►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2021-07-14
Description
Phase 4 Technical Communication Channels.
W3C Calls,
Implementers’ Forum,
Tech Drop-in
A
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
w3c
call
for
the
14th
of
july
2021.
This
is
the
first
call
of
phase
four
for
open
active.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
housekeeping
and
administration
call.
But
before
I
start,
I'm
just
gonna
ask
everybody
else
on
the
call
to
introduce
themselves.
I
will
start
as
timothy
hill
open
active
program
lead
and
convener
for
this
meeting
with
the
open
data
institute
jason.
Can
you
introduce
yourself
please
hi.
A
C
And
mike
thacker
from
tourism
limited
wearing
many
hats,
my
company's
technical
partners
with
the
local
government
association
in
lots
of
things
to
do
with
data
sharing
in
local
government.
I've
also
been
working
on
the
open
referral.
Uk
data
standard,
which
is
is
used
in
social
prescribing
and
hence
has
big
overlaps
with
open,
active
and
I'm
involved
in
other
data
sharing
projects,
and
I've
done
some
work
for
the
odi
in
the
past.
My
interest
really
is
in
how
open
active
is
going
to
be
administered
and
supported
in
future.
D
A
And,
as
I
mentioned
at
the
start,
this
is
the
first.
This
is
the
first
call
of
phase
four
phase.
Four
is
going
to
see
a
change
of
approach,
I
suppose
so
the
general
idea
is
that
open,
active
becomes
more
focused
on
particular
initiatives
and
supporting
particular
projects,
more
than
being
a
sort
of
broad
spectrum
outreach
to
the
community,
and
that
entails
some
change
to
how
technical
discussions
take
place
so
yeah.
This
is
a
bit
of
an
administrative
call.
A
So
I'll
run
the
sort
of
technical
communication
channels
by
people
and
ask
for
feedback.
This
is
the
proposal.
That's
currently
on
the
table
for
how
we
move
things
forward
and
I
think
we've
got
an
interesting
mix
of
people
on
the
call
excuse
any
giggling.
In
the
background,
please,
because
we've
got
we've
got
nick
from
I'm
in
who
are
very
deeply
invested
in
and
engaged
with
the
community
we've
got
london
sport
who,
I
think,
are
slightly
more
arm's
length.
A
A
A
Most
conversation,
most
technical
conversation
has
happened
in
one
of
two
forums.
One
of
them
is
this:
are
the
w3c
calls
and
the
other
of
which
is
a
tech
drop
in
the
w3c
calls,
I
think,
have
had
difficulty
getting
traction
outside
people
who
are
very,
very
committed
to
particular
issues
because
they
do
tend
to
be
very.
Very
technical.
A
Discussions
tend
to
get
quite
in-depth
there,
and
this
has
led
to
I
think,
well.
It
certainly
led
to
some
complaints
that
it's
hard
to
track.
What's
going
on,
if
you're
a
stakeholder
who's
not
actually
a
developer,
it's
very
difficult
to
track
the
implications
of
w3c
calls
and
it's
hard
to
engage
with
them
if
you're
not
already
thoroughly
committed
to
them,
and
then
the
tech
drop-in,
of
course,
serves
a
very
different
kind
of
purpose.
It's
ended
up
being
hashing
out
technical
details,
sometimes
with
people
who
are
already
in
the
ecosystem.
A
So
the
first
change
is
that
w3c
calls
would
be
focused
more
on
things
like
requirements,
business
models,
architecture,
very
high
level,
implications
and
requirements
gathering
for
changes
to
the
specification
tooling,
and
that
sort
of
thing
they
would
continue
going
on
fortnightly.
But
as
soon
as
conversations
started
getting
into
you
know
code
pretty
much,
then
that
would
be
a
conversation
for
the
implementers
forum.
A
The
implementations
forum
would
be
there
for
people
who
are
already
on
the
implementation
path
and
who
are
already
engaged
deeply
with
the
specifications
who
are
actually
trying
to.
You
know,
get
things
done
and
that's
where
conversations
about
frameworks
and
coding
and
how
a
particular
feature
you
know
can
work
and
so
on
would
be
discussed
there.
