►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2021-06-30
Description
Phase 3 Summary
- Open booking API
- Virtual events
- Routes
- Accessibility
- Issues to be expedited
- Issues needing further exploration
A
A
It's
really
just
going
to
be
going
over
the
major
milestones
that
were
accomplished
in
phase
three
and
just
really
opening
up
for
comment
after
that,
and
maybe
flagging
points
of
difficulty
or
questions
or
desires
for
agenda
setting
moving
forward
that
don't
have
another
forum
at
the
moment
to
express
those
in
before.
I
start,
however,
if
we
could
just
go
around
the
screen,
I'll
proceed,
clockwise
from
my
view
and
I'll
just
call
upon
each
of
you
in
turn
to
introduce
yourselves
first
of
all,
charlie
clark.
A
D
A
A
So,
essentially,
what
happened
in
phase
three,
hopefully
we're
all
fairly
clear
about
this.
The
headline
really
is
the
open
booking
api
that
came
out
near
the
beginning
of
phase
three.
It
is
now
I
think,
it's
safe
to
say,
approaching
maturity,
we're
on
it's
been
iterated
very
quickly,
I
would
say
almost
throughout
the
entirety
of
phase
three.
It's
currently
at
candidate
release
number
three.
A
A
F
A
F
A
A
I
think
there
were
several
rolling
conversations
that
I
think
there
was
a
tendency
for
issues
to
kind
of
surface
and
resurface
and
not
quite
get
resolved,
which
is
hardly
unique
to
this
particular
standards.
Body
the
below
are
a
list
of
issues
that
I
think
we
actually
did
talk
to
the
point
where
they
can
be
resolved.
If
somebody
in
most
cases
me
simply
does
what
was
agreed
upon,
however,
I'm
I'm
happy
to
see
this
list
expanded.
A
The
first
is
a
long
rolling
discussion
about
facility
type
service
type
and
venue,
so
things
like
squash
courts,
pitches
and
the
various
surfaces
they
might
have.
Whether
a
venue
is
indoors
and
outdoors
those
kinds
of
three
interrelated
overlapping
but
distinct
concerns.
We
did
get
towards
completing
a
model
for
and
there's
an
action
with
me
to
actually
create
the
json
structure.
That
would
specify
that
so
that
that
I
think,
has
got
to
a
point
of
maturity.
A
We
also
need
to
do
point
releases
of
the
data
set
site
specification
and
the
modeling
opportunity
data
specification.
A
lot
of
the
work
on
opportunities
falling
out
of
the
work
on
the
open
booking
api.
I
think
it's
safe
to
say,
but
that
said
are
there
other
issues
that
people
are
expecting
to
see
move
forward
in
the
near
future?
That
feel
like
they
should
be
done,
but
aren't.
B
The
the
only
one
from
me-
and
I
think
this
is
quite
small,
fry
and
relatively
booking
system
specific
at
the
moment,
but
consideration
for
other
opportunity
types
that
aren't
specifically
specified
in
the
standards
as
of
yet
so.
I've
got
in
mind
things
like
competitions
courses.
Anything
related
to
a
qualification
competitions
from
our
side
is
a
big
one.
I
think
the
the
emergence
of
people
completing
challenges
in
various
formats
became
prevalent
during
the
pandemic,
but
I
think
it's
a
sort
of
concept.
A
F
I
was
expecting
that
and
then
it
looked
to
me
like
you
unmuted,
so
I
thought,
oh,
oh,
that
was
probably
putting
my
sandwich
on
the
keyboard,
so
I'm
just
making
a
big
deal
about
meeting
lunch
right
now.
Sorry
about
that,
no,
I
think
that's
a
really
good
summary
and
the
I
think,
there's
quite
a
lot
in
well,
not
a
lot,
but
obviously
the
the
booking
spec.
F
We
talked
about
there's
being
a
lot
of
stuff
in
there
and
there's
quite
a
few
issues
in
the
data
center
and
one
expect
to
kind
of
just
check
through
and
stuff.
So
I
think
those
bullet
points
do
actually
include
a
lot
of
things,
I'd
assumed
and
therefore,
what's
in
the.
If,
if
we
look
at
the
outstanding
issues
in
the
various
places
in
those
repos
of
booking
spec
data
set
site
and
modeling
spec
can't
think
of
anything
else,
a
facility
types,
obviously
its
own
repo,
so
we've
kind
of
covered.
