►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2018-07-04
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2018Jul/0000.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
Thanks
everybody
for
coming
along
there's
a
few
things
that
I
want
to
try
and
go
through
today.
The
main
thing
really
is
just
to
have
a
coin
act,
quick
I'm,
going
to
catch
up
on
where
we
are
with
everything
and
start
thinking
about
the
next
steps,
as
we
kind
of
released
a
bunch
of
stuff
last
week.
So
it's
kind
of
useful
to
useful
time
to
kind
of
stick
tech
stock
and
make
sure
that
we're
prioritizing
the
right
things
in
this
Creek
so
put
those
slides.
B
B
B
A
We
to
support
data
publishing.
We
are
planning
some
work
on
a
validator
tool,
I'm
hoping
to
get
that
underway
next
week,
I'm
just
trying
to
find
some
resource
to
help
us
with
that.
So
that
mean
there'll
be
a
bit
more
help
for
bringing
new
publishers
on
board
and
alongside
that,
there
is
the
developer
site,
which
I've
mentioned
a
couple
of
times
on
the
call.
A
It's
at
developer,
open,
active
dire
and
it
would
be
good.
There's
more
content
that
we
need
to
put
in
here,
and
it
needs
to
be
updated
to
make
sure
it's
in
line
with
one
one
spec,
but
it'd
be
useful,
just
to
have
a
quick
kind
of
their
feedback
from
and
those
you
on.
The
call
just
to
say
you
know
whether
it's
kind
of
useful
structure,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
kind
of
bring
all
of
the
document
the
documentation,
support,
publishing
into
one
site.
A
So
you
have
to
do
let's
jump
between
schema.org
our
respects
and
other
documentation.
So
there'll
be
a
single
reference
point
for
say,
events
I'm
showing
here,
which
will
clearly
list
out
all
of
the
required
fields.
What
the
values
are
expected
to
be
give
you
examples
and
documentation
in
line
it'll,
be
linked
out
to
all
of
the
relevant
places.
But
it
should
be
everything
you
need
to
kind
of
be
able
to
start
creating
and
populating
the
data
field
feed.
So
as
well
as
the
kind
of
reference
on
the
properties
just
given
past.
A
There
will
also
be
a
set
of
examples,
so
some
handcrafted
stuff,
but
also
the
site
alt,
actually
generates
a
full-fat
example
of
all
of
the
data
that
could
go
into
into
a
feed.
So
it'd
be
good.
If
you
could
have
a
look
at
that,
I'm
not
gonna,
go
through
it
in
more
detail
than
that
now.
But
if
you
could
take
a
look
and
then
just
even
just
give
me
a
drop
me,
an
e-mail
or
something
just
to.
A
Let
me
know
whether
you
think
it's
useful,
whether
you've
got
any
suggestions
for
extra
guidance
that
we
should
put
together,
I'm
trying
to
get
some
reasonable,
some
technical
authoring
resource
to
help
us
write
some
developer
tutorials
to
supporting
particular
types
of
data,
and
so
that
we
can
start
to
build
out
some
content
from
there
as
well.
So,
if
you've
got
suggestions
on
what
we
can
do,
you
know
based
on
your
experience,
either
publishing
or
using
data.
That
would
be
helpful.
A
It's
called
10.5
but,
as
I
said
on
Friday,
that's
really
just
a
number
indicating
progress
like
that
we're
moving
forward,
rather
than
how
much
is
still
to
be
done
so
we're
much
more
much
closer
to
having
a
1.0
than
0.5
actually
indicates
I'm.
Just
rounding.
The
number
forward,
based
on
some
of
the
early
work
that
was
done.
I'm
gonna,
come
back
to
that
in
the
status
update.
A
What
will
what
my
I'm
aware
of
based
on
discussions
that
we
had
last
week
and
feedback
we've
been
getting
from
startups
and
elsewhere,
is
that
we
really
do
need
to
pick
up
some
progress
around
the
activity
list,
so
we
are
going
to
be
inviting
a
few
people
out
to
face-to-face
meeting
to
discuss
some
of
the
issues
and
potential
options
for
moving
forward
with
that
on
the
20th,
then
we'll
kind
of
check
back
in
with
the
group.
Here
it's
a
little
bit
as
I
said
last.