A
So
this
would
be
a
more
narrow
cast
kind
of
forum
and
then
finally,
the
tech
drop
bins
would
would
continue
more
or
less
as
is,
but
with
the
idea
that
it
would
really
be
reserved
for
new
entrants
to
the
ecosystem
and
as
a
sort
of
introductory
step
for
people.
You
know
after
people
have
been
through
to
one
tech
drop
in,
hopefully
they
could
participate
in
the
implementers
forum
or
the
w3c
calls.
A
You
know
as
they
saw
fit,
so
that
would
be
the
that's
kind
of
the
big
picture
of
how
that
would
all
fit
together
in
terms
of
the
actual
management
facilitation
for
the
w3c
calls
would
continue
with
the
odi
with
me
as
a
facilitator,
the
implementor's
forum,
as
the
new
thing,
is
kind
of
up
for
grabs.
It
could
be
the
odi.
A
A
A
There
would
be
maybe
not
minutes
exactly,
but
a
summary
provided
and
the
agenda
would
always
be
public,
so
that
would
be
you
know,
running
as
they're
supposed
to
run.
The
implementers
forum
would
be
open,
invitational
and
a
record
would
be
kept
of
discussions
really
for
future
reference.
If
we
get
into
technical
weeds,
it
makes
sense
to
to
make
sure
that
we
document
that
somewhere.
A
My
feeling
is
that
recording
this
would
probably
not
be
terribly
interesting
as
long
as
the
actions
coming
out
of
it
are
fairly
well
documented
or
the
technical
detail
is
fairly
well
documented.
I
suspect,
watching
a
video
of
people
talking
about
you
know
how
they
integrated
with
a
particular
you
know.
Php
framework
would
be,
would
be
less
riveting
for
people
and
then
finally,
the
tech
drop
in
is
just
an
open
invitation.
It's
not
minute!
It's!
It's
really
just
there
as
a
chat
in
terms
of
scheduling.
A
A
B
A
Oh
sorry,
yeah,
so
the
tech
drop
in
yeah
that
that
right
now
is
fortnightly
as
well,
and
I
think
we
would
just
keep
that.
Keep
that
rolling,
maybe
advertise
it
a
bit
better.
Actually,
it's
been
it's
kind
of
turned
into
a
hangout
for
established
developers
to
hang
out
and
chat
about
weird
things
that
have
been
happening
and
observed,
but
I
think
I
think
probably
we
need
to
yeah
repurpose
it
a
bit
or
just
get
it
out
there
more.
E
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
did
actually
think
yeah
the
other
day
for
everyone
else's
benefit.
We
had
a
situation
where
we
had
one
of
those
really
in-depth
php
conversations
or,
however,
it
was
even
about
php
or
something,
and
then
a
new
person
turned
up.
We
kind
of
paused
the
conversation
for
for
40
minutes
or
so
well.
E
We
introduced
everything
to
the
new
person
and
then
they
left
and
we
carried
on
it,
did
feel
a
bit
like
yeah
two
calls
would
have
made
more
sense,
so
we
all
knew
what
we
were
doing
and
that
would
have
also.
I
think
we
planned
to
have
a
detailed
technical
discussion
in
that
call
which
didn't
really
make
much
sense,
given
that
new
people
can
of
course,
turn
up
and
disrupt
it.
A
E
Oh
yes,
it
was
because
it
was
because
playfinder
were
implementing
some
of
the
some
of
the
the
updates
to
cr3
spec
and
they
had
questions
about
some
of
the
github
issues
yeah.
So
we
were
getting
into
the
detail
of
that
which
would
have
been
great
a
minute.
Actually,
I
think
we
actually
did
it
at
the
end
right
up
into
the
github
issue,
the
content,
the
conversation.
A
E
It
could
be
waited
13
days,
I
mean,
potentially
I
don't
know.
Is
it
what
makes
an
influencers
forum
if
two
people
get
together
and
want
to
talk
about
something?
Earlier
than
that?
For
some
reason,
or
I
say
two
more
than
two,
you
know
I
mean
a
number
greater
than
one.
