►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2017-05-10
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2017May/0003.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
Welcome
everybody
to
next
hangout
there's
been
some
good
discussion
going
on
released
in
between
the
last
two
calls,
just
all
the
good
to
see
so
today
and
we've
got
two
topics
that
we're
going
to
cover
so
I
wanted
to
spend
the
first
part
of
the
session
talking
about
disability
support
when
describing
opportunities
and
to
carry
on
some
of
this
officials.
Roof
we've
had
on
the
list
and
some
of
the
previous
calls
and
then
take
first
look
at
the
work.
That's
been
happening
around
developing
the
shared
activity
list.
A
A
Okay,
so
we've
we've
had
a
bit
of
a
discussion
around
arrest
to
kind
of
frame
disability
support
available
for
opportunities
Jeff.
It
showed
some
of
the
fields,
ways
of
their
capture
in
their
system,
and
this
would
be
good
good
exchange
of
information
on
the
mailing
list
so
far,
and
so
what
struck
me
from
the
feedback
we've
had
so
far
is
that
there's
there's
a
different
viewpoints
which
might
be
worth
just
kind
of
recapping.
A
So
one
aspect
here
is
how
users
describe
their
own
disabilities.
So
this
is
the
kind
of
information
the
active
life
survey
was
capturing.
Those
answering
questions,
such
as
does
this
physical
disability
or
illness,
affect
you
in
any
the
following
areas.
So
that's
one
type
of
information
and
the
second
is
suitability
of
specific
individual
sports
for
specific
impairments.
A
That
people
might
have
examples
there
that
there
are
quite
detailed
classifications
that
are
in
the
Deloitte
Paris
sport
and
the
Paralympic
classifications
that
people
have
pointed
out
from
the
list
and
then
the
third
category
is
the
what
support
is
available
at
a
specific
event.
So
you
know
what
dispossess
conditions
can
this
activity
accommodate
I?
Think
it's
useful
to
look
across
those
three
areas,
but
I
think
my
thing
is
that
we
for
this
activity,
we're
concentrating
on
the
third
one
so
focusing
on
on
the
opportunities
rather
than
classifying
sports
in
particular
I.
A
Think
it
doesn't
need
to
do
that.
Then
it's
something
that
could
be
looked
at
in
the
context
of
annotating
and
the
activity
list,
for
example.
But
I
wanted
to
kind
of
share
that
as
if
you
had
any
thoughts
on
that
just
but
just
make
sure
that
we're
kind
of
all
talking
about
the
same
kind
of
thing
kind
of
direction,
so
I
based
on
their
feedback
and
examples
that
people
have
posted
to
the
list.
I
pull
together,
just
a
spreadsheet.
A
That
just
shows
how
they
line
up
and
it's
pretty
obvious
from
what
people
are
saying
that
there's
already
a
core
common
set
of
fields
that
people
are
using
in
systems.
And
so
it
seems
to
me
like
that.
That's
just
a
good
basis
to
draw
on
for
the
standard
we're
developing.
But
there
are
a
number
of
variations
around
and
was
mainly
around
some
of
the
physical
impairments
and
wheelchair
accessibility,
users
and
I'm,
going
to
switch
over
to.
A
Can
you
see
which
other
shares
with
properly?
Can
you
see
your
spreadsheet
yeah?
Okay
I'm?
So
all
I've
done
here
is
just
pull
together
all
of
the
various
fields
that
people
think
they
were
using
one
list
so
the
first
economy
and
we've
got
I
watching
get
active,
was
in
open
sessions.
A
There's
a
few
more
variations,
but
you
can
see
everyone
is
using
the
same
six
or
seven
so
hearing
impairment,
learning
impairment,
mental
health
condition,
physical
impairment,
visual
impairment,
multiple
impairment
is,
is
a
common
one
as
well,
and
then
a
kind
of
catch-all
of
the
category.
So
that
seems
like
a
kind
of
a
good
list
to
build
on
for
describing
opportunities.
A
A
couple
of
the
couple
of
the
systems
have
an
extra
descriptive
field
or
invite
participants
to
contact
the
organizer,
so
every
session
to
invite
somebody
to
contact
AMD
I
had
a
specific
field
for
additional
information
on
disabilities
conditions
catered
for.
So
there
is
some
extra
variation
I
think
when
imported
actors,
with
some
of
their
customers
ago,
capturing
things
like
movement,
disabilities,
sensory
impairments,
an
illness,
the
other
variations
around
learn
of
limit
balance,
run
of
wheelchair
users.
I
just
thought
that
could
kind
of
recap
that,
and
so.
A
A
C
A
I
think
it's
a
bit
of
a
both
I
mean
I,
think
I'm.
The
fields
I
think
so
far,
I've
been
what
people
are,
the
kind
of
what
information
is
being
it
when
an
events
or
session
he's
been
better
and
what
other
providers
it,
but
I've
seen
that
those
same
fields
of
epidemic
to
participants
so
like
the
active
during
active
ethics
I
can
look
at
those
and
filter
on
the
misinformation.
C
B
C
B
A
I'm,
well,
it's
a
float
about
if
multiple
impairments-
and
it
is
interesting
because
I
wasn't
quite
sure
what
what
that
meant
as
a
as
an
option
for
use
as
whether
it
was
intended
to
be.
We
have
support
for
people
with
multiple
impairments
or
whether
it
was
just
a
catch-all.
We
have
some
multiple
methods
at
this
event
right.
B
A
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
think
I
think
the
key
thing
to
note
from
the
sort
of
consumer
point
of
view
based
on
what
we
have
out.
We,
the
people
this
or
a
lot
of
people,
may
not
and
identify
with
anything.
Sir
sport
and
physical
activity
says
that
between
one
one
thing
is
just
how
the
information
is
used
mystics
and
it's
not
going
to
exclude
those
people
who
don't
identify
with
having
a
disability
and
then
I
think
there's
just
something
around
if
they're
looking
for
peachy-keen
their
fortitude
exhibit
impact
specific.
E
Then
raise
the
same
point
around
you
interests
in
his
absence
he's.
Given
me
a
little
note
here,
you
want
to
be
clear
that
the
way
that
people
search
for
activities
should
be
our
guide
in
defining
this
because
they
may
not
associate
with
some
of
those
impairments,
but
they
might
still
require
that
support.
I
think
this
is,
is
that
kind
of
similar
to
what
you're,
you're
saying
Carol.
C
E
Suggestion
was
that
that
let
me
just
to
get
this
up
so
that,
if.
E
If
the
leader
of
the
session
thought
they
were
able
to
that,
the
session
was
appropriate
for
particular
subtype
of
type
impairment.
That
might
be
useful
to
inform
the
research
side
of
things,
but
also
that
a
lot
of
leaders
of
sessions
aren't
really
well
educated
in
terms
of
understanding
what
that
means
to
support
particular
impairment.
