►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2021-04-07
Description
Proposed updates to the Opportunity specification, including:
* Describing Difficulty and Intensity levels
* Describing the surfaces of pitches and other activity facilities
* Including a lastModified property within data items.
Slides and notes on the meeting can be found at https://w3c.openactive.io/meetings/2021-04-07-updates-to-the-opportunity-specification
A
A
D
A
A
The
previous
proposal
moving
forward
grew
extremely
long
and
protracted
and
essentially,
eventually
seemed
to
resolve
on
the
notion
that
we
would
have
a
very
small,
controlled
vocabulary
describing
difficulty
level
biased
towards
capturing
finer
grained
distinctions
at
the
lower
end
of
the
spectrum.
So
there
would
be
distinctions
like
beginner,
but
also
suitable
for
everybody
and
no
experience
necessary
and
then
intermediate
and
advanced
beyond
that,
with
the
notion
that
this
could
be
expanded,
that
this
would
be
expressed
in
scots
and
therefore
could
be
expanded
if
required
for
particular
use
cases.
A
That
stalled
somewhat
with
discussion
of
of
the
nuances
of
that,
however,
it's
come
up
as
more
urgent
again
in
relation
to
london
sport
which,
if
I
understand
correctly
ollie,
essentially
there's
a
simple
beginner
intermediate
and
advanced
vocabulary
that
would
be
useful
for
london.
Sport
applications.
B
A
B
We
have
it
in
in
open
sessions.
I
think,
ideally,
we
would
like
activity
finders
to
include
this
on
their
side
and
one
of
the
reasons
we're
looking
at
making
a
required
field
was
in
line
with
the
social
prescribing
work
and
therefore
beginner
or
no
experience
necessary
would
make
it
easier
for
a
link
worker
to
find
a
relevant
session.
But
if
the
activity
finders
aren't
using
this
and
hence
why
we're
looking
to
make
it
a
required
field
on
our
side
and
therefore
it'd
be
great.
B
C
Yeah,
so
I
guess
it's
free
text
right
now
as
an
array
and
I'm
industrial
mapping
to
a
standardized
list
of
three.
I
think
it's
beginner
opportunity,
beginner
intermediate
advanced,
but
nothing
more
than
that
right,
okay,
but
I
think
I
think,
just
kind
of
reading
up
the
issue
from
before.
Didn't
we
kind
of
say
that
it
was
about,
we
said
we
would
set
beginners
as
a
specific
thing,
because
there's
this
whole
debate
about
what
the
difference
between
no
experience
required-
beginner
open
full
except
there
were.
C
C
A
A
I
can't
recall
so
that
got
debated
at
length
and
then
that
got
more
or
less
shelved,
and
then
it
moved
to
what
the
canonical
terms
would
be,
and
then
it
became
really
about
how
you
subdivide
beginner,
and
if
I'm
reading
the
issue
rightly,
I
thought
we
ended
up
in
a
place
which
more
or
less
mirrored
what
ollie
outlined.
Basically.
A
A
I
mean
the
use
case
was
really
searchability
right,
so
as
I'm
looking
for
a
course,
that's
appropriate
for
me,
and
it
was
felt
that
there
was
a
distinction
to
be
observed
between
events
that
presuppose
some
experience
right,
like
if
you
were
say
a
beginner
footballer
that
assumes
that
you've
played
football
before
and
then
there
were
a
distinct
class
of
events
that
were
really
no
experience
required,
meaning
you
know
we
will
teach
you
how
to
do
this.
We
are
assuming
that
you've
never
encountered
this
before.
A
So
yeah,
if
you
click
no
experience
required,
you
might
get
only
events
that
were
explicitly
tagged
with
that.
Even
if
there
were
cases
where
there
were
events
that
were
in
fact
appropriate
for
everybody.
You
know
like
if
there's
a
dodgeball
or
something
like
that
where
in
fact
picking
it
up
is
fairly
straightforward
and
there's
not
skill
level
is
not
an
applicable
kind
of
dimension
to
apply.
A
It
seems
like
so,
it
seems
like
open
for
all
is
perhaps
the
most
difficult
to
define.
No
experience
required,
I
think,
is
fairly
straightforward
and
the
difference
between
that
and
beginner,
I
think,
is
probably
easy
to
articulate
that
this
is
you
know.
