►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2017-05-24
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2017May/0021.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
A
So,
under
that
heading,
I
kind
of
want
to
have
a
discussion
around
how
the
specification
gets
extended
and
what
the
process
would
be
to
get
towards
a
kind
of
1.0
release
and
I
also
want
to
kind
of
recap
where
we
are
with
the
activity
list
and
suggest
some
ways
that
we
can
try
and
push
that
forward
to
collaborate
that
work
a
little
bit
and
always
try
and
keep
some
time
at
the
end
for
any
other
business
topics
that
people
want
to
raise.
A
So
please,
let
me
know
if
there's
anything
you
want
to
cover
so
first
topic:
the
specification
revisions,
so
I've
I've
changed
the
way
that
we
are
publishing
the
specifications.
A
So
today,
what
because
we've
been
working
effectively
just
on
a
set
of
kind
of
editors
draft,
you
know
we're
just
kind
of
working
in
a
kind
of
iterative
way.
We've
just
been
working
on
one
one
document,
so
there's
just
been
the
modeling
opportunity,
spec,
which
I
just
been
revising
based
on
feedback
and
discussion
and
then
just
releasing
that
directly.
But
as
we
starting
to
get
people
implementing
against
the
specification,
I
thought
it'd
be
useful
to
add
a
little
bit
more
process.
So
we
now
have
two
separate
documents.
A
There
is
the
Thurs
a
latest
published
version,
which
is
what
we've
been
calling
the
candidate
spec
and
there's
a
separate
editors
draft.
So
moving
on
what
I
want
to
do
is
make
sure
that
anything
that
were
kind
of
is
under
discussion
or
review
by
the
group
is
in
the
edit
distract
initially
and
then,
when
we're
happy
with
it,
then
we
push
it
out
into
the
candidate
spec,
so
that
then
people
have
a
reason
for
a
more
stable
specification
to
start
implementing
against
am
and
what
I
want.
A
So
that's
just
think
about
how
we
formalize
that
process
a
little
bit
moving
forward
and
what
I
want
to
try
and
do
is
get
into
a
habit
of
where
we've
agreed.
Some
changes
that
going
to
the
editors
draft
that
we
try
and
review
those
on
our
next
hangout
at
least
set
a
two
three
week
review
period
to
get
any
any
comments,
or
otherwise
it
will
be
pushed
out,
and
so
the
the
last
set
of
revisions
kind
of
bundle
up.
Some
of
the
discussions
we've
had
in
the
last
couple
of
calls.
A
So
there's
some
new
properties
and
have
also
documented
a
couple
of
schema.org
properties
which
have
proved
to
be
useful.
So
the
new
properties
we've
there's
a
new
way
to
describe
attendee
instructions.
So
you
can
add
attendee
instructions,
property
to
an
events
to
capture
any
additional
information
for
attendees.
So
things
like
things
that
they
might
want
to
bring
with
them
or
notes
on
how
to
find
the
event
find
the
venue
open
above
the
existing
location,
information
or
the
description.
That's
provided
for
the
event
as
a
whole.
A
A
Then
there
are
a
couple
of
properties
that
help
describe
the
disability,
support
available
at
an
event
and
there's
a
general
documentation
property
which
are
called
accessibility
information.
So
that's
where
you
can
put
a
general
statement
about
support
available
and
at
the
events
or
notes
on
house,
and
they
might
want
like
contact
the
organizer
if
they
have
any
questions
or
requirements
and
then
there's
an
accessibility
support
property
which
allows
you
to
tag
the
events
with
some
of
the
terminology
that
we
were
discussing
previously.
I
just
want
to
show
you
an
example
of
how
that
looks.
A
Yes,
okay,
so
this
is
the
new
section,
5
5
8
in
the
spec
and
the
the
two
new
properties
are
given
an
example
here.
So
there's
the
accessibility
information,
which
is
the
text
and
accessibility
support,
can
be
one
or
more
tags.
So
this
is
the
terms
that
we
were
discussing
last
time,
so
things
like
hearing
impairment,
vision
and
etc.