You
know,
and
so
that
in
previously
we
had
this
conversation
with
them.
E
Yes,
yes,
oh
yes,
ETFs
they
talked
about
the
idea
of
creating
a
kind
of
questionnaire
or
something
that
you
would
give
Cillian
to
say
actually
could
I
handle
visual
impairment
in
my
session?
Do
I
know
what
that
means,
depending
on
the
type
of
of
sport,
basically
implying
it's
quite
complex,
to
figure
out
whether
I
can
take
the
box
or
not,
and
so
we
need
to
provide
adequate
guidance
and
that
this
isn't
just
a
case
of
putting
some
boxes
into
some
form
that
people
can
take.
But
there's
something
around
that
and
as
well.
F
Just
another
little
point
on
that,
if
we
are
going
to
look
at
this
from
the
point
of
view
as
to
how
people
search
for
activities,
we
then
will
also
need
to
settle
on
what
the
definition
of
a
activity
without
any
of
this
data
included
in
it
actually
means.
So,
if
I
have
a
sport
on
the
non,
the
list
where
we
haven't
put
any
of
these
fields
in
place,
does
that
mean
that
that
sport
automatically
by
default,
is
freely
available
to
do.
F
Anybody,
or
does
it,
then
mean
that
anybody
armed,
because
if
we
don't
care,
if
I
that
upfront,
then
the
in
the
process
of
publishing
your
data-
yes
I
know
we.
We
would
like
to
look
at
this
from
the
searching
perspective,
but
you
also
need
to
think
about
it
from
the
other
side
and
where,
if
you
are
saying
that
people
have
to
classify
all
of
their
all
of
their
data
with
these
fields
before
they
can
publish
it,
then
that
would
just
be
another
hurdle
that
we
are
adding
in.
F
So
you
know
we
need
to
balance
it
out.
My
personal
take
would
be
if
the
fields
are
not
there,
then
we.
We
should
assume
that
that
sport
is
freely
available
to
all
and
then
flip
it
on
its
head
and
effect
where,
if,
if
the
fields
are
specified,
then
it's
it's,
it
narrows
it
down
specifically
to
to
those
categories,
because
it
makes
sense
for
everything.
C
Basically
anyone
can
I,
don't
see
what
they
like,
but
the
title
of
that
particular
section
is
inclusive
of
members
with,
and
then
it
has
the
different
options.
So
then
you
say
including
our
members
with
hearing
impairments
or
visual
impairments
or
disabilities.
So
basically
it
will.
Then
it's
not
saying
it's
solely
those
with
hearing
impairments.
It's
inclusive
of
I
think
it's
that
way
around.
C
Then
it'll
still
concern
all
searches
and
then
basically,
if
somebody
is
actually
running
a
session
that
is
solely
inclusive
or
only
for
so
people
with
a
hearing
impairment,
it
tends
to
be
specified
in
the
writing
in
title
also.
Then
they
just
leave
it
with
the
inclusive
I.
Don't
know
if
that
helps
or
hinders
confirmation
a
bit
more,
but
how
we've
managed
to
get
around,
and
it's
worked
as
far
and.
A
Okay
I
mean
that
makes
sense
to
me.
I'm,
not
sure,
I
fully
understand
cow's
feedback,
though
I'm
not
sure
always.
Are
you
saying
that
they
kind
of
said
the
six
seven
categories
that
people
already
using
and
not
sufficient
or
that
they're
just
need
to
think
about
how
those
of
presenters.
C
Okay,
right
and
yeah,
so
I
think
I
think
that
doesn't
need
to
be
just
a
bit
more
work
on
those
categories,
just
so
that
we
can
just
make
sure
that
you
know
anybody
who
is
logging
on
feels
they
can
identify
with
those
individual
categories.
As
they
say,
we've
got
12
now
that
we
use
with
active
lives,
which
you
can
people
can
identify
with
so
there'll
be
stuff
in
messes
or
behavioral
memories.
B
B
E
E
E
So
is
there
a?
Is
there
a
case
for
certain
activities
being
almost
ruled
out
from
particular
impairment
groups,
but
then
in
some
sessions
it
sounds
like
there
might
be
a
swimming
session
that
caters
for
those
who
are
visual
impairment,
but
maybe
it
depends
on
how
the
session
is
run.
So
it
you
know
so
some
some
sessions
can
be
coached
so
that
they
can
be
inclusive
of,
as
you
said,
as
Kim
suggested,
X
or
Y.
Oh.
C
Yeah
so
yeah
I
can
and
yeah
I
mean
it's
going
to
be
dependent
on
the
person
and
the
level
of
the
intense
they
have.
So
somebody
might
have
visual
impairment,
but
it
might
be
partially
like
this
and
and
some
people
might
classify
the
vision,
tenant
that'd
be
completely
blind
from
that
property
link
and
their
impact.
You
know
how
the
action
is
awesome
and
what
support
they
need
and
obviously
there'll
be
some
sport
where
there
can
be
equipment
can
be
adapted
so
that
it
will
cater
for
people
with
particular
physical
impairment.
C
E
E
A
A
G
Problem
here
is,
we
could
get
into
very
complex
kind
of
matrix
of
stuff
here
and
what
we,
what
is
coming
clear
out
this
is
that
we
need
to
provide
two
very
clear
guidance
around
how
this
should
be.
If
we
come
back
to
the
cool
cat
wind
around
it.
Yes,
we
can
get
to
that,
but
vocally
guides
about
how
this
is
a
held
in
systems
and
being
then
presented.
G
The
elevation
scales
meant,
for
you
know
the
other
is
a
cross
link
here
to
cite
equipment
and
what
Xavier
you
know.
If
you
have
a
particular
disability,
you
may
not
need
help,
but
you
might
need
to
know,
there's
a
low
slope
to
get
into
the
swimmer
all
those
hoist
or
something
like
that.
It's
easy
to
access,
so
I
kind
of
feel.
We
need
to
kind
of
boot
some
sort
of
a
kind
of
a
guide
that
just
sits
around
this
kind
of
stuff
to
help
people.
E
The
bend
Bend
point
on
that
was
of
those
terms.
Have
we
actually
tested
them
with
users,
because
is
what
he
would
hypothesize?
Is
that
those
terms
aren't
sufficient
and
actually
probably
not
very
useful
for
the
users?
The
fact
we
have
convergence
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
that's
the
answer
it
might
just
be:
we've
converged
on
a
local
Optima
rather
and
local
Optima.
Well,.
C
I
can
add
in
that
that
we've
used
them
as
less
sherman
and
sport
by
the
times
that
we
use
for
all
of
our
programs,
and
then
we
write
our
reporting
on
that
is
worked
across
the
23
different
CSP
that
currently
use
our
system
as
well,
when
they
do
their
reporting.
