
and
get
some
agreement
around
standard
ways
to
describe
those
things.
So
I
just
kind
of
want
to
keep
that
in
mind
as
we're
doing
the
discussion
on.
So
we
can
get
a
sense
of
whether
we
want
to
be
going.
You
know
how
how
how
much
detail
we
want
to
get
into
for
the
early
discussion
you
know.
A
So
that's
my
kind
of
scene
setting
and
I
just
want
to
kind
of
throw
throw
that
out
to
each
of
you
to
see
what
what
you
think
in
terms
of
which
option
we
should
be
looking
at
and
then
then,
which
properties
youth,
if
you
think,
might
be
most
useful
for
us
to
focus
on
and
I've
got
a
suggested
way
forward,
but
but
soon
hear
from
you
all,
rather
than
I'm
telling
you
I
think
we
should
do.
A
So
Nick
Sport,
England
Udall
deep,
am
provide
some
feedback
on
this
on
the
list.
Just
wondering
whether
you
want
to
kick
things
off
say
what
you
think.
B
B
H
I
with
I've
seen,
obviously
Nick's
response
and
some
of
your
response
to
that
I
felt
very
comfortable
with
the
general
discussion
there
and
then
very
much
from
as
a
full
sponsorship
promoting
physical
activity
through
other
people
we're
very
keen
on
the
the
element
of
making
these
activities
discoverable
and
particularly
by
people
who
would
be
looking
for
new
activities
or
new
routes
into
getting
themselves
active
and,
and
so
I
think
there
are
in
terms
of
your
three
options.
I've.
H
My
sense
is
that
I,
somewhere
in
the
middle
and
probably
option
to
that,
we
do
need
to
have
some
basic
categories.
That
would
be
the
things
that
we
know.
People
will
need
to
have
available
in
a
very
readily
searched
way
that
we
can
make
things
more
discoverable
for
people
and
that
there
are
a
few
key
categories
where
we
might
will
be
thin
that
want
to
go
lower,
particularly
for
it.
For
us,
it
would
be
areas
like
the
activity,
intensity
specification
and
making
that
starting
to
stand.
H
Use
this
as
a
net
exercises
nickel
suggesting
to
promote
a
standard
way
of
actually
presenting
that
that's
also
consistent
with
Armas,
like
public
health
and
most
people
messaging
from
a
different
place.
So
things
like
the
in
units
of
10
minutes
the
level
of
moderate
activity,
those
kinds
of
things:
how
do
we
want
to
do
that?
But
in
a
way
that's
actually
affected
the
the
only
other
thing-
and
I
will
share
after
this
meeting
a
link
to
a
very
crude
tool
that
was
developed
with
public
health
down
here
in
devon.
H
It's
only
a
prototype,
but
it
was
a
an
instrument
called
get
active
devon
and
it
has
that
it
sort
of
starts
to
look
at
those.
How
do
you
help
make
it
discoverable,
but
as
very
similar
source
principles,
do
I
mean,
but
it
might
throw
up.
Some
other
categories,
like
you
know,
are
we're
sort
of
approaching
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
participant
not
really
knowing
what
it
is.
They
want
to
do
and
you
might
be
sitting
with
a
doctor
or
a
nurse
wherever
it
might
be
and
simple
questions
like.
Are
you
looking
for
something?
H
Is
outdoor
indoor?
Are
you
looking
for
something
that's
group
or
individual
those
kinds
of
levels,
and
then
you
discover
actually
well
there's
this
range
of
activities.
You
might
want
to
consider
and
then
start
getting
down
to
the
discovering,
what's
available
on
your
doorstep,
amongst
those
that
make
sense,
ok,.
A
It
does
thank
you
I'm
Raymond
them.
Do
you
have
any
thoughts
on
on
which
properties
you're
kind
of
capturing
or
what
would
be
useful
to
share
and.
G
Okay,
so
for
us
most
of
this
sort
of
information
tends
to
be
free
format
at
the
moment
and,
however,
I
do
think
that
we
do
need
to
standardize
some
of
it
and
so
I
would
I
would
probably
go
from
rid
of
the
road
approach
as
well
in
terms
of
a
future
proofing
it.