Is
that
then
an
implementers?
Can
they
be
ad
hoc?
Can
those
conversations
happen
as
long
as
they
go
in
the
minute
stock,
or
is
that.
A
E
F
E
A
E
Well,
I
I
mean
I
mean
practically
from
what
we've
seen
of
the
calls
when
that
basically
nathan
has
has
joined
the
and
what
was
being
nathan
and
myself
and
and
you
on,
whoever
else
has
turned
up
on
the
drop-in,
but
usually
we've
been
waiting
for
the
next
call
to
have
the
conversation.
It's
not
been
hugely
urgent,
so
I
imagine
ad
hoc
would
be
more
the
exception.
C
E
A
Think
it's
useful
for
the
odi
to
have
sight
of
those
issues.
I
mean
just
just
to
be
aware
that
they're
there
I
mean-
hopefully
things
in
the
implementers
forum,
if
they're
significant
enough,
that
they
start
causing
changes
to
the
spec
and
might
interfere
with
other
people's
implementations,
then
that
moves
into
the
w3c
call,
and
hopefully
the
implementation
is
really
we
have
a
specific
problem.
A
E
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
example.
That's
a
really
good
example.
Yes,
the
three-hour
conversation
about
whether
pricing
should
be
an
interest
or
a
string
which
did
get
documented
in
the
github
issue,
of
course,
but
also
yeah.
It
may
have
been
interesting
for
other
people
to
join
in
that
thread
if
they'd
have
seen
it
on
on
that
somewhere.
A
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
guess
yeah
high
level,
and
but
I
assume,
where
does
the
conversations
about
what
particular
property
gets
called,
or
I
mean
not,
that
we
make
new
properties
very
often,
but
and
maybe
that's
actually
very
minor
compared
to
the
conversation,
but
what
the
property
actually
is.
I'm
thinking
about
remember
that
we
had
that
facility
type
call
a
few
months
ago.
B
A
Or
I
think
that's
around
the
right
level.
I
suppose
I
suppose
the
question
is
as
currently
understood.
Does
the
issue
involve
everybody
who's
trying
to
implement,
or
does
it
involve
just
some
named
party?
I
guess
that's
the
difference
between
an
implementor,
the
specification
right
and
yes,
I
think
facility
type.
That's
that's
broad.
Reaching
I
mean
really
anybody
who's
in
the
open,
active
ecosystem
would
conceivably
he'd
be
hit
by
that
so
yeah
w3c.
A
E
A
C
Given
that
we're
not
documenting
we've
gone
and-
and
it's
yet
to
be
proven,
but
it's
so
far.
Okay,
with
the
the
old-fashioned
approach
of
a
forum,
an
online
web
forum,
not
you
have
to
wait
two
weeks
and
meet,
and
part
of
that
is
because
there's
kind
of
a
crossover
between
non-technical
adopters.
You
know
this
is
what
I
want
to
achieve.
Is
it
suitable
and
how
can
I
achieve
it?
And
you
know
I'd
like
to
do
this
with
the
standard,
but
it
doesn't
quite,
let
me
or
a
techie
would
step
in
and
say.
C
Yes,
it
does
let
you
so
we
partly
because
of
that,
and
partly
because
once
we
start
getting
the
same
questions
asked
over
and
over
again,
we
can
just
point
somebody
to
an
answer
rather
than
say
well,
you've
got
to
go,
you
know,
join
a
drop
in
and
next
week,
we'll
answer
the
same
questions
as
we
answered
two
months
ago
and
we'll
next
two
months.
That
said,
people
still
want
to
talk
on
a
one-to-one.
So
I
I
I'm
interested
that
your
approach
is
very
largely
meetings
based
and
there's
not
a
lot
outside
of
that.
C
A
I
think
that's
the
right
question.
I
think
that's
the
broken
link.
Indeed,
we
have,
because
we've
got
engagement
forums
which
are
more
general
and
more
yeah
aimed
at
decision
makers.