They
use
those
terms,
and
it's
just
as
I
mean
you
kind
of
like
our
Nichols.
They
said
you
could
keep
going
here.
You
can
have
loads
and
loads
of
classifications
for
everything.
C
I'm
not
saying
me
to
make
it
really
general
that
I
do
no
need
to
have
those
people,
but
at
the
same
time
and
I
think
that
some
point
me
to
draw
a
bit
of
a
line
in
the
sand
just
to
get
us
going
and
then
maybe
look
at
revisions
on
on
follow-up
phases
or
something
along
those
lines
for
now.
In
my
opinion,
and
again,
maybe
you
guys
might
disagree
the
options
that
we
have
there.
Those
sort
of
six
or
seven
that
we
just
saw
on
the
list
I
do
think.
C
E
C
E
D
Me,
oh
good
I
was
going
to
have
him
I'm,
not
an
expert
in
this
area,
but
from
the
conversation
and
we've
had
with
interactive.
And
if
that's
the
see
you
versus
your
parents
will
always
and
self-identify
and
whether
they
think
any
decision
is
is
like
them.
And
even
if
you
first
three
hundred
Englander
list
and
it's
generally
white
help
with
their
mentor
identifying
and
in
most
effective
and
if
you
can
give
them
accepted
information
and
later
justify
six
or
seven
and
categories.
D
If
you
can
significant
nation
to
to
show
that
that
class
and
would
be,
people
want
difficulty.
Parents,
visual
parent
naps
that
particularly
efficiently
to
deserve
to
make
a
call
to
LenDale,
have
the
discussion
and
unless
addition
or
the
most
pages,
they
would
make
that
positive
and
without
thinking
by
thousands
being
on
the
list.
But
not
for
the
native
detail
and
what's
involved
in
the
class
in
the
session
about
having
a
conversation.
H
F
Yeah,
just
one
more
thing
that
I
would
add
to
it
is
you
know,
I
would
say
that
in
a
certainly
fall
from
a
first
version
we
should
we
should
go
with
the
with
the
seven
that
happened,
that
that
seemed
to
be
shared
I
would
be
quite
tempted
to
to
to
actually
extend
a
little
bit
further.
If
we've
got
you
know
in
your
in
your
list
that
you
had
their
lead,
there
were
about
four
or
five
other
ones
which
were
shared
in
two
or
three
of
the
other
datasets,
so
I
would
think
about
having
them.
F
You
know
they're
just
by
default
as
well,
but
what
I
would
certainly
really
want
to
see
is
that
the
new
properties
that
we
add
to
the
schema
make
it
quite
clear
that
these
are
inclusive
disabilities,
not
just
not
just
extra
information
on
there.
So
it
is
clear
to
to
all
the
tool,
the
API
users
that
that,
where
the
states
are
is
present,
it
also
includes
people.
You
know
you
know
with
all
these.
F
E
Just
I
think
that
sounds
like
a
really
good
idea.
What
I
wonder
in
terms
of
the
publishing
approach,
because
some
I
know
GLL,
for
example-
doesn't
capture
any
of
this
data
at
the
moment
and
obviously,
at
some
point
we'll
be
asking
people
to
think
about
capturing
data.
They
don't
currently
capture
because
they
will
then
comply
to
the
standard
by
capturing
additional
information
from
what
it
sounds.
Like
we're
saying,
there's
a
suboptimal
approach
that
we're
aware
that
we
might
be
taking
based
on
that.
You
know
there's
a
consensus
here,
but
we
have.
E
We
don't
really
have
it
fully
tested
with
users,
albeit
that
you
know
that
this
might
be
the
best,
because
you
say
it's
too
complicated
do
any
in
any
better
way.
So
maybe
we'll
just
use
the
you
know.
The
feed
net
and
discern
themselves
have
a
good
contact
point
and
but
I
wonder
if
there
should
be
a
kind
of
clear
guidance
that
says
we're
not
saying
to
everyone
go
out
and
capture
all
this
data
for
your
thousands
of
sessions,
yet
because
it's
still
evolving,
but
actually
you
know
allowing
people
to
if
they.
E
G
I'm
still
a
bit
low
and
uncleared,
we
officially
sound
just
need
to
be
clear
on.
We
have
all
these
Cattleman's,
but
fine,
but
how
are
we
is
it
the
session?
Is
it
the
session
that
offers
it
or
is
it
the
person
leading
the
session?
That
has
no
skills
and
people
are
that,
because
I
think
we
have
to
be
absolutely
clear,
because
otherwise
we
get
some
really.
This
is
kind
of
an
area
that
will
be
don't
get
old.
The
first
account
about
this,
but
they
know
that
you
can
get
it
wrong.
It's
not
good.
G
A
Okay,
I
I
mean
I
think
for
what
we've
seen
so
far
with
the
talking
about
sessions,
not
lot
the
people,
organizing
our
sessions
and
that's
actually
what
they're
looking
at
the
the
fields
that
Gage
said
and
I
think
someone's
done.
It
kim's
comments
that
that's
what
is
being
tagged
up
here,
rather
than
with
capturing
competences
of
individual
coaches,
actually.
D
D
E
Where
the
sports
has
like
you
know
the
slope
to
get
in
the
pool,
because
then
it's
based
on
the
venue,
whether
the
venue
has
a
slope
or
if
there's
a
sport
where,
like
wheelchair
basketball
is
in
inclusive
basketball,
is
not
so.
It
sounds
like
that.
You
could
exist
on
the
sport
also
on
the
venue,
also
on
the
individual.
D
Yeah
we
have
to
and
yeah
what
few
different
options
we
have
her
if
this
class
and
beautiful
form
we
wearing
beautiful
for
which
was
taken
but
loads
of
teachers
up
the
future
build
in
and
so
or
it
could
be
list
of
whatever
the
organizers
are
built
in,
but
organizers
need
seconds
consideration.
The
presence
taking
that
session
and
the
facility
that
is
it
suitable
for
take
place
in
consideration
and
separately.
We
weekly
data
capture
and
it
was
a
voter
interest.
D
A
A
E
C
I
think
I
think
can
be
SDS
would
be
useful.
I
was
just
going
to
ask
me
about
user
testing
and
various
point
to
where
that's
at
all
possible,
because,
ultimately,
if
we
can
get
a
group
of
specific
people
to
come
impression
and
look
at
that,
that
might
give
an
indication
of
how
people
interact
and
how
they
identify
and
get
a
clear
sense
of
where
tweaks
can
be
made.
Whether
it's
the
fifth
stage
and
later
stage
is
that
is
that
in
the
part
of
plan
I'm.
A
E
C
A
Yeah,
okay,
okay,
I'll,
never
think
about.
We
do
that
and
it
will
might
be
something
to
get
some
support
from
from
self
or
others
to
make
that
work.