No
experience
required
is
really
very
entry
level
and
that
yeah,
the
social
prescribing
use
case,
wants
to
make
that
distinction
because
of
the
very
low
fitness
you
expect
from
somebody
who's
coming
through
a
gp
referral
or
a
link
worker
referral.
A
C
C
So
what
is
the?
For
example,
let's
say
that
we
were
going
to
martial
art
route
right.
We
would
need,
for
example,
open
sessions
to
adopt
some
type
of
activity-based
list,
of
you
know
a
vocabulary,
or
we
would
need
to
maintain
a
vocabulary
of
these
levels
and
like
link
them
together,
and
then
we
have
the
question
of.
Does
that
vocabulary
it's
a
bit
like
the
activities?
Does
that
live
centrally,
or
does
that
live
in
different
places?
So
you
know
what
does
that
look
like?
C
Does
that
look
like
us
going
through
each
sport
and
defining
you
know,
these
are
the
levels
for
karate
and
this
is
beginner
according
to
the
guys
that
you
know
run,
but
that
becomes
a
massive
exercise
at
that
point
and
to
try
and
go
across
all
those
different
sports.
Do
the
mapping
to
these
levels.
So
that's
one
alternative
which
is
kind
of
centralized
approach.
The
decentralized
approach
is
obviously
you
just
give
some
simple
options
to
everybody
and
let
the
individual
karate
instructors
pick.
You
know
if
it's
experienced
or
beginner
and
then
we
don't
yeah.
A
A
C
I
guess
the
ques,
I
guess
I
guess
what
question
I'm
asking
is:
are
we
adopting
a
structure
which
is
what
proposal
is
which
sounds
I
can
see
the
the
the
merits
of,
or
are
we
just
adding
a
new
string
to
the
currently
existing
structure,
because
a
new
string
doesn't
doesn't
need
a
permission
from
anybody?
It's
a
free
text
field
right
now,
so
right.
A
C
Yeah
yeah,
depending
on
the
finder
I'm
in,
does
a
mapping
in
the
middleware,
so
those
who
are
using
ironman
would
just,
I
guess,
get
what's
already
being
mapped.
Beginner
intermediate
advanced
yeah,
so
I
guess
the.
I
guess.
I
guess
sorry
what
I
was.
What
I
was
trying
to
do
is
really
understand
like.
Are
we
saying
here
that
the
answer
is
to
add
the
structure
in
which
case
that
sounds
like
a
good
idea?
I
guess
it's
just
yeah.
A
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
I
I
think
I
like
the
idea
of
adopting
the
structure,
because
we
can
then
hash
out.
You
know
exactly
what
that
controlled
vocabulary
looks
like
and
what
the
semantics
of
it
are,
whereas
of
course,
if
it's,
if
it's
just
kind
of
a
controlled
list
of
strings,
it's
always
going
to
be
a
challenge
to
express
anything
in
a
more
refined
way.
C
C
Yeah,
that's
right!
That's
right,
yeah!
So
yeah
I
mean
all
the
systems
would
need
to
change,
obviously
including
the
publishers,
but
right,
okay,
so
so
yeah.
So
in
that
case,
if
it
just
starts
with
defining
a
control
vocabulary
which
we've
already
got
the
terms
for
and
then
I
don't
think
this
example
well,
the
example
seems
to
show
that
you
can
include
things
from
other
vocabularies
alongside
so
maybe
that's
is
that
the
way
to
do
it
rather
than
mapping
it
directly
and.
A
D
From
my
experience
in
the
majority
of
coaching
programs,
I
can
see
the
three
that
you've
gone
for
include
beginner
intermediate
experienced
linking
to
what
ollie
said
we
just
used
to
have
taster
sessions,
which
is
kind
of
no
experience
required.
People
understood
what
taster
session
means
as
a
as
a
wording
and
then
mixed
abilities
would
be
the
fifth
one.
It
digress
it
more.
So
it
does
what
it
says
on
the
tin.
E
A
C
Yeah
I
I'd
actually
yeah
I
mean
if
you,
if
you
take
a
pack,
the
pattern
of
facility
types
and
how
that
work.
That's
probably
that
could
be
a
route
here,
so
so
basically
define
it.
You
create
a
new
repo
for
this,
for
the
control
vocabulary
migrate.
This
issue
over
to
it
set
the
the
control
recovery
out.
