►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2020-09-23
Description
1:1 Coaching Sessions
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
Okay,
so
the
use
case
cases
one-to-one
personal
trainer
sessions.
There's
been
some
discussion
on
github
about
this.
I
think
what
would
be
helpful
to
start
with
would
actually
be.
We
already
discussed
in
the
thread
some
of
the
modeling
options,
but
I
was
actually
wondering
if
nick
opras
could
actually
talk
us
a
little
bit
more
through,
what's
actually
being
modeled,
here's
the
grid
which
allows
booking
of
various
classes,
I'm
not
too
sure.
C
They
didn't
want
to
nominate
individual
instructors
for
these
four
types
of
classes,
and
so
there
is
no
no
name
of
instructor
so
that
they
can
freely
choose
from
the
user
base
that
they
have
from
the
instructors
list
that
they
have.
So
what
happens
here?
You
come
and
you
select
the
workout
type
and
the
slot
and
then
behind
the
scenes.
Our
parks
will
allocate
an
instructor
for
that
particular
session.
C
So
that
will
come
in
the
next
phase,
where
out
of
the
users
that
we
already
have.
Some
of
them
are
instructors
and
they
will
be
ticking
a
box
to
say
yes,
I
participate
in
the
one-to-one
sessions
and
this
is
my
availability
days
and
hours
hopefully,
and
then
that
would
be
the
profile
that
would
be
will
end
up
in
the
feed
right
now
in
the
feed
we
can,
we
can
just
say
the
hour
box
instructor
for
fitness
class
or
for
pilates
and
the
availability.
A
C
C
Now
we
work
on
a
one
one
availability
per
slot
when
the
pool
of
instructors
will
be
implemented.
You
may
have
three
four
five
spaces
within
that
slot,
because
there
will
be
three
or
four
or
five
instructors
available
for
that
particular
time
to
pick
up
that
particular
type
of
class.
Okay
right.
So
the.
B
Yeah
just
clarification
question
for
me:
nick
is:
is
it
the
case
that
you'd
want
to
use,
have
the
same
instructor
multiple
times
I
mean
if
you're
getting
a
one-to-one
class
with
them?
Are
you
going
to
want
to
be
able
to
pick
the
same
person
again
so
that
you
get
kind
of
continuity?
From
your
experience
there.
C
Would
you
would
you
like
to
to
for
us
to
think
this
this
this
instructors
again
for
this
session,
or
would
you
like
us
to
allocate
dynamically
any
person,
that's
first
available
with
that?
That
would
probably
also
be
based
on
the
availability
of
these
these
guys.
So
if
they're
not
available
they're
not
available
for
that
particular
slot.
C
A
C
B
C
Because
we,
as
I
said,
we
don't
have
that
pool
of
instructors
created,
we
don't
have
that
that
in
the
in
the
back
end
to
know
who's
doing
what
so
we
we
decided
that
this
is
an
mvp
to
see
how
it
goes
and
they
are
happy
in
the
back
end
to
go
and
get
one
person,
as
you
can
see,
they're
not
that
many
slots
booked
in.
So
they
are
coming
one
two
per
day.
C
Probably
I'm
not
sure
how
what's
the
the
how
busy
this
is
now
and
they're
happy
to
allocate
them
manually
and
we
we
are
working
on
the
on
some
redesign
of
the
site
and
there
will
be
like
profile,
instructor
profile
pages,
more
fancy
looking
and
with
all
the
information
that's
required
for
instructor
page.
At
that
point,
then
we
can
create
that
pool,
and
then
you
can
look
at
instructor
profiles
as
well
and
select
one
of
them
and
book
them.
B
C
And
then
to
subsequently
book,
I
think
we
we've
had
that
on
github
on
the
discussion
there,
so
the
fee
that
I
think
at
some
point.
It
was
suggested
to
be
two
parts
of
two
to
two
very
two
end
points,
one
for
the
instructors,
information
and
another
one
for
slots
and
the
slots
will
follow
all
the
criteria.
So
I
I
suppose
that
we
can
have
I'm
not
sure
how,
because
I
didn't
work
with
slots,
yet
I'm
yet
to
look
into
the
documentation.