A
We
is
a
little
bit
different
at
the
other
work,
because
it's
less
about
standards
and
a
bit
more
about
how
the
community
curates
mission
resource
managers
to
shared
data
set,
which
is
a
kind
of
from
slide.
If
dynamic.
There
has
been
going
on
today
here
and
elsewhere
in
the
program,
so
you
have
to
me
about
a
quite
a
flurry
of
activity.
A
Some
of
you
at
the
workshop
that
we
ran
the
end
of
last
year
to
start
gathering
requirements
around
what
the
first
version
of
booking
spec
would
look
like.
There
is
a
working
documentation,
those
in
working
list
of
requirements
which
I
shared
after
after
we
had
that
event.
In
that
document
there
is
a
kind
of
breakdown
of
a
very
detailed
set
of
requirements
and
indication
of
whether
it
needs
to
be
covered
in
the
version.
1
spec,
where
we
are
at
the
moment,
is
that
what's
currently
called
Z
of
0.5
actually
covers
the
majority
of
those
requirements.
A
There's
only
looking
through
the
list,
there's
only
2
areas
where
we
don't
have
a
some
technical
features
or
documentation.
At
the
moment
the
first
is
around
facilities,
so
the
draft
currently
speaks
exclusively
about
booking
places
at
events,
so
there's
some
work
to
be
done
to
review
whether
we
might
need
to
change
anything
to
support
booking
of
facilities.
A
My
good
feeling
at
the
moment
is
that
it
would
not
going
to
require
a
major
change
to
the
way
that
the
API
design
currently
works
in
order
to
do
that,
but
we
at
least
need
to
work
through
some
examples,
both
to
confirm
my
assumptions,
but
also
to
improve
the
documentation
in
the
spec.
So
it's
clear
about
how
that
happens,
and
the
other
thing
that
we
haven't
considered
yet
is
some
well
I'm,
calling
it
just
kind
of
terms
and
conditions,
I
suspect.
A
That,
though,
will
need
to
be
some
information
display
to
participants
at
the
time
that
they
are
booking
a
place
on
an
event
we
haven't
got
away
for
that
for
those
kind
of
terms,
conditions
to
be
communicated
at
the
moment,
either
through
the
modeling
expect
or
in
the
booking
API
spec.
So
we
might
need
to
just
put
a
bit
of
thought
into
how
that
is.
Those
are
made
machine,
readable,
you
know
just
in
terms
of
including
links
to
terms
of
conditions,
etc.
A
So
I
think
we're
in
a
pretty
good
spot
at
the
moment.
For
for
booking
we,
my
plan
is
to
get
another
updated
draft
by
the
20th
of
July.
Hopefully,
to
cover
both
of
those
things
and
I'm,
proposing
that
we
aim,
we
aim
as
a
community
to
get
to
1.0
by
the
end
of
all
that,
that's
it
both.
It
feels
like
a
long
long
way
away
and
also
got
a
short
time.
A
The
the
really
for
me,
the
gate
and
how
quickly
we
can
move
forward
is
the
the
level
of
detailed
feedback
we
get
on
the
API
design.
What
I
would
really
be?
What
would
really
be
happy
with
is
if
we
could
get
some
people
to
actually
kick
the
tires
on
the
spec
and
try
building
some
prototypes
or
some
test
implementations
to
see
if
there
are
specific
issues
that
come
up
in
that
process.
A
So
I'm
gonna,
be
you
know,
trying
to
cope.
Those
you're
on
the
corn
or
anyone
who's
kind
of
watching
the
recording
afterwards
to
kind
of
get
involved,
but
also
trying
to
do
some
outreach
to
you
know
to
potential
implementers
or
users
of
the
API
to
see
if
they
can
get
involved,
because
I
think,
given
that
this
is
such
a
kind
of
critical
part
of
the
ecosystem,
everyone
needs
to
be
comfortable
in
the
functionality
offers.
A
We
know
that
there's
a
whole
raft
of
stuff
that
would
follow
from
a
1.0
specification
yeah.
There
are
some
things
he
doesn't
do
around
account
management,
for
example,
but
were
were
being
led
by
the
requirements
that
we've
been
given
and
I'm,
keen
to
kind
of
deliver
on
that
before
we
kind
of
start
to
add
more
to
the
specification,
so
that's
kind
of
where
we
are
for
booking
anyone
got
any
comments
or
feedback
on
that.