Stakeholders
put
it
that
way,
but
they
have
a
very
hard
time
keeping
track
of
what
the
technical
implications
of
what
they
sign
up
for
in
the
engagement
calls
might
be
and
they'll
and
also
there's
a
hard
time
communicating
back
what
the
business
implications
of
decisions
made
in
the
w3c
calls
might
be.
So
that's
kind
of
a
hard
bit
and.
C
A
C
B
A
C
If,
if
somebody,
if
somebody
has
enough,
do
people
email
with
queries
and
in
which
case,
where
do
they
go
and
what
happens
with
with
the
answers,
because
I
I
guess
I
try
and
say
to
people,
look
put
your
query
in
the
forum
or
if
you
don't
I'll,
put
it
there
and
I'll
answer
it
for
everybody
else.
But
is
there
a
lot
of
one-to-one
and
does
that
fall
on
your
shoulders
tim
or?
Is
there
a
a
team
of
less
senior
people
that
do
the
routine
supporting.
A
C
A
I
think
the
I
think
the
the
difficulty
is.
We
tend
to
get
the
tough
cases,
so
people
who
have
read
all
of
the
documentation
on
the
website
and
have
understood
it
and
are
happy
to
digest
it.
You
know
they'll
they'll
get
in
touch
just
to
say
you
know,
oh
we're
doing
something.
I
think
the
difficulties
more
when
people
have
read
all
of
that
material
and
they
still
don't
quite
understand
it.
That's
when
that's
when
the
engagement
becomes
quite
heavy,
and
it
might
be
that
a
forum
is
actually
more
useful.
A
So
I
could
imagine
a
forum
with
answers
composed
by
people
coming
from
other
parts
of
the
sector
might
be
might
be
useful
that
way,
because
I
don't
think
we've
ever
really
cracked
that
that
nut.
Okay,
that's
that's
a
that's
a
useful
suggestion.
I
will
take
that
on
board
and
probably
throw
that
into
the
into
the
pot.
A
G
B
You're
100
right,
it's
definitely
discourse,
so
I
will
wind
my
neck
in
there,
but
I've
gone
and
had
a
look
at
it
and
it
does
integrate
with
slack.
So
it
might
mean
from
a
from
an
ease
point
of
views
perspective.
It
doesn't
mean
we've
got
loads
of
channels.
It
must
integrate
into
the
main
one
that
we
use.
B
E
Well,
I
was
going
to
say
before
we
get
too
far
with
discourse.
Github
also
has
discussions
functionality
built
in
so
if
we
wanted
to
keep
platforms
less
than
rather
than
more,
although
this
course
I've
seen
in
use
and
I'm
part
of
a
forum
actually
that
uses
users
discourse,
but
I
don't
know.
I
also
know
that
schema.org
have
started
to
move
to
discussions
for
the
github
discussion
stuff,
so
it
might
just
be
worth
looking
at
both
of
those
options
and
seeing
whether.
A
A
E
I
was
going
to
mention
them
so
part
of
the
potential,
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
a
difference
between
referral
on
this
or
whether
it's
actually
just
dealt
with
differently,
but
people
that
get
involved
in
open
active
often
tend
to
be
kind
of.
If
they're
startups,
they're
pursuing
kind
of
a
business
model,
they've
got
an
idea,
there's
something
around
it,
which
is
a
little
bit
unique
and
they're
they're.
E
Not
kg,
may
be
too
extreme,
but
they're
not
they're,
not
so
keen
to
shout
about
it
to
everybody,
and
sometimes
the
questions
that
are
asked
to
like
give
them
that
we're
trying
to
do
this.
How
does
that
work?
So
I
was
just
it's
just
a
comment
on
I'd,
be
interested
to
see
the
uptake
if
we
did
decide
to
go
ahead
and
do
that
and
I
suppose
the
other
thing.
E
E
So
if
we
can't
respond
to
github
issues
within
two
weeks-
and
we
can't
update
minutes
within
longer
the
moment
because
we're
all
busy
then
does
it
make
sense
to
try
and
add
another
channel
to
that
stuff-
and
I
guess
where's
the
time
coming
from
if,
if
it's
available,
that
would
help
do
that,
and
if
so,
can
we
redirect
that
time
towards
doing
the
other
stuff
first
and
then
coming
back
and
doing
this
afterwards
yeah.