A
A
F
G
F
And
when
we
find
that
we
can't
quite
write
it
because
we
haven't
fully
flushed
something
out,
it
might
just
be,
then
that
I
mean
things
like,
for
example,
publishers
versus
publisher
versus
creator,
that
I
don't
know
if
we've
really
got
an
answer
to,
but
we
might
have
at
the
bottom
of
that
issue
kind
of
concluded.
Something.
F
F
A
F
A
Yeah,
I
can
imagine
that
they're
hesitant
to
move
because
actually
web,
I
feel
like
not
enough.
People
are
paying
attention
to
the
web.
Api
conversation
like
it's
quite
a
big
chunky
thing
that
a
lot
of
people
are
going
to
be
interested
in
once
it's
out,
so
they
might
be
a
bit
hesitant
to
move
for
that
reason,
but
equally
none
of
those
people
seem
to
be
engaged.
So,
let's
proceed.
You
know,
based
on
the
people
who
are
focused.
F
So
even
if
they,
for
example,
just
just
decided
to
go
with
the
the
one
that
references
the
schema.
I
forgot
what
it's
called,
but
there's
a
something
too.
Then
that
would
probably
be
like.
You
know,
there's
probably
like
a
handful.
That
would
be
really
really
useful
for
us,
like
endpoint,
url
or
something,
and
then
the
others
are
less
important.
G
B
A
A
Yeah,
okay,
so
it's
much
easier
to
specify
what
the
json
content
of
the
data
set.
Splash
page
should
be
because
that's
very
easy
to
describe
formally,
we
don't
give
a
lot
of
guidance
about
what
sort
of
content
is
actually
expected
on
a
dataset
site,
page
like
what
you
should
actually
see
so
we're
good
on
machine
parsible
we're
not
so
good
on
human
readable.
A
D
A
F
F
Yes,
there's
some
with
this
required
for
open
booking
tag
which
are
in
the
under
the
discussion
column
I
mean,
I
don't
think
I
mean.
I
think
this
is
again
one
of
those
things
to
just
look
at
right.
I
think
in
a
lot
of
cases,
actually
they
have
been
concluded
type.
An
id,
for
example,
has
been
concluded.
It
shouldn't
probably
be
another
discussion
anymore,
just
a
case
of
checking
that
those
are
indeed
wherever
they
they
should
be.
A
F
F
Oh
yes!
Yes,
yes,
because
at
the
moment,
just
to
get
your
validator
pass.
If
you've
got
bike
rides,
you
need
to
fudge
the
fields
and
address
otherwise
the
whole
conform
of
where
the
whole
test
feed
breaks.
That's
just
a
bit
nuts,
so
I
mean
that's
the
thing
we
probably
these
probably
aren't
really
in
backlog,
because
I
think
that
that
issue
actually
has
been
discussed
previously.
I
think,
there's
actually
a
a
whole
thing
on
that
thread.
A
A
So,
there's
a
very
lengthy
proposal
for
how
to
deal
with
memberships,
which
are
left
kind
of
underspecified
in
the
current
implementation.
I
think
this
is
probably
going
to
be
what
absorbs
most
of
the
attention
for
phase
four
is
getting
that
integrated
into
the
specification
into
a
way
that,
in
a
way
that
suits
everybody's
requirements
or
at
least
suits
the
common
core
of
requirements.
A
B
Challenges,
courses
and
volunteering
opportunities-
all
of
these
can
what
you
tend
to
find
with
all
of
these
types
of
activity
is,
there
is
still
kind
of
what
I'd
consider
to
be
a
point
of
entry
for
simplicity
of
language.
So,
yes,
a
tournament
has
a
draw
and
it
has
a
progression
and
it
might
happen
on
a
day
or
happen
over
a
few
weeks.
B
But
that's
not
really
what's
important
for
the
standards
what's
important
is
there
is
an
opportunity
to
enter,
and
once
that
point
has
gone,
the
standards
don't
particularly
care,
and
that
is
modeled
with
a
name,
a
description,
a
price
difficulty,
age,
requirements,
etc.