C
B
Oh,
I
don't
yeah,
I
thought
it
was
the
full
fully
integrated
looking
which
you
could
still
do
with
slots.
I
mean
that's
a
good
thing
about
everything
being
based
on
the
same
stuff,
so
that
wouldn't
be
an
issue.
I
was
just
more
kind
of
checking
to
understand
the
scope
of
what
we're
modeling
here
to
make
sure
that,
for
example,
it's
compatible
with
open
booking.
That's
a
good
thing
to
think
about
in
terms
of
beta
properties,.
C
And
things
the
good
thing
about
this
is
that
this?
What
you're
looking
at
is
an
mvp,
and
I
mean
even
the
first
version
of
the
the
fee
that
I
put
on.
Github
has
fields
that
we
don't
have
yet
because
it
was
they
weren't
even
needed,
but
we
think
that
in
the
context
of
of
these
personal
sessions,
I
think
consumers
will
need
that
sort
of
information.
For
example
language.
C
A
C
At
this
at
this
moment,
based
on
what
you
see
here
is
not
known,
there
is
so
what
we're
gonna
do
in
the
future
is.
There
is
the
option
to
to.
I
mean
if
you're
thinking
just
about
the
fee,
because
there's
parts,
parts
of
the
functionality
that
we
have
in
mind
for
the
website
is
not
going
to
be
suitable
for
the
feed,
for
example,
the
one
when
we
dynamically
allocate
the
the
instructor,
but
that
will
not
work
with
the
feed.
C
C
C
C
Is
modeling
is
that
right
yeah?
So
this
is
more
built
to
kind
of
get
a
trainer
dynamically,
but
this
will
also
the
plan
is
to
improve
this,
and
now
there
is
no.
There
is
no
journey
for
the
user
in
for
this
booking,
because
this
there
was
nothing
else
needed,
but
what
happened
is
once
we
create
that
pool
of
instructors.
A
C
Yes,
one
thing
to
mention
is
that
the
slots
they
don't
exist
in
our
database
until
they
get
booked.
So
what
happens
here
in
the
in
that
interface
that
you're
looking
at
is
I'm
rendering,
with
html
the
times
of
the
time
of
the
day
and
the
the
class
types
visually.
So
you
can
click
on
one
of
them
and
as
soon
as
you
click
on
one
of
them
to
do
a
booking.
A
Well,
I
mean,
I
think
I
mean
I
think,
from
an
implementation
standpoint
for
the
for
the
rpge
feed.
I
mean,
I
suppose
you
can
materialize
things
that
aren't
in
your
database.
In
a
way
I
mean
you
can
query
the
database
and
have
some
kind
of
logic
that
outputs
you
know
one-hour
slots
across
10
hours
of
the
day,
even
if
that's
not
stored
in
your
database
yeah.
That's
that's
fine!
Well,
I'm.
B
B
B
C
B
In
github
and
around
some
of
the
the
booking
spec
stuff,
because
if
you
change
your
schedule,
then
there's
worlds
of
fun
right
so
very
simple
case:
I
have
a
schedule
of
slots
that
goes.
I
start
today
and
I
have
every
tuesday
for
the
next
three
weeks.
Okay,
that's
that's
easy.
Let's
say
it
was
five
times
a
day,
every
tuesday
for
the
next
two
weeks.
That's
also
easy.
B
Let's
say
that
I
changed
the
schedule
so
that
as
of
next
week,
I
do
it
four
times
a
day,
and
maybe
I
do
it
an
hour
later
or
like
half
an
hour
later
right,
so
that
changes
and
then
let's
say
that
actually
I've
already
got
bookings
in
for
some
of
those
slots
and
I'm
changing
the
schedule.
So
I
now
need
to
make
sure
that
some
of
those
bookings
I'm
only
going
to
move
the
slots
that
I
actually
got
no
bookings
in,
because
I
don't
want
to
move
my
existing
clients
around.
B
B
You've
got
this
situation
where
you've
got
schedules,
versions
of
schedules
that
have
a
start
and
end
point
with
certain
scoping
and
so
the
so
building.