I
would
probably
advocate
some
way
of
us
having
a
category
or
a
tag
type
that
can
then
be
a
free
text.
G
So
just
to
give
an
example,
if
we
to
head
and
set
and
set
standard
codes
for
you
to
have
age
range,
gender,
all
that
sort
of
stuff,
you
know
those
I
think
are
fairly
easy
to
do.
But
once
you
start
getting
down
into
the
into
the
actual
international
prerequisites,
it
might
be
that
that,
for
now
we
just
create
one
standard
prerequisite
which
is
a
free
text
one
and
in
the
future.
We
can
then
look
to
have
standard
standard.
G
A
Okay,
that's
interesting.
Thank
you.
Yeah
I
think
one
of
things
we
need
to
balance
up
is
how
much
are
we?
It
is
making
sure
that
people
have
a
way
to
share
the
data
they
have,
while
also
encouraging
I,
guess
more
structure,
the
more
common
approach,
but
the
latter
requires
more
changes
to
the
way
people
are
currently
capturing
things,
so
there's
kind
of
a
whole
bunch
of
system
and
architectural
changes,
I'll
guess
that
are
going
to
follow.
Some
of
that.
A
G
I
mean
you
know
just
to
just
to
go
a
little
further
I
mean
oh
once
we
once
we
reach
the
point
where
we
have
got
these,
these
sorts
of
things
standardized
and
yes,
it'll,
be
a
slow
process
and
we'll
need
to
pull
pull
some
of
the
marketplace
with
us,
but
you
know
certainly
I
could
see.
You
can
see
some
of
the
some
of
the
software
providers
making
fairly
quick
changes
to
their
applications.
G
You
know
for
them
to
just
have
you
know,
lists
or
interfere
to
have
some
form
of
translation
mechanism
for
them
to
change
where
they
would
have
look
up
codes
and
things
like
that
just
to
in
a
match
into
into
what
we
have
actually
outlined
here
to
be
standard
codes.
The
the
first
form
of
cherry
springs
to
mind
there,
for
me,
is,
is:
is
things
like
age
ranges?
For
example,
we
have.
G
A
D
What
we
find
is
that
when
we
get
access
to
some
new
data,
it
doesn't
often
have
all
of
the
kind
of
things
that
I
use
would
want
to
know
that
users
tell
us
that
they
need
to
know
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
to
go
to
something
or
not.
It's
not
always
sort
of
designed
to
be
taken
out
of
context
as
well
so
kind
it
assumes
I
mean
yes.
Sometimes
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
at
all
outside
of
additional
context,
or
sometimes
it
makes
yes
slightly
less
sense
to
somebody
who's.
D
Yes,
it
doesn't
know
where
it
actually
originated
from.
If
that
makes
sense,
and
so
I'm
sort
of
in
favor
for
kind
of
more
standardized,
a
more
in
a
way
of
standardization
and
kind
of
open
free
text
is
useful
but
kind
of
come.
You
have
there's
an
opportunity
for
users
to
be
able
to
fill
filter,
their
searches
and
narrow
down
searches
with
thousands
of
activities
just
to
the
ones
that
they
care
about,
and
free
text
kind
of,
wouldn't
allow
that
sort
of
filtering.
B
Mainly,
if
you
look
to
that
list
for
the
list,
you
know
just
our
potential
areas.
You
can
see
that
some
are
some
are
pretty
obvious
that,
because
their
numerical
or
could
be
there's
no
real
choices.
So
if
you
look
to
them
you're
pretty
much
saying
that
you
could
define
you
know
age,
sex,
the
height
and
weight
one.
If
that
was
one
price
and
all
the
rest
of
them,
you
kind
of
leave
them
at
the
moment.
Then
the
ones
he
can't
really
easily
define,
but
those
ones
who
certainly
you
know,
move
away
from
coming
free
text.
A
Yeah
well
so
big
age
range
one's
interesting.