So
we
just
go
through
whether
to
turn
this
into
a
more
formal,
formally
defined
controlled
vocabulary,
while
I
think
that
is
something
that
we
should
be
working
towards.
A
I
haven't
done
it
for
this
first
revision
to
the
spec.
The
reason
for
doing
that
is
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
around
whether
these
terms
are
the
right
things
that
we
should
be
encouraging
the
sector
to
use
or
whether
there's
other
terms
that
might
be
more
useful
or
descriptive
and
for
people
attending
events.
So
I've
got
just
gone
with
the
kind
of
a
simplest
edition
at
the
minute
of
just
documenting
the
see
and
encouraging
people
to
use
whatever
tags
and
terminology
tags
or
categories
they're
currently
using
and
then
I
think.
A
After
a
bit
of
experience
to
seeing
what
people
are
using
in
practice
and
what
is
actually
useful
for
participants,
then
we
can
start
to
formalize
that
I
think
we
do
too
early.
Then
there's
a
risk
that
it
seemed
like
that.
We're
recommending
this
as
these
categories,
the
right
things
to
do,
whereas
I
think
the
situation
is,
it
is
just
what
what
people
have
opted
to
use
for
reporting
requirements,
and
so
that's
just
kind
of
balancing
with
a
feedback
when
we
add
variable
and
the
other
things
I've
done
is
documented.
A
A
couple
of
schema.org
properties
which
cover
first,
the
event
availability
and
so
that
the
schema
natal
has
property
called
maximum
attendee
capacity,
which
is
used
to
indicate
how
many
people
can
attend
an
event
and
there's
also
a
remaining
capacity
property.
So
that
gives
some
way
to
indicate
maximum
and
current
availability.
A
So
those
are
just
existing
things
that
we've
just
highlighted,
as
potentially
being
useful.
I've
had
one
bit
of
feedback
on
this
already,
which
is
that
some
people
may
be
reluctant
to
give
hard
figures
with
current
availability
and
it
would
Majors
need
a.
They
may
need
a
separate
property
that
just
says
whether
there
is
availability
or
not
some
kind
of
words
with
a
classification,
but
that
doesn't
preclude
people
also
kind
of
using
this.
These
existing
properties
are
available,
the
other
one
that
I've
documented,
is
event
status.
A
So
how
do
we
indicate
if
an
event
has
been
cancelled,
for
example?
So
again,
FEMA
dog
has
some
terminology
for
this,
so
it
has
a
event
status
and
that
can
refer
to
one
of
four
values.
We
can
say
that
the
event
is
canceled
postponed,
whether
it's
been
rescheduled
and
the
default
value
is
just
check.
So
it's
available
Google
sign
oxy.
A
B
Finally,
the
only
feedback
I
have
on
it
is
around
the
number
of
spaces
left
in
a
at
an
event
in
terms
of
when
it's
a
scheduled
event.
That
is
only
not
the
best
way
for
us
to
represent
their
data,
but
I
don't
quite
know
how
we
would
represent
that
easily
at
the
moment,
when
it's
a
scheduled
event
worth
multiple
instances
of
the
event,
you
start
getting
into
all
sorts
of
other
issues,
so
yeah.
A
Yeah
yeah
I
meant
that,
but
yet
it
seems
like
there
is
a
much
more
detailed
conversation
to
have
a
round
of
a
ability
and
but
I
think
I
just
wanted
to
indicate
that
those
those
properties
were
available.
That
they're,
not
I,
think
Martha
both
is
optional,
so
there's
no
expectation
that
you
have
to
require
bundle.
C
A
C
A
So
that
was
it
that
was
in
some
of
the
properties
that
Jake
was
sharing
where
they
said
that
they'd
had
to
reviewed
the
recommendation.
They
have
was
to
have
the
category
and
have
a
catch-all
kind
of
documentation
field
and
then,
in
addition
to
that,
they're
capturing
wheelchair
accessibility
of
locations
which
I
haven't
included.
Yet.