There's
an
outline
plan
at
the
moment.
C
It
might
be
good
to
get
an
understanding
and
just
for
those
that
are
gonna,
be
read.
This
there'll
be
more
work
to
potentially
update
again
to
1.0.
So
obviously,
there's
been
some
work
done
to
get
to
no
point
three
point:
four
we're
skipped
because
of
the
chances
of
it
changing
yeah
I'm
guessing
here.
The
ideal
path
would
be
that
there's
there
is
an
active
implementation
done.
A
If
I'd
for
jump
over
to
the
spec
in
the
spec,
now
we
have
a
we've,
updated
some
other
documentation,
but
the
the
like.
The
basic
flow
of
the
specification,
they're
kind
of
interactions
between
client
server
I,
don't
think
that
hasn't
changed
in
any
meat
will
meaningful
way
since
0.3
and
I
don't
think
it's
going
to
change
drastically
between
now
and
1.0.
A
We
may
want
to
tweak
how
we're
using
some
of
the
HTTP
methods,
but
I,
don't
think
that
it's
going
to
be
between
now
and
get
into
1.0
is
going
to
be
a
complete
rework
of.
What's
there
so
I
think
it
would
be
a
relatively
small
change.
I
mean
I
think
we're
in
a
pretty
stable
spot.
It's
not
a
complicated
workflow.
To
do
this.
This
working
the
way
that
we've
separated
out
there's
only
the
kind
of
payment
side
of
things
yeah.
C
So,
rather
than
asking
everyone
for
two
sets
of
implementations
which
are
gonna
double
almost
let's
go
through
the
process
together.
Qa
together
make
it
amends
together
and
then
finish
the
whole
journey
together.
So
we
should
end
up
with
all
the
influences
that
are
working
with
us
finishing
together
at
one
yeah.
A
I
think
I'd
be
good
way
to
do
it
and
it's
more
likely
that
will
then
people
will
follow
through
and
actually
launch
their
launch.
The
API
is,
rather
than
just
doing
kind
of
disposable
implementations
all
right
going
to
see
whether
we
can
do
some.
You
know
prototyping
around
reference
implementation
so
by
the
clients
or
servers
it
within
the
ODI
team.
I.
Don't
really
have
I'm,
not
sure.
C
D
That
make
sense
to
me
that
roadmap,
it
seems
like
it's
moving
quickly,
which
is
nice
and
yeah
quickly
via
Quinta.
Get
James
and
Sherman's
have
a
look
at
the
specs
and
gives
some
nice
detailed
feedback
on
that
as
soon
as
possible
and
just
keen
for
speed,
and
it
seems
to
be
going
in
that
direction,
which
is
a
positive
for
sure,
cool.
A
So
I
mean
the
best
way
to
help
support
that
momentum
is
to
juice.
To
start
is
to
do
a
review
I'm
just
just
filed
github
issues
on
the
spec,
because
we
can
have
the
discussion.
You
know
we
don't
have
to
hold
up
discussion.
Do
these
calls?
We
can
have
the
debates
in
github
I'd
seen
it
have.
You
know
a
hundred
minor
issues
and
questions
around
clarifications.
Then
you
know
waiting
two
weeks
where
I've
kind
of
polished
with
you
as
well.
So
you
know
as
thoughts
and
issues
come
up.
Let's
try
and
address
them.
A
A
There
is
an
address
code
for
v1
section,
so
I'm
kind
of
keeping
the
things
open,
but
just
also
having
a
reference
point
for,
for
those
kind
of
conversations
are
going
to
come
back
to
so
you
can
see
like
you
know
they
in
progress
these
and
things
that
Chris
thought
working
on
a
spec
needs
to
pick
up.
Some
of
the
next
iterations
I
need
to
put
the
terms
of
conditions
on
there
as
well.
C
C
A
I'm
gonna
I
mean
because
the
terms
conditions
have
came
up
out
of
decomposing
those
requirements,
but
I
haven't
really
got.
We
have
already
got
a
kind
of
scope
for
what
that
change
needs
to
be
so
I'm
going
to
put
together
a
an
issue
as
a
proposal
that
will
kind
of
outline
what
I
think
needs
to
go
in
and
we
can.