I
mean
it
doesn't
probably
need
a
full
vocab.
C
A
C
So
I
guess
I'm
not
clear
on
what
the
actual
terms
are,
because
I
know
that
jason
just
suggested.
There
was
five
of
them
the
proposal
he
has
no
experience
required,
beginner,
open
call
and
experienced
so
presumably-
and-
and
I
know
lee
lee
further
up-
said
that
there
was
you
can
kind
of.
There
could
be
a
notional
ordering
you
could
kind
of
define
some
type
of
order
label
on
there
as
well,
so
that
you
know
what
order
to
put
those
in
if
you've
got
something
in
the
front
end.
C
A
C
Yeah,
I
guess
it's
interesting,
that's
probably
because
of
emd,
I
think.
Maybe
the
discussion
up
above
was
that
intermediate.
Was
this
really
complicated
place
where
it
wasn't
very
clear
across
all
the
different
data
sources
that
intermediate
meant
one
thing
which
made
it
quite
difficult
to
determine
the
difference
between
intermediate
and
advanced,
so
I
guess
experienced
is
kind
of
both
yeah.
C
Sorry,
it's
a
good
question,
because
a
lot
of
the
data
is
emd
data
as
an
exercise,
no
dance
data
and
and
some
systems
currently
implementing
the
old
version
will
be
still
publishing
on
gladstone,
for
example,
we'll
be
still
publishing
that
for
a
while,
so
yeah.
If
we
got
rid
of
intermediate,
we
have
a
mapping
problem
potentially.
A
C
C
Yeah
I'd
be
happy
to
support
that.
I
think
I
think
if
we've
got,
if
we've
got
the
structure
in
place,
then
perhaps
the
thing
to
do
would
be
just
look
back
at
the
video
from
ninth
october
and
just
really
check
that
we
haven't
missed
anything
before
we
go
and
spend
loads
of
everyone's
money,
re-implementing
everything
across
all
the
various
systems
yeah.
E
D
A
C
Yeah,
it
might
be
worse
tim.
I
don't
know
how
much
you
want
to
replicate
what
happens
with
facility
types,
but
it
might
be
worth
just
getting
that
spreadsheet
that
we
had
up
before
kind
of
set
up
which
has
got.
You
know
terms
the
ids
used
the
old
labels
or
something
so
that
people
can
comment
on
these,
because
I
guess
I'm
kind
of
wondering
like
does
it?
Does
the
process
of
this
look
like
okay,
we
get
the
structure
down,
that's
the
that's!
The
spec
bit
already
conforms
to
the
existing
spectre.
C
A
C
A
So
the
notion
that
you
should
be
able
to
segment
off
particular
low
intensity
activities
for
people
who
are
really
very
inactive
and
onboarding.
I
think
it
might
be
worth
digging
into
this
in
more
detail,
possibly
with
other
stakeholders
who
might
be
more
interested
in
this
particular
user
group.
But
if
I
could
just
get
a
feel
from
people
on
the
call
how
useful
intensity
would
be
as
distinct
from
difficulty,
that
would
be
useful.
B
Yeah,
it's
an
interesting
one.
I
think
I
I've
heard
my
personal
thought
would
have
been
that
initially
people
look
at
beginner
internet
advanced
and,
if
you're
a
beginner,
you
would
kind
of
assume
that
what
you're
doing
is
going
to
be
a
bit
more
low
intense
than
what
an
advanced
person
is
doing.
I
know
I
do
understand
that
you
could
have
high
level
with
high
intensity
for
beginner,
but
I
think
to
begin
with
particularly
getting
the
social
prescribing
or
really
enacted.
People
beginner
term
would
be
suitable
as
we
move
forward.
C
Yeah,
I
would
agree
with
that,
so
some
of
the
data
that
we
that
we
already
have
like
the
british
cycling
data,
for
example-
does
use
intensity
at
the
proxy
for
level.
They've
got
they've
got
terms
like
steady
and
I
don't
know
the
other
ones:
yeah,
not
like
steady
being
low
intensity,
but
also
beginner.
C
E
The
the
the
difficulty
can
involve
skill
as
well
as
exertion,
and
so
a
spin
class
can
be
pretty
high
intensity
but
pretty
low
difficulty.