C
It's
certainly
without
concessions
that
can
be
different
from
the
organization's
of
general
contact,
number
or
email
address.
So
often
they
want
to
provide
another
contact,
who's
specific,
a
specific
person
in
that
organization,
not
necessarily,
though
the
session
leader,
and
that
they
can
often
be
different.
We
allow
that
in
the
current
formulation,
so.
A
So
we
just
to
make
sure
I
understand
this,
isn't
somebody
at
the
people,
organizing
organization
to
contact
yeah
so
because
there
is
a
way
to
specify
that
in
schema.org,
because
we
say
to
that
what
we've
said
is
that
an
event
has
an
organizer
an
organizer
can
either
be
a
person
or
an
organization,
so
a
company
and
in
schema.org
you
can
specify
the
contact
points
to
an
organization.
So
what
I
would
suggest
is
you
use
the
contact
point
there.
D
C
D
To
clarify
that
I
think
on
things
around,
if
it's
around
with
disability,
Suffolk
Cowell
said
last
week,
is
all
the
other
week
is
that
you
know
the
disability
contact
is
probably
the
most
important
person
they
may
require
as
much
as
the
categorization.
So
it's
making
sure
that
that
contact
is
almost
as
been
as
I
said,
maybe
separate
from
the
actual
session
leads
that
might
be
ability
contact
for
the
whole
of
the
center
events,
who
were
probably
able
to
provide
that
specific
information.
A
A
A
D
All
the
same,
but
I
mean
it
depends
on
whether
they
all
I
think
what
we
shoulda
said
is
that
you
know
they
post
of
all,
they
could
take
me.
Take
some
that
information,
but
you
know
it's
very
different
from
a
person
being,
if
you
say
it,
works
for
a
kind
of
physical
impairment
is
completely
different
between
someone
who's
in
a
wheelchair.
To
someone
who
might
not
have
a
handle
had
some
other
issue,
so
the
likelihood
is
they're
always
going
to
follow
up
with
some
phone
call.
So
it's.
D
How
is
who
is
the
best
person
to
phone
at
that's
you
know,
whoever
that
places
that
event
is
taking
place
yeah,
so
that
could
be.
If
that
was
a
kabillion.
It
could
be
that
the
main
number,
but
it
could
be
a
completely
separate
number.
Who
has
that
kind
of
information
it's
just
being
clear
and
that
going
to
go
on
to
sits
around
oh.
A
Yeah
so
I
think
what
what
I
was
leaning
towards
was
so
this.
This
I
still
need
to
revise
the
primer
to
kind
of
include
a
specific
some
specific
guidance
around
this,
but
I
thought.
Excuse
me:
I
thought
that
those
kind
of
restricted
would
to
go
into
the
accessibility
information,
and
so
there
is
a
place
to
kind
of
put
that
in
might
so.
There's
something
you
have
somebody
who's
going
to
be
attending,
could
read
it
and
then
take
appropriate
steps.
A
D
A
No,
okay,
well
I'm.
What
I'm
going
to
do,
then,
is
I'll
I'll,
follow
up
on
the
list
and
ask
anyone
who
is
on
a
call
today
to
try
and
give
us
some
feedback
by
when
I
do
the
end
of
the
week.
It's
like
to
kind
of
move
it
forward.
A
So
it's
good.
So
the
the
other
thing
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
Please
stop
me
is
as
I'm
walking
through
these
next
steps.
I
don't
want
it
to
just
be
a
kind
of
presentation
or
a
monologue
for
me.
Don't
want
what
I'm
trying
to
do
here
is
kind
of
validate
some
of
my
thinking
about
how
we
move
forward
in
terms
of
finalizing
specs
and
doing
some
extensions,
so
yeah.
A
So
I
think
this
is
not
just
a
lecture,
so
I'm
been
doing
some
thinking
about
what
it
means
to
extend
the
specification,
and
we
already
have
quite
a
wordy
section,
inspector
and
extension
point
already,
but
the
reason
why
I
want
to
kind
of
just
run
through
this
is
Sophie.