We
can
get
some
feedback
on
that
to
get
those
kind
of
requirements
in
all
these
things,
I
want
to
try
making
it,
and
so
you
know,
hit
the
kind
of
minimum
requirements.
A
I
don't
want
to
get
into
unless
it's
you
know
absolutely
necessary
having
a
completely
machine,
readable,
set
of
terms
and
conditions
and
kind
of
booking
constraints.
It's
more
just
a
set
of
you
know,
pointers
to
things
that
a
user
might
need
to
be
aware
of.
You
know
in
terms
of
conditions
that
you
can
pop
up
in
a
in
an
apple
in
a
window
or
something
yeah.
Sorry,
it
was
more
there's.
A
A
So
so
we
didn't,
we
didn't
achieve
it
for
facilities,
but
I
would
want
to
I
was
trying
to
move
us
to
was
to
have
any
kind
of
new
release
in
the
modeling
to
make
every
couple
of
months.
So
we
do
editors
draft
each
month,
the
following
month.
We
do
a
release,
so
that
would
mean
I'm
following
the
publication
of
one
one.
Last
week
that
mean
we
need
to
have
new.
D
A
You
know
it
might
vary
in
scale
and
we're
just
so
that
we've
got
something
and
we'll
make
sure
that
we're
scoping
our
next
work
around
what
we
can
achieve
in
that
time
scale
as
I've
just
alluded
to
that,
doesn't
mean
that
we
can't
have
ongoing
discussions
around
proposals,
including
those
that
aren't
necessarily
in
our
immediate
kind
of
month
or
two
month
timeframe
in
github.
Right,
I,
don't
want
to
close
down
any
useful
discussions
in
there
looking
at
the
the
stuff
that
we've
got
in
the
backlog,
and
that
has
come
up
in
discussions
so
far.
A
So
it's
just
a
publication
of
walking,
running
and
cycling
routes,
so
primarily
what
I'm
thinking
of
as
kind
of
self-directed
activities
you
just
don't
want
to
find
where
these
routes
are
and
then
you're
going.
What
is
fate
you
know
you're
in
and
time
there
is
a
proposal
doc
which
I
put
together
and
circulated
last
week,
so
it
list
might
publish
this
data
or
we've.
The
OD
is
a
description
of
the
engagement
activity
so
based
on
black
and
some
requirements,
I've
been
sent
by
a
few
people.
A
The
proposal
outlines
the
kinds
of
information
that
people
are
currently
publishing
around
roots
I'm.
A
lot
of
it
is
just
basic
kind
of
basic
metadata
stuff.
What's
the
route
where,
where
do
I
go
for
more
information,
what
type
of
activity
it
is
and
a
bunch
of
that
stuff
we've
already
got
in
the
spec?
The
new
bits
are
information
about
the
route
itself.
Where
does
it
start?
What's
the
track?
What's
the
distance,
the
elevation
etc?
A
So,
in
the
proposal
I've
taken
some
data,
there's
some
stuff
from
the
Forestry
Commission
and
some
stuff
from
Ordnance
Survey
to
just
illustrate
what
it
would
look
like
in
the
in
the
data
model.
It's
actually
a
pretty
small
change,
I
think,
there's
one
new
type,
so
route
type
and
there's
a
couple
of
new
properties,
so
distance
starting
points
and
a
root
property
to
point
to
a
geo,
JSON
file
or
a
GPX
file.
All
of
the
other
stuff
that
people
publish
so
descriptive
descriptions
categories.
They
get
tagged
the
activity,
whether
it's
walking,
cycling,
etc.
A
The
the
ease
of
the
the
level
kind
of
how
easy
the
route
is
is
all
covered
by
existing
terms.
So
doing
this
I
think
is
a
even
the
people
are
asking
for
it.
It's
worth
putting
some
efforts
doing
it,
but
it's
actually
quite
a
quick
thing.
I
think
would
be
quite
a
small
change,
we're
not
talking
about
something
at
the
level
of
facilities.
A
So
I
mean,
if
anyone's
got
any
feedback
on
that
now,
happily
take
it,
but
I
think
that's
worth
doing
in
our
next
set
of
revisions
and
I'm
kind
of
given
that
it
suits
a
straightforward
I'd,
pretty
close
to
be
able
to
just
put
to
put
this
into
a
new
editors
draft.