But
I'm
sure
there
are
things
about
a
tournament
as
an
example
that
might
be
of
interest
to
the
standards
I
where
this
is
oddly
very
specific
to
us.
B
So
I
imagine
it's
very
low
on
the
priority
list,
but
I
do
wonder:
we've
obviously
talked
a
lot
about
routes,
so
just
wonder
with
some
of
these
others,
whether
there
are
system
providers
out
there.
Volunteering
springs
to
mind
whether
it's
a
volunteering
system
called
kinetic.
I
think
not
to
be
confused
with
kinetic
insight,
although
there
might
be
some
crossover
who
provide
volunteering
systems
with
opportunities
in
and
there's
probably
other
volunteering
systems
that
I
am
aware
of,
that
have
volumes
of
data
in
them
that
could
plausibly
contribute
to
the
open
data
set
so
yeah.
B
These
have
always
been
on
the
back
of
my
mind
that
we
do
things
and
we
do
publish
these
as
opportunities,
but
it's
thin
on
the
ground
in
terms
of
any
data
specifics
and
how
long
we
allow
that
to
carry
on
going.
I
don't
want
the
gaps
to
increase
for
systems
like
us,
who
are
just
cheating
to
eventually
point
becoming
a
lot
of
work
to
patch
that
gap
into
a
three
years
time.
B
A
F
B
I
will
I'll
go
and
dig
out
with
some
searches
and
contribute
where
I
can
yeah.
I
think
there
probably
is
a
little
marketplace
of
systems
that
have
probably
not
quite
ever
been
considered
here
that
it
might
just
be
worth
us
sort
of
looking
at.
I
don't
want
it
to
suddenly
think
it's
a
priority,
because
it
might
come
to
nothing
but
could
be
of
interest.
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
my
impression
sort
of
generally
talking
with
various
people
is
is
there's
lots
of
stuff
that
we're
not
modeling,
and
I
think
the
question
is
not
so
much
whether
there's
demand
it's
about
how
possible
it
is
to.
You
know
finally,
model
everything
but
yeah,
I'm
not
worried
about
there
being
community
interest
in
it
definitely
difficulty
and
intensity.
This
difficulty
went
round
quite
a
bit
and
I
think
we
landed
in
a
more
or
less
good
place.
A
Only
to
have
a
number
of
organizations
come
forward
with
an
interest
in
intensity,
which
is
apparently
something
different.
I'm
not
too
sure
how
to
cleanly
separate
the
two
in
a
way
that
makes
sense
to
people
who
aren't
already
clear
on
the
distinction,
with
difficulty
being
about
experience
and
skill
and
intensity
really
being
about
almost
more
like
cardiovascular
health.
B
I
imagine
there's,
there's
even
a
plausible
sorry
to
be
really
awkward
but
a
plausible
third
there,
which
is
like
where
we
talk
about
difficulty,
we're
talking
about
the
activity,
whereas
I
imagine
in
our
sector
it's
probably
more
pertinent
to
be
talking
about
the
participant
rather
than
the
activity,
which
might
be
your
your,
like
inactive
et,
cetera
like
who
is
this
suitable
for,
rather
than
what
difficulty
level?
Is
it
because
a
participant
looking
at
a
difficulty
might
have
no
clue
whether
it's
suitable
for
them
or
not?
B
A
A
Participants
who
are
entering
into
a
completely
new
kind
of
area,
typically
because
they're
really
sedentary
having
a
good
sense
of
whether
they're
going
to
be
capable
of
undertaking
an
activity
but
yeah
how
you
communicate
that
so
that
people
have
an
accurate
sense
is,
is
really
difficult
and
yeah,
maybe
maybe
having
a
controlled
vocabulary.
Saying
you
know,
are
you
sedentary?
Are
you
under
active?
Are
you
active
or
do
you
want
to
be
more
activated?
There
might
be
a
frame
of
words.
That's
more
user
focused
that
that
addresses
that
better.
B
I
think
there
are
probably
there's
probably
a
good
reference
point
in
the
the
types
of
survey
that
activity
providers,
especially
in
regards
funding
partners,
would
go
out
to
ask
so
like
the
classic.
How
active
are
you
now
and
the
active
lives
might
be
a
good
place
to
start
where
they
they're
either
referencing,
like
I'm,
not
active
at
all,
I'm
active
once
a
week,
but
there's
also
sort
of
yes.