A
few
publishers
that
are
starting
to
publish
go
into
the
spec
are
finding
areas
where
the
spec
doesn't
include
some
data
that
they
currently
capture
and
they're
wondering
about
how
to
provide
that
if
they
want
to
make
it
available
open
data.
A
So
we
need
to
have
some
guidance
in
place
for
people
who
are
going
beyond
what
we
currently
agree
to
standardize.
Extension
points
in
general
are
a
good
practice
for
a
standards,
because
it
allows
people
to
customize
it
for
their
own
needs,
which
means
that
it
encourages
people
to
adopt
the
standards
and
then
customize
it
rather
than
just
saying.
Okay,
this
doesn't
fit
our
needs,
so
we're
going
to
go
and
create
something
else.
A
So
we
kind
of
you
know
need
to
identify
where
these
know,
where
I
work
has
kind
of
completely
to
begin
with,
and
then
where
people
can
start
to
build,
build
around
it
and
then,
obviously,
if
we
started
working
as
a
more
kind
of
formal
release,
then
we
need
to
make
sure
that
people
are
clear
on
what
those
extension
points
are,
because
you
know
they
might
need
to
be
doing
things
to
their
own
schedule
versus
what
we're
doing
in
the
standardization
process.
A
So
I
wanted
to
kind
of
recap,
the
extension
post
that
we
have
currently
and
that
people
can
use
and
just
get
to
get
some
thoughts
from
one.
What
do
these
make
sense?
I'm?
So
so,
firstly,
there's
this
process.
The
standardization
processes
itself
is
as
a
means
of
extending
the
specification.
So
no,
we
expect
the
standard
to
change
over
time.
A
It's
been
changing
relatively
quickly
over
the
last
few
months
as
we've
been
working
on
drafts,
but
over
time,
I'm
expecting
that
changes
be
less
frequent
because
I'm
going
to
work
on
a
more
scheduled
kind
of
release,
process
for
the
standard
specification,
so
they're
moving
to
more
kind
of
three
six
month
or
even
annual
releases,
depending
on
the
level
of
changes.
So
one
way
that
people
can
get
the
specifications
extended
is
to
engage
with
the
community
group
and
the
kind
of
process
that
we've
got
in
place
now.
A
I'm
the
other
place
of
extension,
which
were
I,
think
we've
been
using
quite
a
bit
already,
is
making
more
use
of
schema.org.
So
it's
got
quite
a
rich
set
of
properties
for
describing
events,
organizations
etc,
and
a
lot
of
the
requirements
that
come
up
recently
I've
been
able
to
kind
of
point
people
at
relevant
bits
of
schema.org
that
that
help
describe
the
things
they
need
to
do
so.
A
Contact
points
as
we've
just
seen,
but
also
yesterday,
I'm
showing
how
people
can
describe
you
know,
set
collections
of
images
that
associated
with
an
event
or
organization
the
support
for
all
that
kind
of
stuff.
In
the
spec
already
so
we
don't
have
to
under
dyes
all
that
stuff,
we've
kind
of
documented
in
spec
that
people
can
feel
free
to
use
anything
that
make
sense
from
schema.org
and
today,
I've
been
documenting
the
most
useful
ones
in
the
spec
itself,
but
I
think
in
future.
A
It
would
probably
make
sense
to
just
document
those
those
kind
of
usage
patterns
in
the
primer
and
supporting
guidance
rather
than
putting
them
into
the
core
spec.
So
that
the
course
bank
starts
to
just
focus
on
the
bits
that
are
specific
to
the
sector
rather
than
just
highlighting
useful
sections
of
skin
bulb
and
the
third
way
that
people
can.
A
So
I
need
to
put
together
a
bit
of
guidance
around
that,
but
this
people
could
do
this
already
and
a
couple
of
I
think
of
the
publishers
starting
to
look
at
where
they
might
want
to
do
this,
and
obviously
all
this
kind
of
builds
build
on
one
another.
So
we
might
find
that
some
custom
schema
or
specification
that
we're
creating
is
more
widely
available
when
so,
we
might
want
to
make
it
part
of
the
core
standard
and
so
that
we
can
expect
there
to
be
some
changes
over
time.