I.
A
Mean
I
guess
I
guess
the
problem
is
yeah.
I
think
the
problem
is
sort
of
one
of
demand
in
a
way
that
yeah
it's
really
about
non-technical
engagement
is
the
tr.
Is
the
tricky
bit
or
the
kind
of
fence
straddling
technical?
So
you
know
people
who
are
running
a
small
startup
that
need
to
have
site
of
technical
issues
but
aren't
themselves
developers
or
aren't
actively
involved
in
hand
on
develop
hands-on
development.
A
You
know
team
managers.
That
kind
of
thing.
I
think
the
difficulty
is
so
things
like
the
w3c
calls
who
really
wants
to
see.
It
is
people
who
are
already
fairly
far
into
the
weeds
and
other
people
who
are
not
fairly
far
into
it
are
like
well,
I
can't
engage
with
the
w3c
calls
it's
it's
not
a
question
of.
Where
are
the
videos?
Why
can't?
I
watch
the
videos?
Where
are
the
minutes?
A
It's
a
question
of
give
me
something
that
you
know
I'm
willing
to
watch,
which
is
in
some
ways
an
unfair
demand.
You
know
you're
communicating
in
ways.
I
don't
prefer.
Why
don't
I
understand
it
is?
Is
you
know
a
difficult
demand
to
square,
but
I
worry
that
yeah
everything
is
is
indeed
a
time
sucked
and
and
behind
schedule
getting
caught
up
with
those
things
is
not
going
to
make
that
demand
go
away.
E
A
You
know
we're
supposed
to
be
open
and
one
sense
of
that
is
yeah.
Having
all
of
the
discussions
you
know
available
and
out
there
and
viewable,
but
it
does
have
to
be
digestible
to
people
in
order
to
you
know
to
really
be
open
to
to
get
eyes
on
it.
It
needs
to
be
in
a
format
that
people
will
in
fact
review.
E
E
E
Maybe
if
those
those
points
reference
point
in
that
video,
you
know
in
terms
of
times
where
it's
like
at
48
minutes,
we
discussed
x
of
business
implication
why
well,
if
someone
really
wants
to
go
in
and
dip
into
that,
they
can
do
that,
and
previously
I
mean
years
ago
now
we
had
people
who
would
watch
the
videos
and
catch
up
and
then
would
say
I've.
I
watched
this
and
that
caught
up
and
I'd
be
interested
to
join
the
next
one,
because
I
saw
blah
blah.
It
just
makes
it
easier
for
people
to.
E
I
mean
there's
a
really
basic
example:
I'm
on
holiday
in
a
couple
weeks,
which
I
very
rarely
do
and
I'll
be
missing
a
w3c
call
and
as
it
stands,
there's
no
way
for
me
to
really
get
a
handle
on
what
happened
there
and
obviously
I'm
very
entrenched
in
the
in
the
in
the
weeds
of
all
things.
And
so
I
wonder
whether
you
know
if
summaries
like
that
of
the
work
we're
already
doing
and
which,
which,
on
the
one
hand,
are
not
much
work
but
also
our
work.
E
That
needs
to
be
scheduled
and
and
someone
needs
to
do
it
and
prioritize
and
all
the
rest
of
it.
So
it's
yeah,
I
kind
of
wonder
whether
we,
whether
the
channels
are
as
advertised,
could
be
used
and
and
even
the
tech
drop-in
at
the
beginning
of
the
tech
drop-ins
life.
It
was
less
technical
and
it
was
a
drop-in
for
both
technical
and
non-technical
and
whatever
people,
whatever
questions
people
had,
they
could
turn
up
and
ask,
and
sometimes
that
was
a
high-level
question.
E
E
F
A
C
A
Yeah,
I
think
that's
I
think
that's
the
difficult
thing
is
just
we've
got.