You
just
have
to
get
on
a
bike
and
move
your
legs
around,
but
you
know
if
you
are
not
accustomed
to
physical
activity,
an
intense
spin,
perhaps
it's
probably
a
bad
place
to
start
you're,
going
to
feel
pretty
bad
by
the
end
and
possibly
harm
yourself.
So
you've
got
this
double
double
dimension
of
difficulty.
E
I
would
find
any
kind
of
climbing
wall
difficult,
even
if
the
climb
itself
wasn't
very
intense
because
I've
never
been
climbing
before.
So
I
think
I'm
just
thinking
about
it
as
a
running
group
organizer,
you
know
we
have
a
sunday
run,
that's
10k,
which
means
we're
not
a
beginner's
group
if
you've
never
run
before.
You're
gonna
have
a
horrible
time
with
us,
but
on
the
other
hand
it's
a
conversational
run
we're
jogging
along
and
chatting
it's
not
there's
no
sprint
intervals.
There's
no!
E
E
So
I'm
just
trying
to
pass
in
my
head
again
not
getting
into
the
weeds,
because
I
can
feel
us
all
trying
very
hard
not
to
not
to
open
the
weeds
that
I
see
further
up
that
last
thread
to
decide
what
how
how
we
represent
those
in
the
in
a
most
amenable
way,
so
that
people
aren't
desperately
trying
to
think
of
three
dimensions.
Of
of
you
know,
skill
level,
intensity
of
exercise
and
potentially
sort
of
difficulty
as
being
some
combination
of
the
two.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
emerged
again
with
british
cycling
and
with
the
walking
routes
that
difficulty
is
already
a
kind
of
proxy
for
things
like
gradient
and
and
length
and
distance.
So
it
does
become
tricky
saying
you
know,
what's
what's
a
proxy
for
what
and
you
know,
if
you
combine
to
difficulty
and
intensity
into
one
factor
called
challenge,
you
know
you
can
imagine
all
different
ways
of
slicing
that
that
cake
in
terms
of
the
audience
a
particular
activity
is
appropriate,
for
it
gets
a
bit
hard
to
parse.
I
think.
C
It's
interesting
yeah
yeah.
I
don't
know
how,
when
you've
got,
if
you've
got
a
cycle
ride,
that's
long,
then
you
have
the
length
the
distance
in
there
same
with
a
run.
Don't
you
put
a
10k
run,
you
put
the
10k
distance,
so
I
guess
there's
a
sport
specific
way
of
solving
that
already
it's
just
it's
just
how
useful
a
generic
property
is
that
tries
to
do
that
in
addition
to
this
stuff
yeah,
because
if
you're
going
for
a
run-
and
you
see
it's
a
10k,
you
presumably
would
twice.
B
Yeah,
I
was
just
going
to
add:
that's
what
you
just
adjaced
to
there
is
that
from
a
user
perspective
I'd,
I
don't
think
users
would
probably
want
to
be
taking
beginner
high
intensity
like
they're.
Looking
for
one
option,
whether
if
you
look
at
booking.com,
you
tick,
pull
yes
or
no.
You
don't
take
pull
ten
meters
like
you
just
it's
just
the
one
and
then
and
then
you
read
about
the
hotel
major.
You
would
read
about
the
activity
once
it's
a
beginner,
so
it
needs
to
be
some
onus
on
the
participant
to
select
the
activity.
C
That's
really
good
yeah,
because,
because
the
the
definition
of
an
open
active
beginner
might
be
different
to
yeah,
like
maybe
maybe
that's
that's
what
we
we're
looking
at.
Maybe
the
control
vocabulary
has
like
a
formal
definition,
which
is
scarce,
has
a
field
for
as
the
same,
we
have
a
formal
definition
for
each
sport.
So
maybe
we
have
a
formal
definition
for
what
beginner
is
in
our
world
in
in
our
healthcare,
in
their
active
data
and
therefore
what
what
people
should
be
trying
to
to
populate
that
field
with
yeah.
E
I
think
definitely
would
be
worth
having
someone
from
the
social
prescribing
viewpoint
just
to
talk
about.
You
know
not
what
the
individual
maybe
is
doing
with
what
a
doctor
would
advise
an
individual
to
look
for
and
whether
we,
whether
we,
whether
that
would
be
confidence
enough
or
whether
this
intensity
thing
is
important,
because
a
beginner
doing
a
physically
hard,
physically
exertive
sports
or
activity.