All
of
that
is
actually
really
complicated
for
the
for
the
provider,
and
so
it's
it's
one
of
those
things
where
and
so
we're
finding
with
we're
finding
these
issues
with
classes
right
now,
because
that's
already
stuff
that
people
have
thought
about
and
luckily
in
those
systems
there's
already
these
features
built
in.
B
So
you
know
if
you,
if
you
need
to
version
a
schedule,
some
systems
that
already
manage
schedules,
do
you
schedule
versioning,
they
cut
off
the
schedule,
they
reallocate
a
new
schedule
and
the
constraints
in
the
system.
Stop
you
from
doing
anything
crazy
with
that.
So
you
can
only
move
things
around
within
schedules
everything's
constrained,
but
if
you
have
a
system
where
you
can
arbitrarily
pick
stuff
up
and
move
stuff
around,
then
and
and
then
on
top
of
that,
you've
got
the
situation
where
anything
that
gets
moved.
B
That's
bookable,
you
need
to
send
notifications
for,
and
those
notifications
are
based
on
an
id
and
the
id
is
generated
from
the
schedule
so
there's
like
even
then
you
don't.
How
do
you
track
a
thing
that,
hopefully
I
sound
like
there's
a
lot
of
stuff,
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
so
and
basically
what
that
means
is
when
you
build
all
of
that.
What
you
end
up
with
for
the
slot
implementations
is
everyone.
B
That's
tried
so
far
to
build
slots
without
just
materializing
all
the
data,
although
it's
a
lot,
has
ended
up
coming
back
to
just
materializing
all
the
data,
because
with
all
the
scheduled
stuff
on
top
you
end
up
in
a
situation
where
you're
trying
to
codify
all
of
that
and
and
so
and
the
specs
don't
currently
support
that
thing
either.
So
I
guess
there's
a
good
question
right.
B
I
hear
what
you're
saying
this
is
slightly
different
from
slots,
because
in
slots
most
things
get
booked
right,
most
facilities
are
have
are
allocated
so
because
utilization
is
high
on
balance,
it
kind
of
makes
the
traffic
is
going
to
be
high
in
the
feeds.
Anyway,
it
makes
sense
to
have
most
of
the
stuff
materialized,
because
you
know
it's
kind
of
an
arbitrary
technical
thing
and
which
way
around
it
goes.
This
is
different,
because
what
you're
saying
is
that
you
might
have
a
sheet
of
availability,
which
is
12
hours
a
day
can
be
booked.
B
So
I
guess
what
I'm
just
trying
to
say
is
that
if
we
went
down
the
route
of
schedules,
it's
a
hard
problem
and
we
probably
need
to
think
about
how
we
can
strain
it
in
a
way
that
doesn't
kind
of
blow
our
minds
in
terms
of
making
it
work
with.
Everything
else,
also
bear
in
mind.
Anyone
consuming
this
data.
B
If
we
go
with
the
schedule
route,
doesn't
necessarily
don't
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
as
easily
as
they
will
with
the
slots,
because,
obviously
it's
there's
a
whole
other
thing
there
so
yeah,
I
guess
it.
I
guess
it
comes
back
to
use
cases
really,
but
I
feel
like
what
we
probably
want
to
do
is
is
probably
think
about
schedules
for
this
because
of
the
utilization,
but
just
really
constrained,
what's
possible
within
those
schedules,
so
that
we
don't
make
it
really
messy.
A
B
Yeah
right
so
so,
schedules
have
a
start
and
an
end
date
within
which
there's
a
certain
number
of
slots.
If
a
schedule
changes,
you
have
to
create
a
new
version
of
that
schedule
and
any
anything
that
was
in
the
old
schedule
needs
to
be
materialized
if
it's
booked,
if
it's
booked
and
needs
to
stay,
if
it's
not
realized,
it
won't
stay.
B
So,
for
example,
there's
only
one
live
version
of
jojo
at
any
one
time,
anything
that
isn't
in
that
schedule,
unless
it's
materialized
won't
exist,
so
that
kind
of
takes
away
kind
of
a
bunch
of
edge
cases.
Right,
you're
only
worrying
about
one
schedule
and
then
everything
else
that
was
generated
previously
and
all
the
identifiers
will
need
to
be
versioned
according
to
the
scheduled
version.