B
A
E
While
reflecting
on
this,
I
I
remember
the
call
about
difficulties,
I
can't
remember
when
we
discussed
specifically,
I
was
thinking
I
used
to
be
a
canoeist,
and
the
british
canoe
union
has
skill
levels,
a
star
level,
basically,
and
certain
courses
or
certain
competitions
would
be
graded
according
to
a
rating
level
that
I
would
achieve
within
a
formal
sort
of
exam
system.
If
you
like,
as
a
canoeist,
I
can't
remember
whether
we
talked
about
that.
E
A
The
edward
we're
sort
of
stymied
a
little
bit
with
this
one,
because
we
don't
really
have
an
infrastructure
that
we
can
draw
upon.
There
are
some
safeguarding
practices
that
are
widespread,
while
even
widespread
is
maybe
a
bit
much
to
say
there
are
some
safeguarding
qualification,
safeguarding
approaches
that
are
used
by
a
substantial
number
of
organizations.
A
So
it
could
be
that
we
need
to
proceed
by
engaging
more
closely
with
organizations
like
mcr,
active
or
initiatives
like
mcr
active,
which
are
dealing
with
this
problem
on
quite
a
quite
a
pragmatic
level,
to
try
to
get
a
sense
of
what
they're
trying
to
support,
because
this
felt
like
a
fertile
topic
for
discussion,
and
it
seemed
to
get
more
rather
than
less
complicated.
As
we
as
we
spoke.
B
I
I
think
there
are
sort
of
local
models
out
there
to
try
and
accredit
providers.
So
I
don't
know
what
goes
on
in
an
mcr
active
by
certainly
no
active
westminster.
I've
always
had
the
concept
of
active
westminster
mark,
which
was
accreditation
of
quality
and
accreditation
to
certain
legal
governance
and
other
requirements,
and
would
usually
be
a
sort
of
it's
not
a
certificate,
but
a
marker
of
of
of
safeguarding
qualifications.
B
This
comes
up
on
almost
every
data
user.
Initial
call
that
I
have:
how
do
they
control
who
can
get
on
there
and
how
can
they
be
sure
the
governance
those
providers
is
is
in
place.
So
for
me
it
is
a
very
high
specialty,
perhaps
with
the
the
engagement
focus
priority
that
might
be
in
place
for
phase
four
aligned
with
active
partnerships,
I
think
that's
gonna
could
end
up
being
a
big
area
of
focus,
because
I
think
it's
a
barrier
to
entry.
B
It's
not
not
totally,
it
can
be
avoided,
but
there's
there's
certain
caution
about
knowing
anyone
can
publish
something
that
appears
on
a
website
that
is
considered
accredited.
I
think
taking
us.
I've
always
felt
when
I've
heard
noise
in
this
area
that-
and
I
just
don't
know
where
this
gets
managed,
but
the
blue,
tick
exercise
of
social
of
social
media
giants
is
not
a
bad
one.
It's
just
working
out
how
that
gets,
how
that
does
get
managed
as
to
something
who's.
Just
someone
who
has
been
validated
it's
there's
an
effect.
B
There
is
an
officialness
to
to
that
tick,
although
it
might
not
still
indicate
absolutely
everything.
I
don't
think
we're
going
to
get
to
the
point
of
actual
governance.
Checking
and
check
they've
got
every
legal
document,
but
it
could
at
least
be
a
signature
floor
or
or
a
label
of
label
of
quality
that
this
has
been
looked
at
and
this
otherwise,
this
one
hasn't.
C
I've
worked
an
awful
lot
with
organizations
around
kind
of
quality
marks
as
it
were,
but
the
how
often
certification
is
is
reviewed
in
because
you
know
your
safeguarding
certificate
has
to
be
reviewed
every
three
years
and
so
does
a
quality
mark.
So
somebody
could
be
signed
off,
but
then
a
month
later
to
their
qualification
goes
out
of
date,
but
their
quality
mark
stays
in
date
for
the
next
three
years.
So
it's
just
not
as
live
as
you
would
want
it
to
be,
and
things
fall
through
the
net.
Unfortunately,.
A
Is
this
also
the
case
with
the
sort
of
ngb
strategy
for
safeguarding
is
very
heavy,
very
pure.