If
only
because
I've
been
doing
some
work
at
the
ONS
recently,
and
they
have
many
different
ways
of
expressing
age
ranges
because
they
tend
to
group
things
into
brackets,
rather
than
specifying
just
an
arbitrary
minimum
and
maximum
age,
so
be
useful
to
know
whether
you
know
other
kind
of
brought.
You
know
broad
age
ranges
or
would
a
minimum
maximum
actually
be
just
enough
for
people.
B
The
other
thing
I
would
say
why
why
I've
gone
or
suggested
a
min
Max
is
simply
from
knowing
how,
for
example,
a
lot
of
the
governing
bodies
organized
their
sports
in
quite
a
lot
of
them.
They
very
you
know
you
can't.
If
you
go
to
one
sport
and
say:
what's
your
genius
they'll
say
it's
between
the
satanist
age,
no
malice,
for
it
will
be
something
different
and
then
football,
then
change.
You
know
something
they
knew
to
write.
Everything
is
now
priorities
now
under
nights.
B
A
So
the
in
the
spec
at
the
moment,
I
reference,
there's
a
scheme,
adult
property
for
events,
but
which
is
typical
age
range
and
they
just
specifies
just
things
like
seven
to
nine
or
eleven
or
above
is
example,
but
it's
11
dash.
You
know
that
there's
no
end
to
the
range,
so
it's
a
very
light
kind
of
formatting
for
the
property
and
but
woodcut
sounds
like
it
would
cover
that
the
kind
of
use
case
you're
describing
there.
A
H
Okay,
I'm
sorry
I
agree
in
principle
with
with
Nick,
in
terms
of
having
that
small
set
of
clear,
consistent
criteria
that
you're
you
can
define.
You
know
where
people
always
going
to
want.
The
only
one
I
would
add
to
next,
which
I
think
is
probably
buried
in
the
free
text
at
the
moment
and
whether
or
not
it
can
be
pulled
out
is
the
the
purpose.
H
There
are
significant
factors
like
whether
it's
a
mental
health
theme
and
that's
the
purpose,
and
it
might
be
a
closed
session
around
that
a
war
you've
got
an
active
Mullen
session
where
you
need
to
convey
information
about
the
child
as
well
as
the
month
and
so
on.
So
there's
something
specific
about
the
purpose.
What
is
the
type
that
the
reason
that
people
are
doing
this
session
I
want
to
find
sessions?
H
There
are,
for
that
reason
too,
and
then
definitely
needing
the
free
text
to
be
a
an
essential
element
to
cover
off
those
other
things
that
you
absolutely
are
going
to
get
straight
down
into
very
complex
things
like
the
active
mums
about
requirements
for
the
child
and
which
you
couldn't
possibly
hope
to
put
into
a
consistent
structure.
Probably
ever,
but
certainly
in
the
this
stage.
H
I'm
so
I
mean
certainly
we
have
stuff
that
very
basic
things
about
people,
helping
people
get
active
for
the
first
time
as
opposed
to
and
you
might
fit
at
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum.
You
might
have
things
that
are
about
skill
improvement
as
opposed
to
competition
or
or
just
basic
participation.
So
I'm
sure
I
think
that
would
definitely
need
to
be
that.
H
That's
why
I'm
sort
of
thinking
of
the
middle
of
the
road
that
we
probably
want
to
this
stage
identify
that
we
definitely
need
a
category
called
purpose,
but
we
probably
would
need
to
work
and
not
try
and
attempt
to
actually
standardized
language
too
much
at
this
stage.
That
would
need
to
sort
of
evolved
out
of
sharing
lists
and
put
and
data.
C
Okay,
I'd
be
interested
to
take
that
step,
a
step
back
to
the
kind
of
use
case
there,
because
one
of
the
things
that
we're
finding
when
we're
looking
at
which
data
to
open
up
I
think
it
was
angry.
It
was
either
mentioned
before
around
his
neck
around
the
intensity
level
and
whether
it
was
for
beginner
or
intermediate,
and
so
there's
definitely
so
I
get
in
terms
of
purpose.
I
heard
you
say,
then
that
or
maybe
this
is
good
for
someone
who's
new
to
the
sport
and
the
purpose
is
to
introduce
them.