So
if
I
change
my
schedule,
I
now
need
to
increment
the
version
of
that
schedule
so
that
all
the
new
get
generated
right
in
that
new
version.
B
The
old
ones
go
in
the
bin
immediately,
so
this
consuming
system
would
need
to
go
right.
That
version's
changed
delete
all
the
old
stuff
put
the
new
stuff
in
unless
it's
materialized.
So
we
need
some
kind
of
and
some
kind
of
logic
around
materialization,
I
suppose,
but
but
yeah.
So
those
kind
of
constraints.
B
C
C
That's
why,
in
the
feed,
there's
no
schedule,
because
we
work
with
like
nodes,
individual
nodes
already
created,
they
might
be
part
of
a
schedule,
but
they
were
individually
created.
Ultimately,
and
that's
that's
how
they
end
up
in
the
field.
Sorry,
nick
just
to
be
clear
on
that
terminology,
that's
what
we
mean
by
materialization.
B
B
C
A
publisher
to
introduce
this
logic
into
the
feeds
there
is
a
bit
of
work
to
do,
especially
when
they,
you
know,
there's
the
notion
of
changing
the
schedules
and
how
you
do
that
and
how
they
appear
in
the
feed
and
how
they
they
are
being
processed
on
the
other
side.
But
if
you
work
with
like
materialized
events,
then
everything
is
simple.
I'm
not
sure
I
mean
it's
my
first
time
here,
so
I
don't
know
what
the
consumers
are
like
and
how
they
they
use.
The
feed
is
this:
a
very
widely
required.
B
Yeah,
I
love
it
you're
arguing
against
your
original
point,
which
is
wonderful.
I
think
you
started
out
saying
that
there'll
be
a
crazy
number
of
items
in
the
feed.
If
we
materialize
and
now
you're
fairly
saying
from
the
point
of
view
of
the
consumer,
it
might
be
easier
if
that
actually
was
the
case
and
they
weren't
materialized.
B
Because
I
agree
most
consumers
are
unlikely
to
be
more
simple
when
they
start
with
this
stuff
and
scheduling
is
something
that's
that's
a
little
bit
more
complicated,
that's
kind
of
part
of
the
normalization
work
which
which
you
need
to
do
when
you
consume
these
feeds.
So,
but
that
said
at
least
well,
actually
you
know
what
I
don't
know.
I
don't
know
of
all
of
all
data
users.
B
C
But
in
the
end
I'm
asking
because
we
have
individual
materialized
events
in
the
system.
We
don't
have
them
for
the
one-to-one
slots,
but
for
the
classes
we
we
have
them
as
individual
ones
and
yeah
modifying
that
will
basically
modify
the
existing
events
and
will
modify
their
time
and
their
location.
Whatever
information
is
in
there
or
deleting
them.
B
Sorry,
nick
and
so
we
I
think,
we're
we're
focusing
here
on
the
one-to-one
slots
right,
so
you've
got
an
existing
feed,
which
is
which
is
great,
which
doesn't
use
schedules
which
does
materialize.
But
that's
f,
that's
for
sessions.
There
might
be
a
good
conversation
about
about
whether
the
schedule
information
would
be
more
useful.
I
mean
in
the
ideal
world.
C
A
Sorry,
just
just
looking
at
the
at
the
time
as
well,
possibly
we
can
pick
up
implementation
of
of
schedules
or
or
materialize
slots
subsequently
and
actually
just
turn
the
conversation
to
what
it
is.
We're
actually
scheduling,
there's
been
some
conversation
on
the
github
thread.
It
seems
like
the
consensus
is
that
we're
looking
essentially
at
slots?
Indeed,
we've
been
talking
all
the
way
through,
as
though
really
what
these
are
is
slots
or
a
subclass
of
slots,
with
some
kind
of
link
to
descriptions
of
persons.
A
B
I'd
I'd
say
slots:
is
that
exactly
what
it
is?
If
you
look
at
it
on
a
time,
if
you
look
at
it
from
a
ui
point
of
view,
it's
almost
identical
to
booking
a
squash
court.