You
know
very
pyramid
kind
of
focused.
You
know
with
this
idea
that
the
ngb
it
credits
you
know,
creates
a
code
of
conduct
that
various
organization
organizations
sign
up
to
and
then
their
conformance
to
that
is
audited
by
the
ngb
and
so
on
and
so
forth
down
the
chain.
That's
extremely
heavy.
A
But
whether
we
can
do
much
more
than
point
to
those
other
kinds
of
structures
that
other
people
put
up
like
mcr
active
or
the
ngb
structure,
I
guess
is
the
question.
We
probably
can't
create
a
complete
system
that
handles
all
safeguarding
or
even
specify
how
one
works,
but
maybe
maybe
that
is
a
requirement.
B
B
Yeah,
I
certainly
know
the
only
thing
I
do
know
some
of
their
earlier
work
for
just
crossing
over
partners
we
worked
with
was
about
about
creating
a
much
more
official.
I
can't
think
of
the
wording
at
all,
so
I
don't
have
to
do
laban's
terms
but
like
much
more
official
recognition
of
job
roles,
job
titles,
job
qualifications
etc
across
the
sector,
so
that
what
it
professionalizes
the
sport
and
physical
activity
sector
much
more
and
recognizes
when
you
have
certain
qualifications,
safeguarding
credentials
etc
like
they,
I
think
they
started
as
an
independent.
B
You
know
their
full
journey.
I
think
they
started
independent
and
now
supported
or
funded
by
sport,
england,
but
they
are
being
recognized
as
the
official
sort
of
they
are
the
ones
who
will
recognize
the
professional
accreditation
across
the
sector.
It's
just
they're
still
only
two
or
three
years
into
their
journey,
so
I'm
just
thinking
they
feel
like
the
right
place.
Were
they
to
be
a
larger
body
in
over
the
next
sort
of
five
or
ten
years.
A
Okay,
I
think
probably
there's
two
aspects
to
this,
because
I
feel
like
what
we've
done
in
miniature.
Just
now
is
like
a
compact
version
of
what
the
conversations
previously
have
looked
like,
which
is
like
sort
of
ever
branching
and
ever
getting
larger
with
more
people
that
we
should
probably
be
talking
to.
I
think
what
I
will
suggest,
then,
is
that
we
first
of
all
do
some
kind
of
data
collection
exercise
to
get
a
sense
of
how
big
a
priority.
This
is
for
the
sector.
A
Charlie
has
indicated
that
it's
high
and
then
I
think
I
want
to
kick
this
a
little
bit
up
the
chain
and
talk
to
sport,
england,
about
who
we
should
be
talking
to
actually
and
then
we
can
start
going
from
there,
because
this
feels
like
getting
a
quorum
on.
This
is
going
to
be
very
difficult
like
who
everybody
to
some
extent
has
got
a
stake
in
safeguarding
and
who
is
authoritative
to
to
talk
about
it.
I
think,
is
a
difficult
question.
So
that's
another
action
for
me.
E
Do
we
want
to
structure
it
such
that
they
basically
get
a
buy
on
that
kind
of
assertion
that
says
this
assertion
has
been
made
by
the
organization,
organizing
the
events,
and
it's
got
nothing
to
do
with
us
and
because
that
would
come
back
to
the
standard
and
say
well
who's
making
the
assertion.
What's
this,
what
is
the
text
of
the
assertion
and
what
is
the
supporting
documentation
for
the
assertion?
E
And
maybe
that's
all
open
active
needs
to
do
without
getting
into
the
weeds
of
validity,
and
you
know
the
currents
how
current
it
is
and
that
sort
of
thing
which
would
make
this
an
awful
lot
simpler
from
an
open,
active
point
of
view,
but
maybe
at
the
expense
of
putting
effort
onto
the
publishers
to
be
able
to
back
it
up
or
come
up
with
their
own
way
of
backing
it
up.
But
it
is
quite
flexible
that
way.
A
Yeah,
I
think
I
think
scoping
is,
is
the
pertinent
question
because
it
would
be.
It
would
be
easy
enough
to
have
some
url
fields.
That
said,
you
know,
for
instance,
with
ngbs.
Now
here's
the
ngb
code
of
conduct,
here's
the
membership
number
of
the
organization
with
the
ngb.