C
Is
that
there's
an
almost
a
pathway
emerging
with
the
data
set
that
states
that
are
available,
for
example,
in
rowing,
learn
to
row?
Sessions
are
for
beginners
to
get
to
understand
how
to
use
to
actually
row
and
then,
when
you
get
in
the
boat,
then
you
were
in
a
club
session
and
you
don't
just
turn
up
to
a
club
session
without
learning
to
row.
C
First,
and
so
the
pathway
is
you:
do
the
beginners
learn
to
row,
then
you
go
to
the
club
session
and
and
so
that
that
and
and
within
all
of
using
data
in
the
lesser
operator,
fusion
they've
also
got
a
sense
of
if
it's
a
beginner
or
intermediate
session
for
the
different
classes.
They
run
in
the
same
way.
So
I
I,
wonder
whether
so
so
purpose
sounds
really
useful.
B
H
Some
other
exam
who's,
my
help.
So
then
we
might
have
activities
that
are
particularly
relevant
for
long
term
conditions,
people
with
long
term
conditions,
cancer,
survivors
or
debt,
dementia
or
other
significant
part,
Orion
TSA's
that
we're
trying
to
actually
make
stuff
relevant
stuff
discoverable.
For
so
it
isn't
justice
about
the
intensity.
I
think
the
intensity
is
one
of
warrants
being
handled
in
its
own
right,
really
to
help
stat
use
that
to
help
standardize
how
intensity
is
actually
represented
in
shared
and
found.
B
Yeah,
I
was
going
to
say
we.
Some
of
this
is
some
of
this
actually
overlapping
with
the
program.
So
in
this
case,
is
you
have
a
pro?
The
program
would
be
because
all
the
way
around
could
be
named,
it
could
be
something
on
a
computer.
We
cancel
rehab
or
something
session
or
something
and
that's
where
and
maybe
there's
a
bit
around
how
that
links
across
to
to
this
and
then
is
there
free
text.
A
A
There
is
definitely
there's
definitely
some
overlap
and
that's
why
I
think
actually
trying
trying
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
need
to
try
some
of
this
out
with
real
data
to
see
where
the
patterns
are,
in
terms
of
you
know,
what's
useful
to
kind
of
tease
out
into
a
more
structured
approach
and
what
is
just
kind
of
otherwise
transplant
from
a
combination
of
different
different
properties
of
descriptive
elements.
Russ
so
I
rested
on
the
phone
I
just
wanted
to
see
whether
you
actually
activists
jump
in
I
was.
F
Obviously,
there's
a
lot
of
discussion
each
of
these
points
as
to
where
the
boundary
between
free
form
and
structure
data
should
lie.
But
it
seems
to
me
that
at
a
very
high
level,
if,
if
we
will
always
need
some
kind
of
freeform
data,
but
it
might
be
useful
if
that
were
separated
out
into
free
form
data
relating
to
each
of
the.
What
when,
where
and
who
it
may
be.
Just
the
what
in
the
who.
F
Well,
I
mean
the
when
and
the
where
are,
are
covered
and
are
more
naturally
and
easily
put
into
a
structured
form,
but
the
what
and
the
who
both
have
separate
needs
for
more
detail.
So
talking
about
you
know
the
restrictions
and
the
suitability
very
much
who
the
things
like
the
you
know
the
purpose
or
go
Umi
city
employee,
with
a
structure
or
whatever
those
that
those
still
about
the
what
I.
F
A
Right
so
I
mean
to
some
the
feedback
we've
had
so
far.
It
feels
like
that
the
kind
of
option
to
that
we
need
to
do.
We
need
to
do
something
more
than
just
focus
on
on
the
poor
event.
Description
is
required
from
the
suggestions
that
you
made
so
far.
It
seems
like
one
one
approach
would
be
to
as
Nick
suggests,
for
things
like
age,
height
and
weight.
C
I'm
going
to
take
no
fee
that
say
that
there
that
sounds
really
good.
The
only
thing
that
might
be
helpful
top
of
that
is
to
have
something
about
when
we've
got
data
that
doesn't
fit
one
of
those
one
of
the
predefined
categories
or
tags
or
whether
it
doesn't
quite
fit.