A
So
there's
there's
quite
a
lot
of
it.
We
get
into
quite
a
lot
of
complexity
here,
quite
quite
quickly,
but
really
it's
just
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
at
the
moment
is
make
sure
that
there's
some
ground
rules
in
place
that
people
understand
how
they
can
have
a
can
ask
the
changes
to
the
core
spec,
how
they
can
draw
on
schema.org
how
they
can
create
their
own
custom
extensions
and
then,
as
the
community,
as
we've
got
to
move
on
from
here,
and
we
can
be,
we
can.
A
E
A
A
Yeah
it'll
be
kind
of
I
guess
by
the
way,
I
feel
for
tracking,
where
the
bleeding
edge
of
the
specification
and
I
think
we
should
be
trying
to
backwards
compatibility
much
as
much
as
possible.
No
I'd
prefer
to
defecate
properties
and
define
replacements,
rather
than
changing
their
meaning
over
time,
which
might
in
act
in
patent
applications.
So
Abbi
yeah,
you're
right.
There
needs
to
be
a
clear,
a
clear
definition,
some
clear
terminology
in
description
of
that
they
look
spec.
A
Right
some,
like
I,
said
this.
This
there's
a
section
in
spec
on
this
already
but
I'm
going
to
make
some
some
changes
just
to
kind
of
pepper,
clarify
these
these
steps
and
what's
involved
just
to
so
that
people
have
a
bit
more
confident
about
what's
involved
what
they
might
need
to
do
for
my
kind
of
process
and
from
a
technical
point
of
view,
so
I'm
moving
on
so
getting
towards
a
kind
of
version
release,
so
kind
of
1.0
I've
got
plain
quotes
because
one
some
description
about
what
that
should
be.
A
How
do
we
get
to
kind
of
a
stable
release
so
so
having
a
clearly
labeled,
stable,
spec
is
going
to
help
I
think
build
some
confidence
and
coach
adoption
there's
been
I.
Think
a
couple
of
people,
a
couple
of
publishers
have
been
asking
at
what
point
we're
going
to
get
to
that,
so
they
can
have
confidence
that
they
can
implement
against
the
standard
without
it
without
there
being
any
breaking
changes
or
other
impacts
on
them
as
I
think
it
will
help
give
us
a
clear
milestone
to
grab
the
focus
I'm.
A
A
You
know
what
would
feel
comfortable
about
version
of
putting
a
1.0
label
on
now
on
what
we
might
want
to
label
just
as
keepers
draft
and
what
the
process
is
so
I
just
want
to
quickly.
Take
you
through
the
process
as
far
as
the
w3c
define
it,
and
then
we
also
need
to
think
about
whether
there's
any
important
kind
of
outstanding
issues
that
we
need
to
address
before
we're
comfortable
in
saying,
okay,
this
is
a
we're
going
to
rub
spout
business
or
1.0
release.
A
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
is
to
get
first
21.0
for
some
of
the
deliverables
by
the
end
of
you
to
think
about
process
initially,
just
so
that
we've
got
some
terminology
as
a
w3c
community
group,
the
WCC
recommends
that
we
follow
some
fairly
lightweight
process
and
but
they
they
allow
a
community
group
to
publish
deliverables
which
are
either
draft
specifications
or
what
they
call
a
formal
specification.
A
C
point
of
view
is
what
they
call
a
formal
specification
which,
when
you
promote
one
of
your
drafts
to
be
a
formal
spec
and
it
gets
published
at
a
w3c
domain
available,
W
tweeter,
all
rather
than
open
active.
Do
you
also
can't
change
it?
Once
it's
been
released,
you
can
release
new
versions,
so
you
can
go
from
1.0
to
1.1
and
promote
those,
but
once
version
1.0
is
is
released
you're
equally
intentionally,
so
you
shouldn't
change
it
and
they
also
asked
for
some
endorsement
and
sign-off
from
the
community
so
from
their
community
group.