If
you
consider
any
other
aspect
of
the
time
itself,
it's
it's
a
unit
of
time
which
has
a
fixed
start
and
end
point
and
has
a
and
has
a
and
is
linked
to
a
thing
like
a
location
or
whatever
else.
B
So
I
think
it's
doesn't
doesn't
carry
with
any
of
the
kind
of
variants
that
that
and
the
kind
of
crazy
stuff
that
scheduled
session
ended
up
having
in
it.
You
know
different,
like
sometimes
doesn't
have
an
end
time
kind
of
have
varying
duration
can
carries
with
it
kind
of
implications
about
regularity.
You
know
the
same
time
every
tuesday,
all
that
stuff.
That's
that's
not
the
case
with
a
slot.
It's
just
a
thing
you
can
book
it
the
same
time
every
week.
B
If
you
want,
but
that's
you
know
it's
a
it's
a
it's
a
slot
of
a
thing.
That's
there
any
time
it
doesn't
have
to
be.
You
know
that
the
slot
itself
doesn't
doesn't
change.
The
thing
which
I
think
is
is
the
case
for
a
personal
trainer
right,
you're
booking
that
trainer
doesn't
matter
when
you
book
it
you're
looking
at
tennis
court,
it
doesn't
matter
when
you
book
it,
but
where's
a
yoga
session
could
be
different.
Seven
pm
and
eight
pm,
depending
on
the
beginner
intermediate
class,
for
example,.
B
I
I've
just
been
while
we've
been
typing
while
we've
been
talking,
I've
been
just
typing
up.
That
example
of
what
we've
been
what
we've
been
discussing
in
the
thread,
so
I'll
just
paste
that
in
and
I
believe
this
kind
of
satisfies
what
we're
talking
about,
and
what
I'm
proposing
here
is
that
the
personal
trainer
type
is
used
to
represent
the
brand,
but
can
contain
the
people
that
if
there
is
a
person
associated
with
that,
so
that's
like
an.
D
B
Guess:
well
exactly
that's
the
thing,
so
so
the
idea
that
the
private
trainer,
whatever
we're
gonna
call
this
beta
type,
is
because
a
lot
of
people
also
have
their
own
brands
so
ag
fitness,
for
example,
might
be
jessica.
She
might
only
she
might
like
to
call
herself
a
g
fitness.
You
might
even
have
a
company
set
up
ag
fitness,
but
ultimately
that's
the
person
you're
getting
when
you
turn
that
so
using
private
trainer
or
something
as
a
kind
of
holding
object
allows
us
to
brand
it.
B
However,
we
want
or,
however
they
want
the
sessions
that
you're
booking
it
might
be
yoga,
as
in
the
cases
that
we
saw
on
screen,
and
then
you
can
decide
to
have
a
leader
associated
with
that.
If
we
choose
to
use
leader
to
be
specific
about
who
it
is,
but
then
the
idea,
at
least
in
the
proposal
just
updated,
it
would
be
that
the
thing
the
slots
are
against
that
specific
instance.
So
if
you
have
multiple
people
available,
you
would
have
multiple
private
trainers
each
with
their
own
slots.
B
So
a
slot
is
a
booking
of
a
private
trainer,
and
a
private
trainer
is
an
instance
and
probably
it
needs
a
slightly
better
name
really.
Doesn't
it
it's
like
it's
like
a
maybe
it's
a
hard
problem.
It's
like
a
thing
that
you
can
book.
That
is
is
like
the
same
thing,
so
it's
either
a
person
or
it's
a
brand
or
it's
a
whatever
like
that's
the
thing,
you're
booking,
so
you
don't
get
a
choice.
It's
not
like
you
there's
not
like
a
drop
down
when
you
book
it,
you
can
actually
select.
B
A
A
B
Well,
in
that
case,
you
would
just
produce
multiple
private
trainer
entities
for
that
that,
for
about
one
squad
that
slot
right
exactly
and
then
they
can
be
surfaced.
However,
they
need
to
be
surfaced
in
the
same
way
as
when
you
have
multiple
badminton
courts.
You
have
multiple
individual
facility
uses,
they
all
have
their
own
slots.
B
Well,
this
is
the
problem
we
have
right,
it's
because
the
granularity
that
you
want
to
look
at
is
really
the
granularity
of
the
well
that's
the
cause
of
the
data
explosion.