So
here
is
what
you
can
reasonably
expect.
A
You
know
the
validation
that
they
adhere
to
that
code
of
conduct
to
be
so
that
would
be,
I
don't
know
two
or
three
url
fields,
yeah
and
then
there's
the
whole
other
world
of
dbs
checks
and
dating
and
validity
stamps,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
I
agree
with
you
chris.
I
would
prefer
that
we
not
engage
with
any
of
that
that
that
is
left
to
somebody
else
to
to
worry
about.
E
A
A
E
I
guess
I
just
weigh
in
with
a
an
additional
vote
for
continuing
to
pay
attention
to
virtual
stuff.
That's
my
bag
really,
and
also
that
that
does
lock
into
charlie's
earlier
points
about
challenges,
and
so
on.
The
virtual
challenges,
I
think,
are
going
to
remain
postcoded
still
something
that
people
have
now
had
a
sampler
of
and
quite
enjoyed
doing,
and
it
would
be
good
to
model
that
I
noticed
strava
excuse
me:
strava
just
released
a
whole
challenge
capability,
there's
no
api
to
it.
At
the
moment.
B
So,
yes,
it
shows
a
walking
route,
but
every
walking
route
in
this
country
can
be
something.
That's
then
a
trackable
thing
by
by
applications,
so
it
just
brings
the
concept
of
a
route
to
life
in
a
slightly
different
way,
rather
than
readable
data.
It's
more
engageable
data,
so
I
think
there's
definitely
a
market
for
that.
I'm
sure
there's
apps
out
there
trying
to
to
do
that,
but
has
a
place
in
open
access.
A
B
B
I
just
think
it
becomes
for
me
it
becomes
almost
a
boolean
tick
box
that
some
somehow
something's
getting
populated
to
guide
a
data
user
who's,
otherwise
null
and
void
on
on
what
the
data
is
to
improve
quality,
because
otherwise,
if
they
use
all
data,
someone
in
some
system
can
go
and
put
up
an
activity
that
attracts
families
or
young
people
towards
them.
First
versus
requirements.
I'm
thinking
that's
a
that's
a
worst
case
requirement,
but
without
something
in
the
data.
B
I
think
there
are
services
that
could
overlay
open,
actives
that
do
that
and
hat
pickers.
I
know
I'm
in
provide
services
like
that,
but
it's
how
even
then,
how
do
you
know
that
there's
a
sense
of
quality
or
an
accredited
provider
just
that
somebody
with
some
authority
somewhere
has
given
that
authority
that
provider
a
tick
of
some
kind
of
quality?
B
If
there
were
standards
to
govern
the
format
of
participation,
data
off
the
back,
then
that
presents
opportunities
to
the
sustainability
of
open
active,
but
that
would
need
to
be
standardized
in
order
for
it
to
be
provided
a
sort
of
in
an
easy
way
to
then
be
used.
So
so
yes,
but
that
feels
like
more
of
a
sustainability
decision
than
it
does
a
a
technical
one
right.
Okay,
that's
a
strategic
issue.
A
A
F
F
F
I
suggest,
but
it's
more
of
a
strategy
question
between
where
the
value
comes
from,
that
keeps
everybody
engaged
and
then
the
activities
we're
doing,
because,
for
example,
if
we
go
off
and
do
load
of
participation,
data
work
but
actually
doesn't
actually
generate
value
in
a
tangible
way
for
anybody
that
that
you
know
affects
growth
or
whatever
else
the
metrics
are.
Then
obviously
we
could
find
ourselves
stranded
on
an
island
of
lots
of
politics
and
no
momentum
which
is
not
the
place.
C
F
So
sorry,
jason,
yes,
absolutely
so!
The
issue
is,
I
think
everybody
wants
that,
but
how
we
develop
an
infrastructure
that
supports
it,
because
it
can't
be
open
data.
It's
got
to
be
shared
data,
and
if
it's
shared
data
then
it
needs
to
be.
There
needs
to
be
intermediaries
that
manage
that
and
then,
for
example,
such
as
those
that
exist
and
others
that
might
need
to
come
along
and
do
that
same
service.
Maybe
people
on
the
court
be
interested
in
being
that
intermediary,
but
we
can't
just
create
endpoints
that
then
give
those
active
partnerships,
a
solution.