E
A
A
C
A
C
A
A
And
then
you
enter
into
a
whole
world
of
nuance
and
material
type
and
branding
like
3g
versus
4g
versus
5g
pitches
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
And
it's
basically
become
incredibly
tangled
also
in
part,
because
active
places
does
have
a
controlled
vocabulary
defined
for
this.
But
the
controlled
vocabulary
does
a
lot
of
things
other
than
describing
pitch
surfaces.
A
C
C
That's
what
you
use
to
filter
out
the
different
types
of
pictures
that
you
can
book
and
that's
that's
like
a
filter
that
they've
had
there
for
a
long
time,
and
I
know
other
other
products
have
that
similar
need
to
to
filter
between
generally
those
type
of
things.
Tom
was
not
he's
not
actually
in
this
thread,
but
he
has.
He
has
mentioned
separately
that
so
I
mean
I'll
surface
here
that
they're
looking
for
a
way
of
saying
is
this
a
multi-use
facility?
C
C
Football
pictures,
etc
so
yeah
and
and
the
the
last
two
comments
come
about,
because
I
think
what
the
suggestion
from
nish
is.
Maybe
we
should
have
this,
as
you
can
see
in
front
of
you,
the
top
level
of
the
hierarchy
and
then
underneath
that
surfaces
and-
and
I
think
jamie's
comment
is
actually
that's-
that's
possibly
the
the
wrong
way
around
because
you
probably
want
to
say
a
3g
pitch
is
a
3d
pitch
first
and
then
what
sports
accommodates
is
is
secondary.
A
C
C
C
C
There's
an
active
places,
mapping
in
the
spreadsheet
sorry
the
list,
the
one
that
you're
pointing
out
there,
which
is
the
mcr
multi-use
track-
and
I
guess
maybe
bowling
green-
you
can
probably
bowl
in
other
places.
I
don't
know
they
don't
all
in
for
what
you
couldn't
you
couldn't
take
just
take
the
sport
and
go
athletics
and
our
facilities
must
be
a
track.
A
C
So
facility
use
is
the
use
of
a
facility
for
a
particular
activity.
I
believe,
and
so
what
that
means
is
the
facility
itself
which,
which
is
yeah,
absolutely
doesn't
exist
in
the
model.
It's
implied
as
part
of
that
facility
use
concept.
So
I
suppose
the
idea
here
is
that
you're
tagging
the
facility
use
with
the
type
of
facility
that
it's
like
a
combination
activity.
So
in
theory
you
could
have
facility
use
that
is
rugby
and
football.
C
Yeah,
if
you
look
at
the
the
activity
this
sorry,
the
facility
list
has
come
out
of
active
places.
They've
actually
got
the
same
problem
yeah
as
to
be
fair.
The
amount
of
work
that
went
into
establishing
the
open,
active
activity
list
was
enormous
because
that
actually
had
the
same
problem
as
well.
In
that
all
the
list
that
existed
before
it
didn't
really
have,
they
were
trying
to
solve
too
many
problems.
C
C
Yeah
yeah
exactly
that's
right,
and
so,
if
I
guess
the
question
is:
if
this
is
a
surface,
that
is
the
list
of
activity
facility
types
different
to
that
list,
is
it
the
same?
Do
we
do
we
just?
Can
we
just
tag
things
with
multiple
things?
I
don't
know.
Do
you
tag
something
as
football
pitch
and
concrete.
A
C
Yeah-
and
I
think
I
think
the
problem,
really
you
get
unstuck
further
into
the
detail.
You
guys,
I
think,
at
the
high
level,
sure
we're
going
to
model
concrete
glass,
tarmac
sports
hall
by
actually
sports
hall
is
tricky.
You
start
with
just
the
surface
names
and
then
play
lawn,
etc,
and
then
you
get
into
squash
court
swimming
pool,
open
water,
lido
sports
hall,
and
then
you
get
into
bmx
tracks
of
different
types
and
karting
courses
of
different
types
and
airfields
and
stuff
like
this.
C
What
I'm
saying
as
you
get
into
more
detail
around
like
yeah
like
a
skate
park,
yeah,
it's
yeah,
that's
that's
a
thing
and
you
could
say:
if
you
put
skatepark
on
a
list,
you
would
probably
expect
to
have
football
pitch
next
to
it
in
that
list,
yeah.