However,
we
model
it.
So
this
is
back.
That's
that's
and
takes
us
back
to
the
kind
of
schedule
versus
materialized
conversation,
but
I
mean
ultimately,
if
you
can
choose
john
jessica
or
charlie
at
three
o'clock,
you've
got
three
slots:
yeah
yeah,
yeah,.
B
Well,
this
is
where
the
schedule
conversation
is
is
an
interesting
one
right.
So
you
know
whether
we
because
because
the
the
model,
as
I've
kind
of
added
in
the
github
issue,
just
now
is-
is
kind
of
saying,
yeah,
there's
slots
and
those
thoughts
are
related
to
to
this
private
trainer.
Now
whether
those
thoughts
are
generated
by
schedule
so
should
we
have,
we
have
a
model
for
schedule.
It
would
work
very
well
for
this.
B
It
does
everything
it
needs
to
do
to
generate
the
slots
without
any
additional
properties,
because
you
can,
you
can
choose
with
the
schedule
what
kind
of
thing
your
the
type
that
you're
scheduling.
So
you
can,
you
can
choose
slot
and
then
it
will
generate
slots.
So
we
could
do
that.
We
could
have
the
slots.
We
could
use
the
schedule
pattern
and
have
a
slots
feed
of
only
the
materialized
slots
that
have
bookings
and
then
the
schedule
could
be
in
the
private
trainer
or
whatever.
B
We
call
this
main
entity
if
we
wanted
to,
but
sorry
I'm
taking
that
back
around,
I
mean
yeah,
but
on
the
model
point
yeah,
I
don't
know,
I
don't.
Is
there
any
any
other
reasons
why
this
wouldn't
I'm
basically
taking
what
you've
already
done
there
tim
and
then
just
adjusted
it
slightly
to
separate
slots
out
from
the.
A
You
know,
I
think
I
I
think
it's
representing
what
needs
to
be
represented,
I
guess
yeah,
then
it
becomes
sort
of
naming
and
other
another
hard
questions.
Yeah
private
trainer
isn't
the
best.
Well,
it's
tricky
because
I
think
you're
right.
It
is
a
service,
ultimately
that
you're
modeling,
maybe
maybe
it's
a
private
trainer
service.
A
Something
cumbersome
like
that:
yeah,
yes
exactly,
but
I
feel
like
the
the
naming
question
is
one
that
we
can
probably
hash
out.
Just
on
the
thread
I
mean
you
can
canvas
various
options:
yeah
we've
we've
only
got
eight
minutes
left
on
the
call
nick
oprah.
So
sorry,
what
are
your
thoughts
on
the
on
the
proceeding?
That
was
mostly
nick
evans
and
I
talking
there.
I
think.
C
I'm
looking
at
the
last
entry
here
in
github,
it
looks
it
looks
good.
I
think
we
can
work
with
that.
The
the
initial
version
that
I
created
there
was,
I
faked
a
person
jessica
there.
Actually
it's
that's
a
trainer
in
our
system,
but
I
faked
other
things
like
qualifications,
so
that
we
don't
have
that
in
our
system.
It
was
just
to
kind
of
have
a
presentation
on
the
consumer
side
to
kind
of
show
what
the
qualifications
of
that
particular
instructors
instructor
are.
C
C
C
That's
why
but
yeah
once
I
mean
this
there's
a
lot
of
what
to
be
done
to
get
this
this
going,
but
I
was
hoping
that
maybe
in
the
first
instance,
we
can
come
to
some
agreement
of
how
the
the
feed
will
look
like
and
then
there
are
already
some
instructors
that
are
used
on
this
one-to-one
sessions
on
our
parks
and
we
can
just
hard
code
these
ones
in
into
the
feed
and
get
the
feet
going
and
yeah.
I
think,
with
the
private
trainer
feed
that
would
be
fine
to
go
ahead.
C
A
A
C
And
ultimately,
once
we
have
the
other
the
other
beast
done,
then
we
can
feed
into
the
feed
the
real
pool
of
instructors.