For
example,
I
mean
if
gender
wasn't
in
the
corset
that
Nick
was
talking
about,
I
mean
it
is,
but
that's
it
wasn't.
C
C
We
want
to
include
that
there's
a
way
of
doing
that
am
I
supposed
to
be
aware
that
just
because
we
haven't
put
it
in
the
spec
doesn't
mean
people
don't
have
that
data
I
want
to
express
it,
and
so
we
might
be
missing
out
on
an
opportunity
to
start
to
see
an
implementation
that
covers
some
of
this
stuff.
If
we
don't
include
it
in
the
kind
of
core
fields.
C
A
Yeah,
I
mean
that's,
that's
exactly
what
I'm
just
trying
to
feel
my
way
towards
really
it's
just
if
there's
obvious
gaps
that
everyone's
going
to
be
looking
looking
to
fill
with
extra
extra
structure
that
just
make
sure
that
we've
got
something
in
place
for
that,
even
if
we
haven't
got
it
tightly
tightly
defined
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
added
the
section
in
aspect
so
4.9
about
how
the
model
could
be
extended
or
refined
is
to
make
sure
that
we
had
an
answer.
If
somebody
said
well
what?
If
what?
A
If
you
know
for
our
particular
community
uses
of
our
application,
how
do
we
provide
this
extra
structure
so
that
we've
at
least
identified
how
how
people
go
back
that
so
that
section
says
you
know
anything
that
is.
Oh,
you
know
anything.
That's
in
schema.org
you
can
just
use
because
it's
in
it's
consistent
with
the
model.
So
I
use
the
example
there
of
adding
reviews,
but
then
there's
other
kind
of
more
structured
ways
to
kind
of
go
back,
adding
adding
extensions.
H
I,
sorry,
I'm
lee
just
a
couple
of
thoughts
that
are
about
picking
out
from
nick
evans
ease
points
and
the
two
areas
that
that
I
don't
think
we
have
touched
on
yet
really
that
at
some
point
we
will
need
to
and
but
I'm
not
suggesting,
we
need
to
actually
address
these
head
on
right
at
this
minute,
but
one
is
the
whole
area
of
accessibility
or
or
how
that's
proactively
supported
events
that
proactively
support
that
or
inclusion
around
that
and
then
the
other
one
is
about
the
be
issued
assurance
and
accreditation.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Yeah
I've
made
a
note
of
that.
Yep,
okay
I'm,
just
mindful
of
the
time
so
I
want
to
come
back
to
the
big
we've
got
other
the
business
of
people
raised
so
guys
the
sport
england,
you
had
some
stuff
around
house
keeping
you
wanted
to
share
with
the
group.
B
B
So
they
until
I
can
access.
It
is
work
for
you,
emails.
You
know
showing
the
work
in
progress
and
the
only
other
one
was
just
really.
Can
we
get
some
kind
of
more
a
bank
up
of
kind
of
regular
meetings
in
place,
so
we've
got
them
in
people's
daily,
so
cancel
it.
Then
that's
fine
I
think
it's
just
killing
it
thinking
ahead
and
getting
quite
a
few
in
the
dollars.
B
A
It's
not
linked
from
the
main
open,
Active
website
at
the
moment,
because
I
wanted
to
get
it
to
a
point
where
we
had.
We
were
broadly
happy
as
a
group
before
kind
of
circulating
it
more
widely.
So
there's
a
process
within
the
community
group
where
we
can
formally
publish
a
drafts
which
will
make
them
appear
from
the
community
community
group
webpage.
A
So
I
haven't
done
that
because
I
just
wanted
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
address
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
issues
so
there'll
be
a
process
of
publication
from
the
community
on
the
w3c
sides
and
I.
Think
at
that
point,
then
we
can
also
make
sure
that
you
get
surfaced
the
on
the
open,
Active
website,
but
I
think
that's
most.
It's
worth
doing
that
when
the
various
bits
of
specification
are
all
ready
to
be
used
together.
A
A
A
Okay,
I'm
billet
thats
Beckett,
so
the
other
thing
was
activity
list.