So
so
further
down
the
the
current
list
of
facility
types,
it
does
look
like
you'd
end
up
with
having
football
pitch
there.
It's
just
that
further
up,
you
have
these
kind
of
more
surfaces.
I
guess.
A
C
Well,
I
think
really
what
it
means,
to
be
honest,
is
just
to
have
jamie
and
nish,
and
maybe
tom,
on
the
call,
because
that
will
happen,
and
is
he
possibly
because
they've
all
they
were
they're
the
group
that
constructed
the
list
and
they're
the
group?
That's
on
the
thread.
So
probably
I
guess
we've
flagged
now
that
it's,
as
you
say,
slightly
philosophical
issue
in
fairness,
the
list
currently
does
bleed
between
both
surface
and
type.
C
A
A
C
There's
there's,
I
think,
three
different
philosophical
concerns.
That's
one
point,
and
one
of
them
is
actually
really
relevant
to
booking,
which
is
currently
current.
Okay.
So
that's!
That's
that's
really!
It's
really.
I
saw
this
come
up
and
it's
really
timely
to
discuss
it.
There's
and
there's
a
social
prescribing
issue
as
well
and
there's
obviously
the
the
the
the
kind
of
usefulness
of
having
it
marking
you
other
processing.
C
So
a
last
modified
date
at
a
data
level
is
actually
not
probably
what
we
need
for
social
prescribing,
because
the
last
modified
of
the
data
might
not
actually
be
anything
to
do
with
the
last
modified.
The
you
know
when
the
last
person
clicked
on
it,
you
want
a
last
verified
date
or
something
like
you're,
saying
yeah,
which
might
be
separate
last
modified.
C
C
You
probably
need
last
verified,
but
then
do
you
need
then,
but
then
there's
other
questions
about
last
verified
because
I
don't
think
that's
actually
a
good
proxy
for
social
prescribing,
for
example,
where
you've
got
booking
systems
that
are
used
live.
You
might
not
have
someone
actually
changing
any
data
about
the
session
for
a
long
time,
but
it
might
be
live
and
available.
C
A
A
I
think-
and
I
think
in
fact
last
verified
is
probably
not
that
useful
anyway
or
rather
doesn't
give
all
the
information
that
a
social
prescribing
use
case
would
actually
ideally
have,
I
think,
with
last
verified.
You
typically
would
want
more
information
about.
You
know
you
don't
actually
want
more
like
a
review
or
something
like
that
than
simply
a
confirmation
that
the
data
is
is
accurate.
It's
more
than
a
data
assurance
kind
of
use
case,
that's
being
supported
there.
A
I
suppose
it
depends
on
the
nature
of
the
feed
that
you're
publishing
as
well.
I
mean
I
can
imagine
the
session
series
not
being
modified
for
a
long
time,
but
scheduled
sessions
presumably
have
to
be.
You
know,
materialized,
more
or
less
continuously
right
yeah,
I
mean
that
doesn't
exclude
the
possibility
that
you
know
a
feed
is
just
running
and
running
and
running
like
we
have
with
covet
shutdowns
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So
then
it's
not
terribly
helpful,
but
I
would
have
thought
under
under
non-weird
covid
situations.
A
C
Well,
I
mean
it
could
be,
it
could
be
auto
generated
by
a
system
such
as
open
sessions
that
has
no
relevant
relation
to.
When
it
was
last
updated
said
I
mean,
if
it's
generated
by
the
system,
then
it
doesn't.
Then
then
the
materialization
could
be
separate.
I've
actually
got
to
go
as
well,
okay,
but
but
yeah.
I
I
I'm
super
interested
in
how
what
the
main
question
I
have
here
is
with
a
structure
as
we
have
it
with
all
the
different
embedded
entities.
C
C
Exactly
like
right,
and
how
do
we,
how
do
we
do
yeah?
It
seems
like
with
a
jason
ld
structure.
It's
probably
a
jason
lb
question
right,
because
jason
lv
itself
is
about
lots
of
inferred
semantics
between
lots
of
different
properties
that
can
be
all
over
the
place
and
that's
what
we've
got
so
I
don't.
I
don't
think
it's
it's
not
a
json
object,
although
it
looks
like
one
because
it's
really
a
jason
lv
kind
of
set
of
inferences.