If
we
have
a
bit
of
feedback
on
the
gear
up,
issue
would
be.
A
So
that
feels
more
like
a
kind
of
small
change.
It's
you
know
two
new
dates:
new
Saturdays
types,
it's
just
a
kind
of
extension
to
where,
at
the
moment,
the
other
proposal,
around
validation,
is
a
bit
trickier
and
mostly
because
it
will
end
up
with
some
breaking
changes
to
published
data.
So
the
proposal
here
is
to
find
some
ways
to
improve
the
quality.
A
Both
include
approve
the
quality
of
published
data
by
making
their
specification
a
bit
stricter,
but
also
making
it
a
little
bit
easier
to
conform
to
the
specification
by
reducing
the
number
of
options
that
people
have
around.
Sharing
the
same
information
like
go
back.
To
give
you
a
concrete
example:
go
back
to
the
developer
documentation.
A
You
know
again,
quite
prescriptive
of
this.
This
isn't
right
is
how
you
should
not.
This
field
is
right
and
here's
one
of
three
ways
you
could
fix
it,
which
is
not
that
helpful,
but
in
in
order
to
do
that,
we
will
end
up
making.
Why
think
our
breaking
changes
to
the
specification
so
we'll
be
taking
away
some
of
those
options,
and
that
will
mean
that
potentially
some
of
the
published
data
will
be
considered
to
be
invalid.
A
Based
on
that
version
of
the
specification
and
the
validator
that
tool,
though
rebuilds
I,
haven't
gone
through
and
tried
to
assess
what
the
extent
of
that
breakage
would
be
because
we've
not
really
finalized
the
list
of
validation
changes
nick
has
been
putting
in
a
list
of
quite
a
few
getup
issues
around
this
area
ran
some
kind
of
detailed
improvements
to
the
spec
based
on
common
mistakes
and
in
supporting
people
in
publishing
data.
A
A
If
we're
using
duration,
it
should
be
a
ISO
duration
and
we're
properties
can
have
multiple
values.
Then
it
should
always
be
an
array
rather
than
just
having
the
option
to
have
a
string
or
an
array,
and
in
the
consumer
figure
things
that
so
this
sort
of
kind
of
broad
things
that
we
can
use
to
kind
of
just
walk
through
this
back
and
make
some
changes.
There
might
well
be
some
additional
recommendations
that
we
want
to
put
in
the
light
change,
how
people
use
specific
entities.
A
So
if
this,
this
kind
of
it
feels
like
we've,
got
a
good
sense
of
what
these
validation
changes
needs
that
need
to
be,
we
probably
need
to
have
a
separate
call.
I
think
will
be
the
next
where's,
the
next
one.
A
We're
trying
to
guide
people
into
you
know
the
kind
of
best
practices
that
were
putting
into
the
spec
already
to
be
sort
of
mindful
of
those
those
changes
that
are
coming
down
the
line,
but
it's
not
something
we
can
keep
cutting
off.
A
So
one
concrete
question
I
had
is
that
the
way
that
we've
in
this
in
the
spec
we
say
that
we
try
it
we'll
try
and
make
kind
of
forwards
compatible,
but
when
we
make
changes,
there'll
be
a
backwards,
compatible
bothers
heat.
Some
of
this
won't
be
backwards
compatible.
So
this
version
of
the
spec
I
was
wondering
whether
we
should
actually
call
it
2.0
just
to
indicate
that
there
is
a
breaking
change.
C
The
only
mindful
of
is
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
are
currently
implementing
against.
What's
there
now,
so
we
just
need
to
make
sure
I
think
it's
probably
the
right
thing
to
do
is
do
2.0
I
think
we
just
needed
to
it
quickly
and
quicker
the
better,
because,
obviously,
as
you
say,
there's
people
implementing
and
I'm
just
imagining
now
and
that
will
feel
like
they've
got
there
and
cycling
feel
like
they'll.
C
C
Obviously,
the
sooner
I
think
actually,
as
people
are
like
presently
really,
you
know
making
these
changes
to
their
foods.
I
think
if
we
were
to
prioritize
anything
I
would
suggest
doing
that
earlier
or
as
soon
as
possible
and
just
and
where
possible.