I'm
keen
to
move
us
on
to
the
to
the
next
topic
appreciate
that
or
anything
else,
I
wanted
to
last
thoughts.
There.
A
G
Okay,
so
just
go.
A
A
So
I
want
just
once
quickly
recap
kind
of
what
we've
done
so
far
and
then
open
it
out
for
discussion.
So
we
we've
agreed
to
kind
of
go
ahead
and
do
some
initial
bootstrapping
work
to
create
a
shared
activity
list.
So
a
came
back
in
Jade
have
been
working
on
this
already
shared
the
draft
to
the
main
list
which
we've
been
discussing
today.
A
I've
been
also
working
on
editorial
guide,
so
there's
some
context
that
goes
around
the
list
that
describes
that
has
been
put
together
and
kind
of
direction
for
things
like,
and
the
revisions
and
things
before
we
just
kind
of
look
at
that.
I
wanted
to
just
kind
of
summarize
some
of
the
use
cases.
They
think
that
I
have
come
up
around
the
activity
lists
just
so
that
we
can
have
these
in
minds
when
we're
thinking
about
how
to
structure
it
and
the
kind
of
detail
that
goes
in
there,
and
so
what?
Obviously?
A
One
of
the
key
uses
of
the
list
is
to
support,
searching
so
searching
for
participants
which
one
find
opportunities,
but
also
just
parroting,
search
for
somebody
setting
up
a
session
and
just
needs
to
be
able
to
quickly
pick
from
a
list
of
activities
to
tag
up
the
session.
So
that
kind
of
view
you
need
clear,
labeling,
description,
synonyms
and
the
activity
list
could
also
be
pairing.
A
A
kind
of
browsing,
browse
interface
there's
another
way
of
doing
discovery,
so
there
would
be
kind
of
looking
at
having
a
kind
of
clear
structure,
meaningful
labeling
in
the
list
and
maybe
some
relationships
so
I'm,
looking
at
related
activities
and
but
I
think
there's
also
some
other
important
requirements
are
around
data
integration
to
enable
data
that's
coming
from
different
systems.
If
we
brought
together
in
a
consistent
way
over
there,
we
obviously
need
a
shared
list
that
has
got
common
identifiers
and
that's
the
ability
to
extend
it.
A
A
particular
particular
areas,
particular
for
particular
types
of
sport
activity.
I
think
you
know
to
be
useful
thing:
you'd
be
able
to
do
things
like
a
summarized
number
of
activities
that
are
running
particular
type,
particular
area.
So
there
we
want
to
be
able
to
have
a
useful
classification,
better
roll
up
around
top
terms
and
I
might
be
music.
We
should
try
and
look
for
a
way
to
kind
of
balance.
A
These
different
requirements,
rather
than
just
focusing
purely
on
search
or
purely
on
data
integration
and
I-
think
the
kind
of
scores
based
structure
that
we
working
around
will
support
that.
But
obviously
we
need
to
think
about
all
of
these
things
when
the
identifiers,
the
structure
lists
the
label
and
etc.
So
the
first
steps
that
happen
so
far
is
we
agreed
to
start
merging
the
lists
that
have
been
shared
today,
which
is
one
key
Rebecca
taking
the
lead
on.
So
how
people
had
a
chance
to
have
a
look
at
that
list?
A
C
Yes,
the
Grannis.
We
suggested
that
we
had
four
different
lists
and
we
put
them
all
together
and
we
kind
of
had
a
rough
structure
in
box.
3
m
na
d,
md
j
sent
over
her
list
and
then
nixels
matter
sent
over
one
from
support
england,
and
we
just
pulled
them
all
together,
really
and
tried
to
sort
of
classify
them,
as
you
can
see
there
with
the
broader
term
and
then
the
narrow
term
and
knee
and
we're
sports,
we
already
had
these
particular
activities
within
our
database.
C
We
then
added
the
descriptions
that
we
that
we
have
again
these.
Are
you
know
you?
Can
you
could
debate
all
day
long?
You
know
what
the
correct
description
should
be
next
to
them
that
this
is.
This
was
literally
just
sort
of
like
the
one
or
two
liner.
So
we
know
what
the
activity
is.
So
it's
kind
of
more
for
reference,
I'm
sure
people
within
of
these
activities
might
want
to
define
them
or
Rodge
it
differently,
but
it
was.
It
was
a
starter
210.
C
So
there
are
these
gaps
in
there
they're
the
ones
where
they
were
in
our
system
or
we
didn't
have
a
description
on.
Effort
still
need
to
be
filled
in
we're,
certainly
not
precious
labour.
This
layout
I
said
an
email
before
this
is
definitely
started
to
turn
and
up
for
discussion.
So
if
people
have
a
better
way
of
doing
it
and
by
all
means
time
to
still
same
figure
out
the
best
way
to
do
feedback,
the
wanting
to
has
also
been
raised
in
an
email
today
was
about
the
top
level
terms.
C
You
know
the
sport
and
physical
activity,
and
so
particularly
in
our
pact,
was
punch.
It's
an
LRS.
We
do
split
things
down
by
sport
and
physical
activity.
Just
because
you
know
we
have
sport.
Leading
physical
activity
leads
in
our
office,
so
for
our
internal
reporting
it
was
abused.
It
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it's
a
very
good
indicator
of
something
to
be
putting
on
some
people
to
publicly
search
on
it
because,
actually,
from
a
user
point
of
view,
often
users
don't
always
know
something:
the
sport
of
productivity
and,
quite
frankly,
sometimes
we
get
it
wrong.
C
A
Okay,
thanks
and
I
should
we
should
say
that
if
there
was
a
need
that
put
their
sport
and
physical
activity
at
the
top
level,
so
that's
what
I've
been
the
feedback
advisor?
Does
that's
what
miss
only
useful
thing
as
Kim
saying
I'm
so
happy
to
have
we
dropped
that
I
mean
the
only
reason
I
got
included
was
just
looking
to
think
about
it.
A
From
purely
for
my
kind
of
go
to
reuse
point
of
view,
it
might
be
useful
somebody
too,
because
just
interested
in
the
list
of
sports
to
be
able
to
get
those
verses
or
broader
physical
activities,
but
if
we
were
to
represent
those
as
collections
rather
than
as
terms
then
that
options
still
available
so
I
think
I'm
happy
at
that
top
10.
If
that's
their
color
consensus,
it's.
C
Tricky
because
also
some
people
I
mean
almost
everything
could
be
classed
as
physical
activity.
You
know
and,
conversely,
a
lot
of
physical
activities
could
be
classed
in
the
sport.
You
know
people
are
doing
them
in
a
competitive
environment,
for
example,
so
it
just
start
being
a
little
bit
wishy-washy
down
on
unities.
What
and
my
VP
and
maybe
she's
easy
and.
C
E
C
C
So
again,
these
are
just
the
collections
that
on
sports,
would
we
put
these
into
people
again,
might
have
different
classifications
of
collection.