You
know
everything
was
designed
around
engagement
for
people
who
were
not
technical
and
technical
stuff
for
people
who
were,
and
then
there's
this
middle
swathe,
and
what
the
right
answer
is,
whether
yeah
as
nick
says
at
48.30
oauth
for
membership.
It
you
know
belongs
here.
A
You
know,
take
a
look
at
this,
whether
that's
the
best
approach
or
whether
you
know
some
other
venue
is
a
good
approach
or
or
what
I
guess
is
the
question,
and
yet
my
yeah,
I
guess
I
guess
the
approach
outline
there
does
make
sense
as
long
as
the
w3c
call
does
indeed
retain
that
higher
level.
This
will
affect
your
business.
This
will
affect
the
spec
kind
of
focus.
A
I
think
it
doesn't
make
sense
if
it
is
yeah,
you
know
degrees
of
precision
in
prices
and
how
we
do
rounding.
I
suspect,
probably
tracking,
that
minutely
is
going
to
be
less
less
interesting
but
yeah.
If
the
w3c
call
does
manage
to
keep
that
scope,
then
a
more
narrow
kind
of
approach
becomes
more
more
feasible
and
relevant
and
more
interesting
to
to
everyone
to
watch
really.
E
A
A
With
yeah
some
yeah
that
make
yeah,
I
guess
that's
the
thing
to
try
first,
and
if
that
fails,
we
look
at
other
options
and
and
yeah.
If
we
find
that
we,
if
we
find
that,
there's
still
problems
with
the
implementers
forum
or
the
tech
drop
in
you
know,
we
keep
on
running
into
the
same
kind
of
issues
and
one
on
one
is
just
not
a
good
way
of
dealing
with
that.
Then
the
forum
becomes
more
applicable
to
that
domain.
A
D
One
question
I
was
going
to
ask
was
so
in
terms
of,
for
example,
specifically
open
sessions.
Questions
we've
had
before
where
I've
raised
them,
which
are
specific
issue,
that's
happening
open
sessions,
but
could
be
an
issue
that
is
happening
in
other
systems.
So
two
things
one
I'm
assuming
needs
to
be
raised
in
the
implementers
forum.
If
I've
got
that
correct-
and
the
second
question
was-
I
know-
you've
mentioned
it.
Obviously
the
time
is
sort
of
you're
busy
and
we've
now
got
additional
call.
A
Well,
I
mean
it's,
not
it's
not
like
a
it's
like
a
wall
yeah
I
mean,
I
think
I
think
ideally
yeah.
If
you,
if
you
did
encounter
an
issue,
it'd
be
like.
Oh,
you
know,
show
up
at
the
implementers
forum
and
we
we
talk
about
it
there,
because
it
would
be
better,
documented
and
yeah,
because
other
people
will
presumably
hit
similar
issues
but
yeah
it's.
This
certainly
is
like
we're.
Shutting
not
saying
you
know
we're
shutting
down.
A
The
email
addresses,
don't
talk
to
us
if
you're,
not
in
the
forum-
and
I
think
you
know
our
our
history
has
been
that
it's
usually
it's
usually
been
issues
that
aren't.
You
know
urgent
nothing's
on
fire,
it's
it's
just
more,
a
question
of
approach
and
and
what
you
should
be
looking
at
in
the
next
sprint.
So
I
think
you
know
a
fortnightly.
Implementer
call
probably
suits
that
fairly
well,.
D
E
I
guess
well,
I
was
just
thinking
of
what
he
said
on
the
the
influences
forum
yeah.
I
guess,
if
there's
an
influences
forum,
slap
channel
and
then,
if
I
guess,
depending
on
how
that
gets
used,
maybe
that's
where
github
issues
or
discussion
forum
or
something
could
just
thinking
about
documenting
those
questions
and
answers
in
that
forum.
If
there's
I
mean
ollie
raised
a
great
one
on
github.
If
anyone
saw
it
yesterday
about
the
validator
having
a
problem,
this
is
a
very
specific
issue,
but
obviously
that
makes
sense
to
put
that
on
github.
E
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
think
that
ties
in
nicely
because
yeah,
I
think
I
think,
because
that
that
github
issue,
if
it's,
what
I'm
thinking
of
actually
did
arise
from
a
from
a
call
and
an
email
exchange.