C
If
there
are
rules
that
we
can
start
to
put
in
place
to
make
it
so
that
we
can
give
guidance
early
to
those
that
are
orient
in
light,
so
that
when
they
finish
the
things
I
triathlon
published
today
and
and
then
then
we
need
to
I,
don't
know
where
they
are
in
the
PR
process.
But
if
anyone
has
noticed,
triathlon
is
on
the
Status
page
and
so
I
think
there's
some
tweets
going
out
later.
So
obviously
triathlon
will
have
to
make
changes
to
do
that.
C
A
Yeah,
so
what
I
was
planning?
You
can
see
the
slides
I've,
not
preempted
any
decision.
So
what
are
the
one
for
two
or
two
point
eight,
but
I
was
thinking
that
we
would
start
drafting
that
now
to
get
just
to
incorporate
both
routes
and
the
validation
work
in
an
updated
draft
or
set
of
updated
drafts.
That
will
go
out
in
the
next
few
weeks
with
the
aim
to
publish
maybe
what
we
call
2.0
by
the
end
of
August.
So
if
we're
working
to
the
same
time
scale
as
booking
uncomfortable,
we
can
do
that
stuff.
A
Give
them
some
targeted
advice
rather
than
just
leaving
them
to
it.
You
know,
rather
than
just
publishing,
but
putting
them
at
the
spec
and
saying
okay
now
conform
will
give
them
a
bit
more
help.
So
that
means
we'll
have
to
do
a
bit
of
a
kind
of
engagement
pushing
around
it
but
at
which,
I
think
is,
is
in
line
with
what
you
were
suggesting
we
could
give
longer,
but
I
think
the
longer
we
give
it
in
order
for
people
to
start
changing
the
more
we're
going
to
get
static
behind
it.
A
Basically,
we've
got
a
few
things
that
are
going
to
be
working
in
in
parallel,
so
I
think
we
need
to
give
some
time
for
both.
So
next
call
is
on
the
18th
of
July
we
can
so
we'll
have
you
should
have
an
updated
editors
draft
by
then
and
I
think
that
will
be
stable
enough
that
you
could
be
starting
to
build
through,
as
you
say,
you
saying
it
to
to
UAT
I
think
it
will
be
pretty
close.
A
You
know
pending
implementation
fee,
but
obviously
I
think
it'd
be
pretty
close
to
pretty
stable,
so
we
could
spend
a
bit
more,
but
a
detailed
time
dealing
with
any
with
any
issues
they've
been
filed
over
the
next
couple
weeks.
That
call
and
then
use
the
other
half
of
the
call
to
step
through
in
a
little
bit
more
detail,
just
the
list
of
what
we
plan
to
tighten
up
round
validation.
So
we
can
just
get
a
sense
of
the
scope
of
that.
A
If
we
keep
iterating
on
the
spec
too
much
doing,
August
is
just
not
going
to
give
a
clear
target
for
people
to
aim
that
I'll
probably
spend
a
bit
a
little
bit
of
time.
Talking
about
the
activity
list
on
that
call.
As
well
we've
just
given
update
on
what
we've
learned
from
the
community
discussion
on
20th,
then
the
next
calls
will
be
booking
just
trying
to
make
sure
any
any
issues
that
have
come
up
from
implementers
that
we
dedicate
a
good
hour
to
that
form.
A
The
15th
of
August
and
their
29th
of
August,
the
same
for
the
Norfolk
spec
and
we'll
they'll
be
quite
for
those
particular
those
latter.
Two
calls
I
want
them
to
they'll,
probably
be
quite
detailed,
nitty
gritty
discussions,
we'll
just
go
through
and
hopefully
take
off
and
close
down
as
many
issues
as
possible.
You
know,
depending
on
the
level
of
feedback,
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
some
kind
of
consensus
around
where
we
want
to
be.
A
Yeah
yeah
I
mean
the
given
the
it
from
a
functional
point
of
view,
if
you're
not
using
facilities.
If
you're
just
doing
events,
then
you
it's
pretty
much
there
I
think
in
the
current
draft.
There's
just
one
section
around
that
just
documents
how
cancellation
works
that
isn't
in
spec,
but
that's
going
to
work
similar
to
super
point,
three
I
think
so
yeah
there's,
there's
no
I,
don't
there's
no
barriers
in
terms
of
like
documentation.
That
would
stop
somebody
I'm
starting
to
have
a
more
serious
play
with
this.