Sorry,
can
you
see
your
terminology,
and
so
we
can
again
change
these
these
ones,
for
example,
if
somebody
with
wanting
and
are
interested
in
a
ball
game,
you
know
the
ball
games
and
other
then
pull
on
it.
Can
that
involved
a
football
in
a
particular
sport
or
if
it
was
an
Olympic
sport
or
a
Paralympic
sport?
C
So
some
of
these
we
have
been
classified
them
into
relevant
collections,
as
you
can
see,
not
all
of
them,
because
not
all
of
them
are
on
a
potato
system
when
we
smash
them
across
they
again,
and
these
are
also
just
our
collections,
so
you
know
it's
Portland
or
anybody
else.
There
has
their
own
specifications
and
collections
all
right.
We
could
add
them
into
that
list
as
well.
C
You
could
you
know
you
could
have
a
little
larger
list
and
then
or
it
could
not
have
any
list
and
leave
that
down
to
individual
on
their
own
systems
to
apply
things
that
suit
their
organization.
So
it's
very
very
much
of
the
debate.
We,
unless
it's
completely
up
to
you
guys
we
just
that,
will
pull
together
the
information
we
have
and
then
we
get
to
this
call
really
discuss
further
yeah.
A
A
You've
got
at
all
sports
or
team
sports,
irrespective
of
what
might
be
a
kind
of
natural
way
to
hype,
to
rank
those,
and
so
I
mean
they're
useful
to
include
in
a
standard
list
if
we
think
people
can
benefit
from
them
and
that
it
be
useful
to
be
able
to
have
a
common
list
of
team
sports
and
ball
games.
But
if
that
is
less
useful
generally
to
people,
then
it
might
be
worth
just
kind
of.
You
know
that
I'm
just
saying
how
people
can
create
and
share
those
themselves.
You.
C
Know
I
think
it's
going
to
be
on
a
case-by-case,
depending
on
how
people
use,
how
we
add
one
play
and
in
particular
use
that
information
to
then
to
try
and
do
is.
If
my
are
you,
the
kind
of
they
made
a
kind
of
a
little
tool
from
X
instead
of
your
kind
of
person
that
wants
to
do
sport
with
other
people
and
then
it
was
then
feed
through
the
team
stuff.
You
know
or
a
year
person
wants
to
do
things
on
their
own
and
it
would
feed
through
the
individual
stuff.
A
Episode,
yes,
I
think,
there's
a
consensus
that
we
removed
what
it
currently
got
the
top
term,
which
means
that,
what's
currently
level
to
become
a
top
terms
in
the
hierarchy,
I
think
there's
some
other
suggestions.
I
think
I
think
it
is
control
Jade
that
maybe
we
should
just
go
with
a
single.
Let
me
sing
a
little
level
to
begin
with
and.
D
Is
more
effective
than
making
sure,
and
so
if
we
went
out
with
the
wrong
team,
m3
and
whip
it
myself
I
consider
a
lot
and
initials
or
that
don't
rhyme,
you
can
consult
me
except
rap
and
they
really
do
a
lot
of
consultation
and
before
Valletta,
three
or
just
make
sure,
let's
go
darling.
Oh,
that
was
a
very
tear,
and
this
is
what
we've
got.
We
need
you
to
help
us
and
to
define
your
specialist
area.
A
C
It's
the
thing,
I
think:
that's
why
some
of
them
we
highlighted
in
yellow
you
know
things
which,
as
you
can
see
there
as
I,
haven't
liked
playing,
and
one
does
a
lot
of
the
hybrid
sports
we're
a
bit
like
well,
what
are
they
going
to
hit?
Is
it
a
hybrid
sport
in
its
own
right?
It's
at
the
top
level
or
is
it
you
know,
is
truly
nearly
one
digit
cymatics,
for
example,
or
you
know
it's
abseiling
a
sport
and
it's
in
its
own
right
or
is
it
under
climbing?
C
So
you
know
there
are
these
little
elements
right?
It's
a
bit
trickier
to
know
if
they
go
into
something
or
not,
and
so
we
kind
of
highlight
the
yellow
is
like
let
everybody
else
debate
that
it
could
be
bit.
You
know
if
it's
sporting
them
recognize
and
it
was
on
the
top
level
that
could
be
one
way
of
determining
it
and
or,
like
you
said,
not
to
have
the
levels
for
of
the
reasons
we've
had
the
two
levels-
those
because,
as
you
can
see,
this
list
is
really
long,
especially
when
you
include
the
EMP
glasses.
C
You
know
there's
lots
of
different
versions
of
glasses
and
which
is
brilliant.
Obviously,
when
this
rolls
out
and
then
you
get
more
and
more
class,
more
and
more
information
being
added,
it
could
become
very
long
for
users
to
be
scrolling
through
either
the
when
they're
searching
or
when
adding
something.
C
If
it's
kept
is
like
you
know,
just
two
levels,
and
then
you
know
some
people
might
decide
to
do
an
Open,
Text,
it'll
search
across
both
levels
or
if
it
just
searched
the
top
level
format
open.
The
second
level
by
that
standard
display
individualization
chooses
to
do
I
still
think
having
it
in
the
two
levels
makes
it
manage.
But
that's
just
like
say
in
my
opinion,
you
know
football
was
programmed
for
the
level
to
the
broader
turn
as
like.
C
D
I
mean
I,
get
I
agree
with
the
Seas
level,
and
so
what
happens
to
in
level
3
and
of
the
same
in
terms
of
telemetry.
We
just
need
to
be
ready,
general,
education
and
and
I'm
going
to
eat
a
lot.
There
are
amazing
and
sporting,
this
and
Nick
my
the
answer
and
calling
off
the
best
or
most
and
regarded
gymnastics
with
one
astronomical
correct
and
when
handling
bass,
bass,
bass,
ketball,
etc.
G
Just
go
say:
well
the
interesting
things
about
the
list
is
that
because
we
I
think
it's
defining
if
you've
got
the
top
level
and
when
what
is
the
secondary
level,
these?
What
exactly
should
go
in
the
secondary
level?
Because
when
we
start
to
look
at
it-
and
you
know
sporting
about
this
as
well,
we
kind
of
got
now
got
a
mixture
of
formats
or
some
facilities
in
there
are
some
disciplines,
it's
a
whole
different
kind
of
list
in
it.
You
know.
So
you
know.
If
you
take
football
example,
you
would
say
got
five
aside.
G
G
D
Think
I
completely
agree
what
you
put
enough
feedback
on
and
you're
in
the
weekend
services.
We
need
to
look
at
it
from
a
consumer
perspective,
I
think
if
we
just
look
at
it
for
her
webcam
life
sports
perspective
and
we
get
on
a
trick
in
some
cases
and
sense
what
consumers
will
be
looking
for.