F
I
mean,
there's
good,
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff
in
the
middle
that
needs
to
be
created
or
existing
people
engaged,
and
also
some
of
those
active
partnerships
already
pay
for
that
service
from
existing
organizations
that
that
to
achieve
the
same
thing,
so
we're
kind
of
we're
doing
a
combination
of
reworking.
What's
already
there
combined
with,
for
example,
a
lot
of
organizations
have
got
a
full
global
integration.
Currently
so
they'd
be
building
this
alongside
that,
and
so
we
need
to
make
sure
there's
another
four
global.
I
guess
competitor
in
the
middle.
Who
would
use?
F
That's
the
new
standard
and
to
present
the
information
and
all
the
other
things
that
come
with
it
in
a
way
that
those
active
partnerships
would
then
want
to
use
and
all
that
would
need
to
be
agreed,
and
it
needs
to
be
someone's
business
priority
to
make
that
happen,
because
if
we
just
publish
a
load
of
data
and
no
one
uses
it.
Obviously
we
know
what
happens
from
previous
experience.
B
It
feel
it
feels
like
because
I
I
agree
on
both
sides.
It
is
a
it
is
a
kind
of
worms.
It
is
going
to
be
a
political,
my
absolute
mind
minefield
that,
but
equally
I,
if
we're
talking
about
phase
four,
it
would
be
a
miss
of
us
in
the
role
of
phase
four
to
have
not,
I
guess
it'd
not
be
on
the
agenda
of
exploration
for
sustainability,
and
so
it
feels
like
a
kind
of
the.
B
There
is
a
gap,
obviously
that
we're
aware
of,
but
it
feels
like
an
executive
and
board
level
agenda
item
that
should
be
there,
because
if
it's
not
we're
missing
a
major
point,
I
think
I
completely
agree
with
everything
you've
said
in
it
and
I
think
there
are
moving
parts
in
the
sector,
but
equally
at
a
macro
level,
at
a
political
level.
If
that
data
were
to
exist
in
a
market
fair
way,
it
would
potentially
transform
the
role
of
open
active.
I
think,
if
that's
not
a
bigger
statement,.
G
B
A
B
My
only
final
point
and
sorry
tim
is
on
a
similar
question
of
value.
I
I
can't
say
this
is
coming
from
a
naive
point
and
I
don't
know
making
naive
points
because
I
sometimes
put
my
foot
in
it,
but
I
just
wonder
on
the
short
to
medium
term
value
of
the
memberships
work
in
terms
of
who
that
who
the
end
user
benefit
is
there
in
the
community.
F
Yeah,
so
james
charlie,
even
jamie,
asked
a
similar
question
on
this.
I
didn't
respond
the
last
time
it
came
up
in
a
call-
and
I
said
I'll
say
it
now.
The
reason
from
our
perspective,
why
memberships
is
key
is
because
there
are,
there
are
systems
and
operators
such
as
gladstone
that
are
blocking
the
the
booking
work
on
the
basis
of
memberships,
and
so
it's
becoming
it's.
It's
become
a
prerequisite
to
turning
booking
on
at
scale,
which
is
100
agree.
B
A
Okay,
so
that's
that's
an
interesting
point
again.
I
feel
like
we're
sort
of
strategic
more
than
technical
here,
but
I
had
understood
memberships
to
be
a
kind
of
glue
that
were
holding
initiatives
like
mcr,
active
or
active
westminster
kind
of
together
that
this
was
sort
of
a
lingua
franca
for
the
different
organizations
involved.
Is
that
not
the
case?
Is
it?
Is
it
that
there's
a
few
organizations
that
want
that
and
others
that
aren't
bothered,
or
is
it
a
universal
concern
in
those
contexts.
F
So
talking
about
operators
talking
about
that
local
authority,
world,
yes
very
central
and
therefore
a
prerequisite
to
making
open
active
work
in
that
context
and
the
data
that
being
available
to
other
use
cases
such
as
play
finder,
sorry
play
ways
et
cetera,
et
cetera.
So
obviously
there's
there's
an
interaction
between
that
world
and
everything
else.
I
suppose
talking
to
charlie's
point
from
a
kind
of
long
tail
perspective
you
know
of
of
small,
smaller
providers.