A
Members
and
I've
asked
them
to
clarify
what
exactly
this
means,
because
there
is
a
there
is
a
statement.
I
think
that
they've
got.
They
asked
people
to
sign,
to
kind
of
it
basically
say
that
they're
happy
with
the
specification
and
that
it's
free
of
IP
issues,
the
idea
of
being
is
that
it
potentially
that
they
can
then
take
that
formal
specification
as
import
into
into
their
other
standardization
processes.
So
we've
got
our
candidate
spec
as
a
draft
spec
at
the
moment.
A
So
as
a
group,
our
deliverables
we've
got
several.
So
we've
got
a
couple
of
draft
specification
at
the
moment
the
modelling
spec
the
paging
spec
and
there's
the
open,
active
namespace.
So
what
I'm
proposing
is
that
we
work
towards
turning
those
three
into
formal
1.0
releases.
So
a
formal
specification
in
w3c
terminology
and
I,
don't
think
we're
closer
to
doing
that
for
the
activity
list
yet,
but
I
want
to
kind
of
move
to
getting
a
they
getting
that
from.
A
So
really
it's
kind
of
these
three
inspects
that
I'm
thinking
that
we
could
probably
move
to
1.0
fairly
quickly
and
the
reason
I
think
we
could
do.
That
is
because
I
think
that
those
specifications
are
pretty
stable.
So
people
have
been
implementing
the
paging
spec
for
a
few
months
now,
we've
been
providing
feedback
on
that
there's
a
number
of
open
issues
and
I
am
that
specification,
but
a
lot
of
them
are
enhancements
rather
than
issues
with
the
spec
itself.
A
The
modelling
spec
so
we've
had
dis
ongoing
discussions
in
this
group
and
over
the
last
few
weeks,
people
have
been
implementing
it
and
but
there
haven't
been
any
major
issues,
and
so
there's
been
no
kind
of
structural
issues
with
respect
that
people
saying
actually
the
basic
relationships
between
events
and
places
and
activities
etc
is
wrong.
So
it's
literally
seems
fine,
though
what
what's
been
coming
up
is
the
need
for
additional
properties.
A
In
a
few
places,
a
number
of
those
are
already
covered
by
schema.org
and
there's
only
been
one
or
two
really
there,
where
three,
where
we've
had
to
add
them
to
the
drastic
specs
as
custom
custom
properties,
so
on
that
basis,
I
think
we're
in
in
a
reasonable
spot
and
I
think
kind
of
trying
to
focus
on
getting
that
done.
A
The
end
of
June
is
achievable,
but
they're
kind
of
big
question
for
you
guys
and
for
the
people
on
the
on
the
community
group
is:
are
there
other
areas
that
we
think
are
vital
to
get
so
missing
properties
that
we
think
vital
to
get
into
the
specification
now.
D
So
near
the
only
thing,
I
was
going
to
say:
buddy,
it's
I,
don't
think
it's.
We
need
to
do
it
now,
but
it's
one
these
things
that
we
be
whether
it
includes
in
the
information
he
goes
out,
for
example
facilities.
You
know
we
talked
about
if
we're
going
to
move
on
to
booking
they'd
at
some
point,
you're
going
to
have
to
look
at
facilities
because
Jamie's
issue
around
how
you
look
at
all
sports
halls
being
different
sizes
have
different
floors
or
they've
got
to
have
a
badminton
court
section.
B
Yeah
then
also
leads
on
from
my
you
know
from
my
point
earlier,
where
we
need
to
look
in
the
future
into
how
we're
going
to
model
the
actual
spaces
that
are
still
a
little
free
for
free
to
the
scheduled
events,
because
that
also
falls
hand-in-hand
with
your
first
session
scheduling
as
to
only
facilities.
You
have
etc,
etc.
B
D
Be
it
might
be
that
where
we
publish,
we
need
to
put
a
kind
of
kind
of
these,
probably
think
might
be
all
there's
anything
like
an
FAQ
that
goes
with
it.