This
kind
of
needs,
comfort,
dispensable
agreement,
what
we
would
both
sports
as
well
as
senses,
what
would
be
is
define
what
would
be
defined
at
level
two
and
number
three.
G
Interesting
right
because
I
was
going
to
tell
that
you're
right,
British,
Olympic,
Committee
I
looked
I.
Let
it
take
far
look
at
the
search
terms.
You'll
find
if
you
go
through
be
loads
of
searching
for
five
sized
football.
But
when
you
look
at
this
is
a
list
it
gets
about
me
to
also
used
for
back
ends
than
to
hold
that
subscribe
aside,
I'm
going
to
effectively
wouldn't
necessarily
be
sitting
in
the
same
field
as
this
kind
of
the
list
we've
got
here.
G
A
D
Yeah
I
mean
I
I
I'd
say
yes,
don't
ask
that
my
last,
but
more
likely
is
minimum
back
from
a
fume
consumers
perspective
I'm,
searching
all
those
things
so
that
they're
not
going
to
search
for
reasons
of
Latin.
So
a
user
wouldn't
known
as
little
black
in
the
Philippines
is
among
the
missing
more
something
that
their
self
that
body
parts.
G
Are
eager
J
that
the
trademark
ones
that
are
kind
of
trade
marking
them
out
there
and
basically
you
have
to
the
licensee
to
format,
probably
should
be
that
list.
I
think
what
we
were
trying
to
avoid
with
the
kind
of
the
other
category
in
the
data
model
was
where
you
know,
operators
were
coming
up
with
their
own
kind
of
wacky
names
or
letting
loose
someone's
getting
let
loose
in
the
center
and
reinventing
the
same
thing
and
that's
what
we
was
trying
to
avoid
and
have
that
that
would
come
as
a
standard
category.
G
A
E
That's
what
I
think
I
was
going
to
say
on
that
on
the
we
published
two
or
three
list
question
familiar:
should
we
just
stick
with
level
two
and
not
worry
about
publishing
level?
Three
from
a
data
user
perspective,
I
suggest
that
publishing
more
might
be
better
than
publishing
less,
because
I
think
there's
a
definite
hunger
for
this
kind
of
stuff,
and
even
if
we
don't
use
it
with
guidance
around
it
say
it's
draft
or
whatever
having
it
there
so
that
people
can
choose
to
seize
it
and
then
feedback
on
it.
A
Yeah
yeah,
that
makes
sense
to
me
as
well.
Yeah
I
mean
for
me
for
me,
use
point
of
view.
If
someone
just
went
to
Paris
and
searched
they
can
index
class
and
not
show
the
hierarchy,
but
it
would
be
nice
to
have
some
structure
to
be
able
to
power
kind
of
more
kind
of
browsing
kind
of
faceted
interfaces,
and
so
what
I
was
think
about
it
in
terms
of
next
steps?
A
E
E
We
send
this
out
are
able
to
put
some
coding
against
these
terms
or
other
terms,
and
rules
are
what
I'm
thinking
in
practical
terms
is.
If
people
start
using
this
list
in
their
systems,
and
then
we
change
the
list
and
obviously
there's
a
version
control
around
that,
but
just
to
allow
people
to
start
using
it
immediately
if
they
want
to
I,
don't
understand
Marian's
appointment
previously,
it
would
be
every
six
months.
It
gets
interesting.
Some
of
the
bigger
systems,
some
of
the
smaller
systems
I,
want
to
use
it
right
away.
E
Is
there
something
that
let's
say
that
we
decide
that
see
fishing
when
the
fishings
best,
especially
to
come
back,
is
actually
called
something
else?
That's
not
see
fishing
and
there's
extra
characters
in
there.
How
are
we
going
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
have
load
of
data,
or
do
we
just
have
migration
songs
before
between
the
versions
of.
F
A
There's
not
filled
in
there's
a
first
column
on
the
spreadsheet,
it's
a
nice
unique
ID
column.
So
it's
so
that
we
can
have
a
stable
reference
to
the
terms,
even
if
the
primary
labels
alter
so
I
would
move
it.
But
what
I'm
going
to
worry
about
kind
of
populating
those
now
so
we've
got
it's
just
one
less
thing
to
worry
about
as
we're
doing
some
internal
organization,
but
the
point
you
put
it
out
for
public
comment:
we
have
a
unique
ID
for
everything.
A
D
A
I
think
if
we,
if
we
can
like
take,
take
a
lead
on
just
getting
something
reasonably
polished,
that
we
think
is
going
to
coherence
with
some
guidance
around,
have
you've
done
it
and
then
put
it
out
for
a
wider
review.
You
know,
put
it
push
it
as
many
people
in
sector
as
many
bodies
that
should
have
input
as
possible,
give
them
a
period
for
feedback
and
then
incorporate
that,
and
then
we
can
kind
of
draw
a
line
under
activity
list.
What
we
know.
D
G
We
could
we
could
notify
the
ng
bees
and
get
someone
on
interview
so
to
speak,
some
of
the
LGBT
to
little
bit
but
I
think
we
need
to
kind
of
ask
some
very
clear
questions.
What
we
kind
of
asking
them
to
do
to
have
a
look
at
it,
and
you
know
because
again
what
what
are
they
expecting
in
that?
Second,
in
a
second
lift,
that's
why
we're
asking
these
questions
around
the
format?
Another
bits!
G
That's
it
sit
next
to
it,
because
otherwise,
we'll
get
a
whole
load
of
stuff
that
sits
around
it
and
then
we'll
have
to
sift
through
that.
So
I
think
we
just
need
to
kind
of
ask
going
out
to
which
we
could
push
it
out
to
them.
It's
very
clear
about
what
we're
looking
to
get
back.
So
they
get
because
with
everything
we're
immersed
in
talking
about
this
all
the
time,
but
we
give
it
out
to
them
we're
coming.
It
may
not
really
understand
what
we're
doing
and
it
might
be.
G
It
might
be
something
that
we
could
test
actually
through
the
ODI
work,
we're
doing
with
some
of
the
ndb's
already
to
weather,
engage
with
some
NGB
or
we
could
do
started
to
get
them
to
have
a
look
at
it
as
well
as
a
kind
of
more
hands-on.
So
you
can
go
out
with
a
wider,
scattergun
type
approach,
but
also
then,
with
some
of
these
kind
of
studies,
we're
working
with
the
release,
abate
or
the
mon-sol.
Does
this
kind
of
make
sense.
A
Yeah
I
think
that's
good
idea,
I
think
at
being
able
to
test
it
with
a
few
first,
because
it
will
give
us
feedback
on
our
own
guidance
on
in
terms
of
what
what
kind
of
feedback
we
want
to
get
some
people
and
but
if
there's
a
few
areas
where
we
know
that
we
would
probably
week
on
in
terms
of
representation,
it
would
be
useful
so
to
get
them
involved
at
this
stage.