I
think
we've
discussed
that
already,
but
then
shout
at
me
if
there's
anything
else
that
you
want
to
come
back
to
your
activity
lists,
but
another
kind
of
question
that
I
wanted
to
leave.
The
group
with
we
ask
of
you
before
we
disappear
is.
A
It
is
my
plan
of
creating
a
separate
publishing
spec
that
is
kind
of
more
technical.
Does
that
make
sense,
or
would
you
sooner
just
have
one
self-contained
specification?
That's
got
everything
in
it.
You
know,
so
it's
got
more
of
the
detail
of
how
to
publish
activity
lists
as
CSV
as
Jason
etc.
All
in
one
place,
or
do
you
think
it's
useful
to
have
break
these
out
into
you
know
a
kind
of
data
model
document
and
then
I'm
kind
of
an
implementation
guide.
A
G
My
mind
right
there
would
be
to
have
as
few
a
document
as
possible
for
you
to
get
up
and
running.
However,
having
just
said
that
well,
yes,
I
would
say
that
we
should
have
11
full
spec,
but
I
certainly
see
no
harm
in
us
having
an
a
quick
start
guide
which
can
which
can
have
deep
links
into
that
spec.
But
you
know
I
would
try
and
keep
as
much
as
we
can
in
one
place.
Okay,.
C
Having
good
quality
examples
that
really
cover
the
core
use
cases,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
developers
tend
to
just
jump
straight
to
the
examples
and
kind
of
work
backwards
to
the
rest
of
the
space.
So
if
we've
got
some
kind
of
really
clear,
you
know
use
case,
especially
from
the
data
already
published,
where,
for
example,
let
your
operators
data
generally
as
content.
So
let's
just
put
put
an
example
there
that
really
talks
to
that
and
then
something
else
that
talks
to
Claude
publishing
their
sessions.
B
Leave
the
only
other
thing
I
would
say
is
I
think
that
when
we
get,
although
we're
kind
of
embarrassed
in
this,
you
know
other
people,
people
won't
of
being
in
summer.
So
in
terms
of
that,
having
that
quick
guide,
I
think,
is
useful,
but
were
they
some?
We
have
a
set
of
web
pages
buddies.
It's
a
picking
up,
as
things
emerge
bits
of
good
practice,
but
and
strong
examples
of
nick
said
is
important,
but
also
some
good.
You
know
you
know
how
to
around
something
stuff.
B
So
you
know
when
you're
talking
about
someone
who
doesn't
have
that
new,
particularly
get
into
town
I,
won't
have
experience.
You
know
what
is
a
good
practice.
You
should
be
putting
in
your
free
text
fields
or
whatever.
What
are
the
things
you
should
be
thinking
about?
There's
all
that
and
he's
sit
around
this
site.
So
we
just
need
to
think
about
that
as
well
as
much
fun
of
stuff
yeah.
A
Okay,
yeah
cuz,
that's
a
good
point.
Okay,
so
on
there
the
good
quality
examples
point.
So
what
I've
been
doing
so
far
is
open.
Taking
the
data
that's
been
shared
on
the
list,
I've
been
taking
I've
been
looking
at
the
data
that
people
are
currently
start
to
publish
openly
under
open
active.
Are
there
other
places?
I
should
be
looking
just
just
to
make
sure
that
I've
got
a
good
kind
of
coverage
of
what
current
practice
is.
A
C
A
Okeydoke
right,
it's
twelve
o'clock,
so
we're
due
to
wind
up
now
then
so.
Has
anybody
got
anything
else
they
want
to
raise
before
I
close
down
the
call
for
today.
A
Nope
right,
ok,
then.
Well,
thanks
again
for
a
really
good,
useful
discussion.
The
feedback
is
always
very
appreciated.
So
yeah,
let's
keep
the
discussion
going
on
the
list.
I'll
do
some
follow-up
on
some
of
the
discussion
points
today,
so
that
we
can
get
those
people
who
weren't
able
to
make
it
stay
kind
of
involved
in
shaping
up
where
we
go
next
so
yep
thanks
again
for
everybody
and
speech
you
all
again
soon,
I
think
you.