Now.
A
So
I'll,
so
in
terms
of
communicating
this
more
widely
I'll
circulate
the
slides
and
a
summary
of
what
the
plans
are
to
the
mailing
list.
I'll
see
if
I
can
get
some
submit
public
on
the
open,
active
blog
as
well,
just
to
kind
of
summarize,
where
you
know
we're
putting
up
basic
a
few
calls
out
to
the
community
here,
the
people
to
kind
of
get
involved
and
let
them
know
about
where
some
changes
that
are
coming
might
be
good
to
communicate
that
bit
more
widely.
A
C
To
everyone
active
and
traffic
on,
so
you
can
see
traffic
forms
there
on
the
state's
page,
which
is
the
first
published
in
a
while
a
list
of
many
hopefully
given
number
of
things
stacked
up
in
the
pipeline.
That
should
be
converting
soon.
So
that's
there.
Please
do
go
ahead
and
play
with
that
C.
We
think
so.
C
It's
conformant
to
the
modeling
spec,
hopefully
pretty
well
I
mean
if
there's
any
bugs.
Obviously
following
issues
the
validator
that's
gonna,
be
hopefully
created
over
the
next
few
weeks
will
help
people
to
make
that
a
bit
more
yeah
concrete,
and
then
everyone
active
if
you
yeah.
If
you
go
to
data
that
I've
run,
active
comm
and
you'll,
see
it
what
we've
got
there
is.
C
C
We
should
be
seeing
five
or
six
G
Gladstone
installs
all
going
live
with
that
same
facilities
and
modeling
spec,
which
brings
me
to
a
quick
question.
Actually
a
OB
why's.
There
are
a
few
things
that
are
still
beta
in
those
adapters
that
are
about
to
be
sprinkled
across
the
world,
so
I
wonder
whether
there's
a
chance
that
we
can
address
those
things.
C
The
main
one,
to
be
honest,
is
the
availability
which
I
just
rated
a
proposal
for
today,
which
is
that
availability
kind
of
micro,
syntax
more
than
for
less
than
or
which
Gladstone
and
implementation
uses
and
I've
proposed
in
that
proposal,
that
we
follow
what
we've
done
with
age
range
and
basically
just
use
constant
value
instead
of
a
value
in
in
the
remaining
available
spaces
property,
which
means
that
you
can
either
specify
a
number
of
reining
spaces
which
is
90
percent
of
their
use
cases.
It
works
well,
but
obviously
the
bad
stone
it
doesn't.
A
B
C
Their
sites,
it's
it's
all
the
data,
the
yes.
There
will
be
some
changes
today,
but
we
that's
might
be
why
we
haven't
posted
it
on
general
in
community's
back
yet,
but
by
the
end
of
the
day,
what
I
might
a
quick
steer
on
this
and
then
I'm
going
to
go
through
and
make
sure
age-range
matches?
The
latest
spec
for
age
range
that
gender
matches
on
new
enumeration
for
gender.
B
Feed:
okay,
that's
really
helpful.
Thank
you
and
I
know
through
dark
glazing
with
everyone
active
that
previously
it
took.
They
took
lock,
monitoring
it
for
a
while
to
make
sure
it
doesn't
impact
system
performance,
the
mayor
and
all
that
jazz
and
that's
still
a
thing
or
is
that
at
the
bed
and
it's
a
pilot
or
is
it
done
now
so.
C
C
So
that
means
you
gets
the
sneak
preview
and
can
start
to
use
it
between
the
use
of
the
community
using
it
and
their
system.
So
don't
worry
about
thrashing
it
with
its
that's,
not
going
to
affect
what
they're
monitoring,
because
the
whole
point
of
this
is
that
there's
a
buffer
between
the
one
on
the
other.
So
what
they're
monitoring
is
whether
they
can
keep
the
same
level
of
real
time
there
as
if
they
have
at
the
moment.
C
B
It's
their
process
for,
if,
let's
say
we're
using
our
active
data
to
power
change
your
life,
that's
a
real
example,
and
they
discover
some
issues
at
there
in
that
means.
They
need
to
do
something
drastic,
that
these
is
their
presence
for
they
uses
something.
It
doesn't
some
announcement
being
made
to
so
we're
aware
that
that
services
is
about
to
get
changed,
go
down.