I
think
J.
Do
you
think
it
said
that
gauging
it
though
oh
yeah.
D
E
Just
one
more
question
coming
from
me
and
the
case:
sensitivity
of
the
data
so
level
two
level
three
or
was
a
moment
there
were
other
case
and
when
you're
implementing
this
in
an
application.
Obviously,
if
you
want
to
display
this
to
the
user,
you
probably
wouldn't
want
to
use
uppercase.
Is
there
a
reason
why
we're
sticking
without
the
case
I
guess
what
I'm
thinking
is
it's
easier
to
convert
from.
E
Just
sentence
case,
or
whatever
case
the
trademarks
are
in
table,
viously
trademark
specifically,
might
have
their
own
first
case
for
some
of
the
styling
to
uppercase.
If
you
wanted
to
go
to
uppercase,
you
almost
losing
information
by
capturing
it
all
uppercase,
because
that
way,
the
styling
of
the
trademarks
and
other
sports,
where
there's
license
and
you're
not
sure,
might
not
be
obvious.
A
A
F
Okay,
so
just
to
just
a
couple:
appointments
for
me,
I
think
I.
Think
I
broadly
do
see
the
point
that
long
term.
We
need
to
have
both
level
2
and
level
3,
I
guess
in
the
short
term.
I
am
I
concerned
about
how
long
it
is
going
to
take
us
to
settle
on
what
the
values
would
be
in
level
3,
especially
if
we're
going
to
be
pushing
this
out
to
other
third
parties
for
them
to
fill
in
their
own
values.
F
We
are
not
really
going
to
have
any
way
of
ensuring
that
they
get
done
by
a
certain
taking
time,
for
that,
I
would
almost
be
tempted
to
say,
because
we
want
people
to
start
using
this
and
to
actually
prove
us.
I
would
be
tempted
to
say
that
version.
1.0
should
just
be
the
level
to
which
we
can
pretty
much
publish,
as
it
is
now
based
on
the
list
that
we've
got
there
and
then
we've
quite
quickly
into
a
we've,
got
a
version.
E
Is
there
a
way
we
could
lay
the
conversion,
the
different
levels
so
version
level
2
is
in
alpha
or
beta
level.
3
is
in
alpha
or
you
know,
means
to
public
publishing
it.
So
users
that
wanted
to
use
it
all
could
a
bit
more
kind
of
quicker
yeah,
just
smaller
I'm
thinking.
But
then,
as
you
say,
not
yeah
put
the
health
warning
on
it
so
that
it's
there,
but
but
but
they
don't
use
it
and
break
it.
G
I'm
sorry,
but
I
was
going
to
say
the
other
issue.
I
think
we
have
with
this
I
mean
I,
agree
with
you,
if
you,
if
you
want
to
go
okay,
so
something
out
because
of
the
big
list,
but
there
might
be
something
that
we
need
to
do
rough-and-ready
around
this,
because
when
you
look
at
some
of
the
sports
on
there,
so
you
take
all
the
stuff
with
jay-z
as
all
the
stuff
around
the
movement.
Ask
dan
staff
cardiovascular
forces
don't
make
any
sense.
G
It
wouldn't
make
any
sense
to
an
operator
in
putting
that
because
it
will
be
all-around,
aerobics
body,
step.
What,
if
he
pack
so
there's
a
lot
of
stuff.
That's
actually
in
I
would
say
part
of
the
lower
sessions
to
that
is
true
that
actually,
if
you're
going
to
push
it
out
to
do
it
usable
what
I
think
move
across
in
dirt
from
sorry
level,
three
into
level
two.
C
C
Everybody
just
do
a
couple
of
test
ones,
just
to
get
something
action
we're
going
for
that
one,
because
if
you
came
in
during
the
consultation
we
kind
of
need
to
have
a
test
working
in
order
to
have
that
that
you
know
to
be
able
to
get
that
in
point.
Otherwise,
I'm
not
sure
where
we're
going
to
get
the
insight
from
or
are
we
trying
to
do
a
final
products?
G
Think
I
think
Kim.
That's
what
Romans
turns
out
so
him
as
ad
about
him
as
an
operator
who's
pushing
this
into
a
live
system,
but
he,
if
he,
if
he's
spending,
they're
burning
resources
on
this,
so
they
need
to
get
to
a
position
which
is
which
one
that
kind
of
makes
it's
easily
manageable
for
them
to
implement
into
the
into
the
into
their
system
of
the
class
of
our
systems.
So
so
he's
looking
at
thinking.
G
F
E
F
You
know,
I
was
you
know,
I
was
really
looking
at
mobile
from
there.
You
know
more
from
that
from
the
point
of
view
of
risk
mitigation,
I
think
the
more
people
that
you're
trying
to
have
actually
actually
have
have
have
valid
input
into
it,
upfront
the
longer
something's
going
to
take,
and
that's
just
the
way
things
tend
to
be
so
you
know
I
would
be.
You
know,
be
fine
if
we
were
to
just
turn
around
and
say
well,
this
is
what
we're
going
with
you
know
for
now.
F
This
is
our
first
draft,
etc,
etc,
and
we
version
it
and
then
we
move
on
kind
of
thing.
My
big
fear
is
I
know
in
some
of
the
some
of
the
level
2
terms
that
we've
got
there
like,
for
example,
cardiovascular
and
also
dance
areas.
There
is
there's
pretty
much
constant
changes
and
tweaking
you
know
to
the
names
that
people
are
using
their.
It
is
a
very
a
very
competitive
market,
so
there's
always
new
brands
appearing
et
cetera
cetera.
So
we
are
never
going
to
get
to
a
finished
list
as
it
were.
F
So
you
know
rather
than
trying
to
get
to
that
finish
list.
Let's
just
accept
the
fact
upfront
that
it's
never
going
to
be
complete
and
let's
just
pull
a
line
and
say:
well
that's
what
we're
going
to
do
for
now,
so
we
can
least
get
it
out
there.
So
people
can
start
using
it
and
we
can
start
getting
their
valuable
feedback
as
to
what's
working,
what's
not
working
and
then
let
that
steer
us
as
opposed
to
us,
trying
to
get
a
perfect
first
time.
A
Yeah
right
so
so
to
try
and
kind
of
summarize
those
points.
I
just
think
that
generally
were
in
agreement
and
I.
Think
it's
just
about
the
process
of
doing
the
engagement
from
the
revision,
so
I
think
everyone's
keen
on
doing
an
iterative
approach.
I
think
everyone's
keen
on
just
getting
something
out.
Initially,
it's
just
how
much
better
we
want
to
put
into
that
first
version,
whether
we
just
go
pretty
much
with
what
we
have
or
whether
we
want
to
just
spend
a
bit
more
time
on
filling
in
any
known,
weak
areas
and
the.