So
we
can
start
with
two
or
three
or
four
or
five,
probably
I'm
not
sure
how
many
they
are
and
then
I
can
swap
that
piece
of
code
with
one
that
fetches
them
from
the
database
and
then
we
will
have
hundreds
thousands,
I
don't
know
how
many
they
are
that
will
nominate
themselves.
C
I
think
our
parks
can
do
a
campaign
and
email
all
the
instructors
from
the
system
and
get
them
to
complete
their
profiles.
Obviously
this
happens
right
now
with
the
classes.
There
are
some
fields
that
they
don't,
sometimes
they
don't
fill
in
and
some
of
them
are
not
required.
I
think-
and
they
sometimes
I
think
some
some
of
the
sessions
don't
show
up
in
the
field
because
of
that
there
are
some
things
that
are
required
in
the
field,
but
we
cannot
make
them
required
on
the
site.
C
So
if
they
don't
follow
that,
then
we
cannot
surface
them
in
feed.
So,
similarly,
probably
with
the
profiles,
if
if
instructors
are
not
willing
to
kind
of
participate
and
fill
in
their
profile,
accordingly,
we
will
have
missing
data
which
is
not
acceptable
for
the
feed,
and
so
they
won't
show
up
in
the
field
so
yeah.
C
We
need
to
kind
of
get
them
to
to
fill
in
all
of
these,
and
once
we
have
them
ready,
then
we
can
swap
the
hard-coded
bits
of
the
feed
and
make
it
fully
dynamic,
but
I
want
to
get
going.
I
want
to
get
it
going.
I
want
to
have
to
feed
generating
something-
and
you
know
look
at
how
it
looks
outside
of
our
parks.
B
Sorry,
I
know
we're
we're
very
near
the
top
of
the
house,
so
I
just
thought:
there's
just
two
really
burning
questions
that
I
have
that,
hopefully
won't
be
too
disastrous.
Well,
actually,
one
isn't
a
well
it's
not
enough
time
for
a
question.
It's
an
observation
which
is
that
many
sites
that
talk
about
trainers
also
allow
you
to
to
book.
30
minutes,
45
minutes
one
hour,
two
hours
for
groups
of
two
three,
four
five
people
with
all
different
rates.
B
So
we
really
haven't
thought
about
how
the
pricing
works
here.
The
facility
use
model
won't
work
because
we
don't
put
pricing
in
the
facility
use.
The
pricing
is
on
the
slot
and
we
don't
allow
the
flexibility
for
facility
uses
to
be
worked
for
half
an
hour,
45
minutes
one
hour
and
stuff
like
that.
That's
not
really
a
thing
that
I
mean.
The
way
that's
solved
is
just
by
having
a
slot
for
every
hour,
45
minutes
and
30
minute
duration,
but
that's
clearly
going
to
make
our
combinatorial
problem
even
more
crazy.
B
So
I
think
that
that
jet
I
mean.
Obviously
this
is
a
beta,
but
this,
I
think,
is
a
very
sketchy
meter
right
now.
We
really
need
to
bottom
out
some
of
the
other
details
around
how
this
works
with
other
scenarios
such
as
that,
such
as
pricing,
such
as
other
things,
we'll
probably
get
to,
and
we've
looked
at
it
with
more
than
just
three
of
us,
because,
obviously
generally,
these
specs
get
lots
of
eyeballs
on
them
from
people
who
have
a
great
range
of
experiences
and
there's
lots
of
other
systems
out
there.
B
That
already
do
this.
So
but
that's
a
side
note,
it's
not
a
question,
because
we
can't
solve
anything
with
that.
My
question
is
very
tangibly
for
the
pilot
stuff
that
we're
doing
here.
Is
there
any
data
consumer
lined
up
to
consume
this
information
and
have
they
agree
to
do
so,
especially
given
the
sketchiness
of
this
implementation
that
we're
discussing?
B
Because
I
just
I
want
to
make
really
sure
if
we're
putting
all
the
work
into
making
this
feed
available
as
we've
learned
from
other
things,
and
that
we
don't
just
do
that
and
it
just
sits
there
as
a
feed,
because,
obviously
there's
not
much
point
in
doing
that.
So
do
we
know
there's
a
daily
user
lined
up
to
use
this.