So
I
think
that
I
think
that's
sort
of
broadly
the
right
flow.
It's
just
maybe
a
little
bit
bumpier
because
it
involves
a
you
know,
an
initial
you
know
one
to
one
and
then
it
moves
into
a
wider
forum.
B
I
think
linked
to
what
everyone's
saying
I
think,
where
mike
started
in
regards
to
you
know,
you
could
have
four
weeks
of
calls
of
the
same
questions
being
asked.
It's
just
having
a
nice
place.
To
put
it
all
together.
Kind
of
like
an
faqs
area
for
the
implementers
forum,
I
guess
would
be,
would
be
smooth
and
easy
going.
E
And
that
could
ease
and
easily
start
as
just
github
issues
in
the
documentation
repo.
You
know
these
are
things
that
would
be
great
to
add
to
the
documentation
at
some
point.
If,
if
because,
maybe
I
I
mean
that's,
I
suspect,
given
our
state
of
our
documentation.
Some
of
these
questions
are
probably
almost
at
that
they're.
E
It's
like
you
know.
This
really
should
be
in
like
the
second
page
of
the
documentation,
but
it
just
hasn't
been
written
anywhere
like
like.
I,
I
fixed
something
yesterday
in
the
ids,
because
the
reason
we
use
that
id
just
isn't
anywhere
and
someone
was
struggling
with
that,
and
so
it's
just
kind
of
like
well
like.
Why
isn't
that
written
everywhere?
That
should
probably
be
so
maybe
yeah
yeah,
maybe
there's
a
if
there's
a
flow
where
that
kind
of
stuff
that
kind
of
content
ends
up
somewhere
formal
as
well.
A
Okay,
I
guess,
given
that
we've
got,
we've
got
12
minutes,
that's
not
too
bad.
I
guess
my
final
question,
given
all
that
very
useful
feedback.
Are
these
the
right
names
for
things
I
feel
like
w3c
coal
could
use
some
unpacking
a
little
bit.
I
feel
like
people
who
know
what
the
w3c
is.
Are
you
know
quite
happy
with
with
that
notion
and
we
obviously
want
to
retain
that
reference
to
w3c
and
whatever
we
call
it,
but
it
feels
to
me
a
little
opaque
if
you're
not
already
engaged.
A
C
I
I
don't
think
there
is,
I
mean
we're
looking
at.
I
guess
what
we'd
call
a
doctor's
or
a
forum
which
is
the
non-technical
and
and
then
what
we
would
call
a
technical
forum
to
me.
W3C
sounds,
you
know
highly
technical,
and
you
know
it's
it's
the
extent
to
which
changes
to
open
active
impact
on
international
standards
and
the
required
requirement
to
change
those.
But
I
guess
we.
We
have
an
interface
with
open
referral
in
the
us,
but
that's
the
only
thing
there
isn't
there
isn't
a
higher
standards.
F
C
A
A
C
So
I
guess
what
open
open
a
referral
open
referral
certainly
does.
Is
it
gathers
feedback,
mainly
in
github
issues,
from
what
you
could
consider,
implementation
forums
or
mailing
lists
and
whatever
and
flags
these
things,
and
then
periodically
has
a
review
of
the
standard
as
a
whole
which
open
data
services
actually
does?
So
it's
not
a
it's,
not
a
routine.
Every
two
weeks
thing
it's
when
there
are
enough
points
that
are
worthy
of
being
fed
back
then
do
an
overview
of
the
whole
package.
A
That's
interesting.
That
implies
a
very
different
cadence
because
I
think
I
think
the
every
two
weeks
I
mean
there
have
been
the
odd
points
where
you
know
everybody's
heads
down
in
in
implementation
or
something,
and
so
it
hasn't
really
been
necessary,
but
I
think
there's
really
it's
really
been
under
active
development,
more
or
less
the
entire
time.
I
think
you
know
the
issues
discussed
have
been
substantive
every
fortnight,
for
you
know
years
now,
which
is
maybe
something
that
needs
looking
at
as
well.