A
Important
thing
is
that,
when
whatever
state
we
do
put
something
out,
the
comment
is
that
there
should
be
clear
feedback
channels,
so
we've
got
issues
or
questions.
They
know
where
to
come
to,
and
also
that
they're
clear
on
what
the
revision
process
is.
So
there's
just
a
bit
here
about
how
we
manage
people's
expectations.
So
they
know
that
this
isn't
something
that
is
being
forced
on
the
sector,
that
we've
got
a
kind
of
clear
plan
and
that
there
are
there
are
times
with
which
they
can
kind
of
engage
with
that
process.
A
A
C
I
grabbing
that
really
help
and
also
think
it
would
be
really
good
when
you
think
about
that,
the
weaker
areas,
I
think,
probably
mean
my
luck.
Knowledge
is
the
dance
or
the
classes,
so
there's
Esther
and
the
EMG,
and
then
the
ledger
operators
run
about
about
the
different
classes
that
keep
coming
out.
All
the
time
wasn't
all
for
now,
but
yeah
actually
thinking
about
everything
in
MO
and
Jim,
and
there
is
always
looking
there's
a
range
of
stuff.
That's
coming
out
all
the
time.
C
In
my
opinion,
to
be
able
to
set
I
mean
there
was
probably
obviously
a
few
or
so
money
to
have
a
bit
of
chatting
with
some
sports
just
to
firm
up
and
determined,
but
essentially,
unless
anybody
else
has
for
the
comments.
Anything
would
be
too
far
off
where
we're
at
perfectly
honest-
and
you
know,
I-
think
it's
fully
more
there.
C
It
is
pretty
more
the
exercise
side
of
it
and
a
specified
days
and
then
a
few
of
more
niche
or
hybrid
sports
they're,
probably
a
bit
of
determining
around
them
in
a
bit
of
description
around
them
and
based
on
that
I.
Don't
know
if
there's
any
way
that
we
could.
Maybe
people
have
some
qualities
that
might
be
able
to
look
into
you
know
actioning
and
supporting
those
elements
to
try
and
get
that
list
a
bit
more
a
finalized
bit.
C
A
Yeah
sorry,
yeah
I
think
that's
not
a
great
idea.
Damn
so
I
was
hoping
to
use
the
next
call
in
two
weeks
to
kind
of
do
an
another
review,
more
detailed
review
of
this
list,
so
that
gives
us,
maybe
the
next
two
weeks
to
try
and
identify
and
start
filling
in
any
known,
weak
areas.
So
we
can
get
kind
of
some
feedback
from
the
UK
active
Jade
and
it
will
be
useful
if
everyone
could
just
look
at
that.
What
is
currently
level
two
in
there.
A
Want
to
think
about
whether
there
are
underrepresented
areas
that
we
need
to
think
about,
and
then
yeah
there's
a
few
other
kind
of
tasks.
We
do
to
kind
of
start
to
try
and
fill
in
some
of
the
descriptions
synonyms.
That
kind
of
thing
but
I
think
we
to
kind
of
move
forward
quite
quite
quickly,
because
some
of
the
sooner
we
get
this
out
for
people
to
text
the
better
I'm.
D
Just
going
to
say
in
terms
of
always
be
in
group
exercise
of
Arizona's
penis,
it
discusses
the
pungency
balances
and
as
respect
and
like,
irrespective
of
of
this
group
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
do
as
an
organization
entities
are
stateless,
and
so
there
is
going
to
be
of
help
and
possibly
a
sense
of
that
which
is
before
be
doing
that
anyway.
And
we
base
that
up
at
them.
D
It's
pointless
bed
and
not
on
someone
comes
up
with
a
new
idea
and
they're
going
to
call
think
me
up
in
the
center,
but
on
volume
and
demand.
So
it's
something
a
little
mix
of
thresholds,
resiliency
on
toilets,
and
you
can
keep
that
focus
up
today
and
I
are
48
and
active
about
the
gym
side
of
things
like
that
should
bring
together
fit
and
a
good
balance
between
getting
all
the
fitness
stuff
and
cover.
A
E
A
Yeah,
okay,
yeah,
well
I.
Think,
though
separately
is,
might
want
to
think
about
the
infrastructure
of
lists
I
think
spreadsheets,
but
we
could
give
a
certain
point
people
to
focus
on
now,
but
there
are
you
know,
because
there
are
some
tools
for
managing
this
type
of
taxonomy
thesaurus,
but
that
can
do
more
kind
of
collaborative
editing.
A
It
may
be
that
that's
what
we
should
move
this
to,
if
you
that
might
help
address
some
of
those
kind
of
requirements
so
that
we
can
do
you
know
proposed
edits
and
changes,
so
you
can
see,
see
potential
additions
or
future
additions.
This
fall
neck
off
part
of
a
version
release
by
Kentucky,
takeaway
and
I
think
about
to
see
what
what
might
be
the
right
option
for
us
I'm.
A
My
for
the
time,
we've
kind
of
gone,
quite
quite
a
bit
over
today
and
so
I'm
going
to
suggest
that
we
we
wrap
up
the
call
at
this
point.
I've
got
quite
a
lot
to
go
away
and
write
up
both
of
today's
topics
and
I'll,
summarize
probably
in
separate
emails
way
forward
for
each
of
these
two
areas
so
that
we
can
try
and
push
them
forward
in
parallel,
just
before
I
kind
of
close
out.
The
call
was
there
anything
else
that
anyone
wanted
to
to
raise
today.
F
C
Sorry
I
should
probably
just
mention
those
that
aren't
already
aware:
I'm
actually
going
to
be
leaving
with
Sherman
in
support.
I've
got
another
month
to
go,
and
so
my
colleague
Beck
is
and
sitting
in
on
the
last
public
calls,
and
she
had
put
this
list
together
and
she'll,
be
replacing
me
going
forward.
So
she'll
be
involved.
C
Yeah,
so
that's
why
I
like
living
on
the
one
in
a
couple
of
weeks,
so
I'll
see
you
over
get
into
and
can
get
the
list
or
going
at
the
awesome,
get
all
quacking
and
because
I
will
still
be
involved
in
sport.
We
I'm
just
moving
to
to
the
company,
that's
actually
built
it,
lovely,
musical
specialty
media
and
not
with
the
TSP
anymore,
so
I'll
still
have
a
hand
and
it
was
not
on
the
planning
side
of
it.
That'll
be
the
LRS
sort
of
drive
inside
of
it.
A
Ok,
so
I
think
I
think
I
know
all
what
the
call
for
those
of
you
watching
on
YouTube
as
usual.
Please
you've
got
any
feedback,
then
mail
into
the
standards
making
less
to
kind
of
provide
your
voice
and
I'll
see
you
all.
In
a
couple
of
weeks,
thanks
gradually
Confucians
what
chiz
bye.