C
From
my
point
of
view,
I
was
hoping
that
we
would
have
this
conversation
with
a
lot
more
organizations
that
are
willing
to
to
do
this
sort
of
thing
and
we
will
have
input
from
a
lot
more
people,
but
it
looks
like
I'm
the
only
one,
so
we
don't
know
of
anyone
willing
to
to
implement
this.
I
was
hoping
we
can
start
this
model
and
others
will
implement
it,
and
then
we
will
be
more
providers
coming
on
the
market
at
the
same.
B
Time
right,
so
what
I
would
I
would
caution
here,
just
based
on
experience
of
all
of
this
stuff
right
there's.
This
you've
probably
heard
this
before
the
idea
of
build
it,
and
that
and
this
and
they
will
come
as
like
a
philosophy,
and
it's
generally
recognized
to
be
flawed.
So
the
idea
that,
if
we
build
this
thing,
then
other
people
will
come
and
use
it
or
if
we
build
this
thing,
other
people
might
start
to
do
stuff
without
previous
engagement
from
those
people.
B
So
I'd
suggest
that
probably
more
important
than
actually
building
anything
or
formalizing.
Anything
in
the
specification
is
getting
data
users
around
the
table
to
agree
that
they'll
consume
it,
which
probably
means
making
sure
that
their
ui
and
the
thought
things
about
pricing.
All
this
kind
of
stuff
they'll
have
thought
about
that,
because,
if
they're
aggregating,
this
kind
of
data
they've
already
got
a
model
for
how
pricing
works
at
scale
across
a
number
of
different
types
of
instructors
or
whatever
it
is.
B
I
know
trainers
for
me
is
one
that
I
reference
in
the
github
issue.
There
are
going
to
be
others
that
do
the
same
thing.
So
I
I
mean
I
I
don't
want
to
put
a
damper
on
the
great
technical
conversations,
but
I
I
suspect
that
we
could
easily
put
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
into
this
and
not
have
any
gain
at
the
end
of
it.
B
If
we
don't
do
this,
the
right
way
around
in
terms
of
engaging
those
users
and
then
agreeing
the
spec
and
then
building
it,
I
think
any
building
work
that
happens,
especially
in
the
realms
of
materializing
and
not
materializing,
and
pricing.
This
or
you
you
know,
mvp
that,
like
it's,
it
does
just,
is
all
we're
in
an
ivory
tower
kind
of
talking
about
stuff,
which
we
don't
kind
of
have
any
interaction
with
the
ground
on
really
outside
of
our
small
experience.
So
I
don't
know,
if
that's
I
don't.
C
I
don't
I'm
not,
you
know,
involved
in
the
business
aspects
of
this.
So
from
the
technical
point
of
view,
I'm
doing
this
to
kind
of
get
this
also
out
there
and
be
available
for
others
to
use
as
well.
When
it
comes
to
consumers
yeah,
I'm
not
involved
in
approaching
I'm
not
even
sure
who's
using
the
our
parks,
regular
feed,
so
yeah
yeah.
We
need
to
be
part
of
the
open,
active.
B
Ecosystem,
yes,
I
know
alpacs
is
being
used
by
by
decathlon
and
a
few
others
for
the
open
feed
that
you've
got.
I
mean
it's
great,
it's
great
having
that
out
there
and
I
know
people
are
really
booking
through
it.
So
so
that's
that
is
good
for
the
virtual
stuff,
especially
yeah,
because
I
know
that
was
a
big
push,
but
but
I
I
think
we
probably
need
to
have
the
same
conversations
about
the
one-to-one
stuff.
A
B
Great,
I
was
just
just
checking
because
I
didn't
want
anyone
to
spend
time
and
money
on
stuff
that
we
obviously
haven't
got
a
use
for
yet
because
it
could
easily.
I
I
mean,
having
seen
it
happen
before,
we
can
easily
go
in
the
wrong
direction
on
this
and
then
have
to
do
rework
or
or
more
than
that.
So
I
don't
know
if
it's
worth
us
kind
of,
maybe
maybe
bringing
those
people
around
the
table
or
like
a
data
user,
at
least
for
another
call
like
this.