So,
where
you're
getting
people
are
coming
almost
telling
them
what
what
we've
done,
what
we
haven't
done
and
some
of
the
reasons
for
it.
So
then
we
kind
of
we're
kind
of
anticipating
the
kind
of
queries
they're
going
to
come
back
in.
A
D
Well,
I
think
Lea's,
it's
just
suppose.
It's
just
kicking
ourselves
on
this
opportunity
data
and
we
coming
off
of
it
miss
anything.
Obviously,
no
in
what
way,
when
house
kind
of
those
key
questions
that
consumer
might
argue,
I
think
I
think
we
look
at
it.
We
probably
have
color
things
most
things
yeah.
A
E
A
Okay,
so
I
think
again,
I'll
put
that
to
the
list
so
that
we're
not
just
making
the
decision
here
and
I
think
I'll
frame
it
in
that
terminology.
We
know
that
that
kind
of
see
what
where,
when
how
I
think
we
do
take
everything
off
but
it'd,
be
useful,
useful
test.
A
Okay,
oh
sorry,
I
was
just
distracted.
Looking
at
the
opportunity.
Data
diagram
in
the
in
the
spec
I
mean
really.
We've
only
talked
about
events,
activities,
locations
and
facilities,
and
we've
got
some
description
of
facilities
in
terms
of
basically
locations.
But
it's
not
the
detail
that
you
were
just
talking
to.
You
will
their
availability
that
goes
with
them.
A
Okay,
so
the
last
thing
that
I
wanted
to
just
talk
quite
was
the
activity
list
so
I.
So
after
we
discussed
it
on
the
last
call,
I
summarize
the
discussion.
What
some
of
the
next
steps
should
be,
in
particular,
I
asked
people
to
give
some
feedback
on
the
current
list
in
the
spreadsheet
and
I
also
circulated
some
editorial
guidance
with
the
comment.
I
might
haven't,
had
any
feedback
on
that.
A
That
needs
some
contribution,
so
we
still
need
descriptions
and
number
of
the
activities
and
I
think
some
of
the
labeling
could
do
with
a
little
review.
So
as
well
as
just
kind
of
asking
you
all
for
feedback
on
there.
I
think
there's
a
couple
of
suggestions.
I
have
trying
to
move
it
forward.
Firstly,
I
think
you'll
be
useful
to
try
and
find
some
way
to
validate
the
list
in
terms
of
how
useful
it
is
in
terms
of
the
kind
of
coverage
and
content
and
I
think
probably
the
best
way
to
do.
A
That
would
be
to
compare
it
against
what
people
are
currently
using
in
their
systems.
So
what
I'm
thinking
we
go
away
and
do
a
big
fun
I
have
to
find
some
time
to
do.
Coordinate
with
somebody
to
get
done
is
to
take
the
current
list
that
Kim
and
the
others
put
together
and
see
how
well
it
stacks
up
against
some
of
the
data
from
my
possessions,
Vigi,
ll,
open
data,
and
perhaps
some
of
the
other
sources
just
to
see
how
well
it
aligns
at
least
in
terms
of
coverage.
A
B
What
sorry
leads
be
just
before
you
go
much
further
and
on
that
front,
I
know
that
data
hub
have
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
working
on
this
sort
of
thing
and
after
our
last
meeting
I
emailed
a
few
other
guys
down
there
and
I
have
got
their
list
that
they
use
and
I
just
need
to
find
some
time
for
me
to
try
and
match
that
list.
After
what
we've
currently
got,
I
know
that
their
list
has
got
a
fair
number
of
the
missing
fields
that
we've
got
and
things
like
that
so
yeah.
A
Okay,
so
yeah
what
is
separately
separately
speaking
to
them
transit
that
I
did
to
get
them
engaged
in
this
process
because,
like
you
say,
they're
going
to
put
a
greater
work
into
what
they
have.
If
they
were
willing
to
publish
that
openly,
then
it
would
give
us
a
under
the
starting
point
so
yeah.
We
need
to
find
some
ways
to
bring
them
into
to
this
activity
together.
What
they've
done.
B
A
Yeah
yeah,
should
they
haven't
been
on.