F
Memberships
isn't
really
something
that's
on
their
radar
from
what
you
know
we're
aware
of
there's
no
blockers,
no
one's
saying
we
need
to
have
memberships
before
we
can.
Do
you
know
anything
in
that
in
that
area?
So
it's
it's
not
going
to
block
getting
more
long
tail
data
available
and-
and
it's
not
going
to
block
a
lot
of
use
cases
around
that
long
tail
data.
F
So
I
suppose,
if
you've
got
like
two
stacks
of
you've
got
you've
got
your
all
your
local
authority
and
look
and
activities
and
and
partners
all
that
on
one
side
and
you've
got
all
tail
stuff
on
the
other.
They
can
independently
work
and
obviously
one
can
be
completely
blocked
into
a
membership
and
the
other
one
just
crack
on
the
point:
we've
got
membership
then
both
can
interact
and
everything
moves
forward.
F
G
B
Is
but
benefit
to
them
value
to
the
the
initiative.
Equally,
I'd
suggest
that
maybe
not
quite
to
the
same
extent,
but
safeguarding
and
qualifications
that
prior
conversation
to
the
tale
in
the
I
think
there
are
volumes
of
dates:
small
data
users
and
small
data
providers,
publishers
who
there's
a
there's
a
the
connection
between
those
two
might
be
sort
of
primed.
B
On
that
concept,
the
idea
of
a
school
being
able
to
connect
with
or
publish
the
data
of
all
the
local
providers
within
their
their
ecosystem,
and
that
might
be
too
difficult
if
they
can't
guarantee
safety
of
their
parents
and
young
people,
and
so
safeguarding
safety
being
really
important
there
and
potentially
being
a
similar
blocker
to
a
potential
high
volume
of
data.
So.
F
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
that.
That
was
extremely
useful.
I
think
unpacking.
I
think
we
started
the
further
exploration
quite
well
there
and
I
think
at
like
a
usefully
general
level,
so
I
think
we
can.
We
can
kick
off
phase
four,
getting
a
better
steer
on
those
and
be
a
better
place
to
to
address
those
given
that
we've
already
drawn
out
the
conversation.
Quite
broadly,
I
guess
with
two
minutes
on
the
call.
A
A
F
F
B
F
Yeah,
I
was
going
to
say
actually
the
emd
marketplace,
that
we
had
some
involved
involvement
and
does
have
some
json.
Of
course
it
does
some
open
data
underneath
it
that
is
roughly
formatted
in
a
kind
of
it
was
started
out
with
an
attempt
to
match
schema.org
and
then
kind
of
due
to
time
constraints.
It
gave
up
a
bit,
but
but
yeah,
there's
yeah,
that's
there's,
there's
a
starter
for
something
there.
F
If
we
didn't
want
to
look
at
standardizing
what
an
offer
looks
like
I
mean
to
be
honest,
I
think
schema's
got
most
of
this
anyway.
Products
offers
all
the
stuff,
it's
probably
quite
simple,
to
pull
something
together
and
then
create
something
around
it,
at
least
as
a
basic
thing.
I'm
not
sure
how
much
value
it
adds
more
generally
mine
in
terms
of
priorities
versus
you
know,
memberships
and
and
the
other
one
the
slogan
safeguarding
yeah.
So
I
I
wouldn't
necessarily
put
it
up
there
with
those,
but
something
to
mention.
C
I
did
have
I
mean
this
marketplace.
Conversation
has
been
brought
up
several
times
and
I
had
spoken
to
mcr
active
about
theirs
and
they
did
say
if
we
were
to
create
one
centrally,
they
would
just
use
ours.
So
maybe
we
could
kind
of
pull
one
together.
That
would
work
or
fit
purpose
for
everyone,
rather
than
so
many
of
them
being
created,
but
they
could
link
to
us.
So
it
is
a
conversation
to
be
taken
further
forward.
I
would
say.
A
A
And
in
fact,
we're
a
little
over
time
so
I'll
say.
Thank
you
very
much
for
the
call.
Thank
you
for
participating
in
phase
three.
I
look
forward
to
seeing
you
in
a
couple
of
weeks
for
phase
four
I'll
circulate
some
terms
of
reference
for
phase
four
in
advance
of
the
next
call
and
look
forward
to
talking,
then.
Thank
you
very
much.