C
B
I'm
on
all
the
made
a
lesson
yet
to
have
a
single
update,
one
from
good
Jim
I've
had,
but
just
just,
if
that's
the
mechanism
they're
going
to
use
it
and
that's
great
and
every
other
need
to
see
some.
Why
understand
sort
of
is
there
and
is
working
in
his
fine,
never
act
if
anyone
where
I
think
they're
practically
monitoring
it,
which
means
there
is
a
lot
of
Sheen
different,
sir,
a
habit,
fusion
right,
she
just
turned
off
no
honest
until
you
call
them
and
say
well,
there's
a
ringer
session.
C
Yeah
totally
that
so
they're
aware
of
that,
and
that
is
absolutely
on
the
yeah
they've
got
the
main.
Let's
set
up
for
that
reason.
They'll
be
announcing
that,
through
those
routes
and
they're
aware
that
there's
in
fact
part
of
the
reason
there's
a
staged
release
of
this.
The
stage
releases
are
to
the
community
update
the
stages
master
dashboards.
C
So
it's
there
and
then
property
are
pushed
through
Twitter
and
you
know
wider
news,
racks
channels
and
then
the
wider
push
isn't
happening
for
about
two
three
weeks
and
so
basically
expected
to
continue
to
be
in
a
kind
of
on
not
unstable,
but
just
not
like
fully
rock-solid
state.
Until
then
till
when
the
wider
push
happens,
but
that's
the
reason
that
they'd
staged
but
but
start
using
it
find
out.
If
there's
issues
with
it,
you
know
any
gauge
quality
problems.
For
example,
they
can
you.
C
B
Well,
yeah:
if,
if
we're
trying
to
use
it
for
some
of
the
biggest
campaigns
that
we
got
coming
up
this
summer,
then
we
need
time
to
get
theta
Prime
in
so
I.
Guess
from
our
point
of
view,
any
time
to
get
these
into
our
stuff
and
also
then
to
analyze
it
and
start.
You
know
what
we
need
to
do
with
it
to
make
it
right
for
this
campaign,
and
four
weeks
from
now
is
I.
B
Think
the
launch
of
what
are
we
on
so
fourth
of
July,
three
weeks
from
now
lessons
rinse
from
now
this
campaigns
going
live.
So
if
it's
ready
now
would
start
bring
it
in
and
augmenting
it.
If
there's
going
to
set
it
to
change,
that's
kind
of
difficult
was
we
won't
know
what
they've
changed
and
what
they
haven't
changed
right.
C
Okay,
well
so
doing
this
in
order,
then,
if
I
can
get,
maybe
it's
just
these
thoughts
realistically
on
that
proposal
in
the
very
short
term,
I
can
probably
move
ahead
with
everything
else
and
get
that
with
like
relatively
stable
ie,
it's
very,
very
unlikely
to
change
state
by
the
end
of
the
day,
and
then
that's
when
the
main
man's
going
on,
although
for
a
week,
which
is
why
there's
a
delay
and-
and
we
can
get
hit,
I
can
get
him
today
in
our
last
conversation,
to
give
us
a
date
of
when
he's
going
to
be
happy
for
it
to
go,
live
assuming
that
nothing
goes
wrong,
that
you
can
then
use.
C
C
Amazing,
so
yeah
so
I
guess
leave
I.
Think
me,
I
can
show
you
the.
If
you
looked
at
look
at
the
feed
you'll
see
there
some
beats
of
properties
in
there.
It's
basically
just
a
question
of
seeing
if
we
can
get
some
kind
of
rough
consensus
on
if
there's
looks
at
like
sensible
ways
forward
and
I'm
kind
of
reticent
to
bacon
beta
into
this
stuff
before
we
gets
deployed
to
50
places,
but
equally
aware
that
we
might
not
be
able
to
get
it
into
the
proper.
C
A
Of
course,
I
think
it's
three
o'clock
so
I
think
I'm
gonna
wrap
us
up
here
today,
but
if
there
are
any
of
the
comments
that
we
will
have
on
the
road
map
or
the
scope
doing
then
either
drop
me
an
email
or
follow
up
on
the
mailing
list
after
I've
circulated
the
slides
there.
Okay,
thanks
everybody
for
coming
in
and
giving
you
input,
awesome.