You
know
on
these
these
course.
If
they're
happy
to
at
least
share
the
list,
I
think
they
sent
me
a
copy
is
not
happy
to
share
the
PDF
just
with
a
group
so
that
we
could
see
it.
That
would
be
I
think
a
useful
reference
point,
even
if
it's
not
formally
published
as
as
open
data
and
I
caught
up
a
bridge
of
it
j
as
well.
A
She
said
she's
going
to
okay,
UK
active
and
they
previously
they've
just
recently
gone
to
the
process
of
I
think
standardizing
their
list
against
the
data
up
one
so
yeah.
It
is
obviously
being
used
by
quite
a
few
people
so
as
well
as
doing
that
kind
of
validation,
work,
I'm,
trying
to
get
them
on
board
and
I
was
going
to
propose
that
we
get
a
few
people
together
for
a
face-to-face
meeting
to
discuss
the
activity
listed
in
more
details.
I
think
it'd
be
better.
A
Just
get
a
few
people
around
the
table
and
revise
the
list.
You
know,
assuming
we're
not
going
to
draw
on
the
data
hubs,
then
just
to
revise
the
list
that
we
have
to
cut
just
kind
of
track.
Some
of
the
missing
areas,
the
structure,
the
terminology,
I
think
it'd
be
a
better
way
to
do
it
and
trying
to
do
it
on
these.
A
These
calls
for
just
doing
independently
online,
so
I
was
going
to
try
and
get
people
together
for
a
face-to-face
meeting,
probably
the
week
commencing
12th
of
June,
and
it
will
probably
be
in
London,
which
might
make
it
more
or
less
successful.
For
some
of
you
and
so
it'd
be
a
invite
just
be
limited
by
whatever
meeting
link
I
can
get
at
the
ODI
I.
Think
a
few
people
on
the
table
would
help
us
color
push
this
on
quite
quickly
and
that
seemed
reasonable
to
people.
A
Okay,
I'll
again
I'll
mail
like
I,
invite
see
who
it
was
come
along
yeah,
so
I
came
to
make
it
an
open
process
and
everyone
pitch
in,
but
also
make
the
meeting
meeting
size
reasonable.
So
we
don't
end
up
with
20
people
in
the
room.
A
Okay,
really,
that
was
that
was
the
kind
of
those
things
that
I've
kind
of
wanted
to
raise
that
one
today
apologize
has
been
me
largely
kind
of
talking
about
planning,
but
any
any
other
feedback
or
any
other
business
things
that
people
want
to
raise
this
afternoon.
E
A
E
A
There's
only
a
small
number
that
so
there's
been
a
number
of
people
that
have
been
publishing
open
data
for
open
actives
for
13
months.
That
they've
started
to
now
adopt
the
standard
data
model
as
a
way
to
structure
their
data
and
gll,
which
went
live
last
very
last
week,
I
using
it
as
well
thanks
if
the
feedbacks
been
pretty
good
so
far,
most
people
seem
to
be
able
to
pick
it
up
relatively
easily,
really.
A
Okay,
unless
there's
any
other
questions
or
things
people
are
raised,
we
can
probably
wrap
up
a
bit
earlier
today
and
in
terms
of
our
next
next
meetings
and
I
can't
I'm
away.
So
I
can't
do
the
7th
of
June,
so
we
won't
won't
hold
one
in
two
weeks
time,
but
the
like
I
said
the
following
week
is:
when
I'll
try
and
get
the
activity
list
face
to
face
meeting
sorted
and
we
still
have
one
channel
for
the
21st
of
June.
So
in
a
month
from
there.
A
A
I
think
I'll
wrap
it
up
at
this
point
and
so
as
I
say,
I'll
follow
up
on
the
email,
email
with
invites
to
that
face-to-face
meeting
and
people
for
people
to
get
feedback
on
the
spec
and
the
looter
1.0.
So,
and
thanks
to
everyone
for
coming
long
than
anyone
who's
watching
the
video
YouTube
right
cheers
guys
actually
right.