C
Do
people
implement
their
own
extensions
and
variations
and
then
take
them
back
to
w3c
afterwards,
so
to
some
extent,
they're,
not
they're,
not
time
limited
by
that.
If,
if
you
know
in
theory,
they
they
could
have
to
reverse,
though,
as
if,
if
the
open
w3c
discussion
reveals
something
general
or
a
different
way
of
doing
the
same
thing,
but
you
can
get
on
and
do
something
and
then
package
these
things
up
later
on
for
consideration
with
w3c.
A
Yeah
I
mean
people
will
implement
data
properties
and
there's
a
mechanism
for
doing
that,
and
then
you
know
those
eventually
get
surfaced
into
into
the
spec.
You
know
that
said
we
have
broken
things
so
yeah
the
the
process
is
sometimes
slower
than
the
the
evolution,
which
I
guess
is
something
every
standards
you
know
body
negotiates.
E
Yeah,
it
is
interesting
because
I
I'm
sure
I
think
part
of
the
the
rationale
for
this
came
from.
I
think
oh
well,
I
I
mean
it's
also
something
that
I
know
that
other
stunners
do.
I
think
the
jason
ld
standard
you
can
actually
go
online
and
find
all
the
calls
that
they
had
and
throughout
the
evolution
of
that,
some
of
which
are
fascinating
to
listen
to
just
because
obviously
they
got
well
into
the
weeds
of
things.
E
If
you
had
to
like
do
a
big
review
and
get
attention
on
a
particular
issue,
whereas
getting
a
little
bit
of
time
from
a
lot
of
different
people,
more
frequently
is,
is
easier
to
digest
for
people
I'll
just
come
along
to
this
one
call
and
then
move
that
along
yeah,
so
it'd
be
interesting
like
how
the
odsc
process
works
with
that
review
and
where
I
guess
how
they
take
on
board
that
that
domain,
expertise
and
figuring
all
that
stuff
out.
I
guess
that
must
be
quite
an
involved
process
when
that
happens.
C
A
E
A
A
I
guess
this
has
been
the
problem.
I
guess
what
happened
was
we.
There
was
a
tentative
conversation.
It
turned
difficult.
It
got
dropped
for
a
long
time.
Then
it
got
picked
up
again.
Then
it
got
dropped
when
it
turned
complicated
and
so
there's
been
like
a
very
slow
convergence.
So
I
suppose
what
that
hasn't
been
good
for
it's
been
very
good
for
surfacing
all
the
details
and
I
think
for
getting
a
good
sense
of
what
the
use
case
actually
is
over
that
time.
A
But
what
it's
been
bad
at
is
hitting
deadlines
that,
if
you-
because
I
think
that
that
issue's
been
you
know
running
for
about
two
and
a
half
years
now
or
something
and
it's
approaching
a
good
solution-
and
I
think
we've
talked
to
everybody-
who's
got
an
interest
in
it
really
at
the
moment.
So
it's
been
very
thorough,
but
yeah
the
the
wheels
have
ground
slowly
and
mighty
fine
on
that
one.
E
Although
it's
interesting
that,
as
that
has
evolved
over
the
years
because
yeah
I
agree,
it
has
gone
on
absolutely,
but
the
the
actual
understanding
of
the
issues
also
evolved
and
the
need
for
it.
I
mean
it's:
it's
it's
been
there
enough
that
the
people
that
need
it
can
use
it
and
it
hasn't
been
formalized
more
than
it
needed
to
be
formalized.
E
A
It's
just
a
different
approach,
but
I
can,
I
can
imagine
facility
type
yeah,
certainly
being
faster,
that
it's.
It
is
a
domain
of
related
concerns
and
it's
been
mostly
the
same
parties
involved
in
the
conversation,
and
I
can
imagine
that
actually
a
sort
of
systematic
review
process
really
trying
to
push
it
would
have
worked
as
well
in
a
particular
case.
But
then
equally,
as
you
say,
people
have
been
able
to
to
go
ahead
and
implement.
You
know
the
bits
that
they
need,
as
as
we've
evolved.