►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Group Meeting / 2017-06-21
Description
A public hangout for members of the OpenActive W3C Community Group.
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openactive/2017Jun/0003.html
For more information visit: https://www.openactive.io/w3c-community-group.html
A
A
This
time
around,
we
haven't
had
a
chat
for
a
couple
of
weeks,
so
I
thought
it'd
be
opportunity
just
to
kind
of
just
do
a
quick
progress
update
on
where
we
are
with
some
of
the
deliverables
and
have
a
chat
about
the
activity
list
to
do
the
editors
draft
that
I
pushed
out
this
week
and
Jamie
shared
some
things
with
the
list
which
we
can
go
through
and
discuss.
We'll
just
take
a
look
at
towards
the
end
of
the
call
share.
Some
information
on
my
local
pitch
manage
availability
in
booking
thought.
A
A
So
yeah
so
agenda
I'll
just
do
a
quick
update
start
with
on
the
the
latest
spec
revisions
and
then
digging
through
the
activity
lists
in
a
bit
more
detail,
which
is
where
a
bit
more
discussion
today
so
latest
updates
on
the
deliverables
I'll
just
enter.
This
I
wasn't
sure
how
up-to-date
every
one
was
with
the
emails
on
the
list.
So
I've
pushed
out
updates
to
a
number
of
the
specifications
and
documents
this
week
and
to
help
move
things
forward
with
our
plan
to
get
some
of
these
documents
finalized.
A
They
can
least
indicate
that
there
will
be
a
coach
at
an
event
if,
even
if
they
don't
name
them
leader
property,
we
discussed
before
so
that's
personal
organization
leading
an
event.
And
then
the
couple
of
extra
properties
are
around
basic
attendee
information,
so
build
property,
property,
capturing
just
general
instructions
for
attendees,
but
also
a
more
specific
one
to
cover
the
use
case
around
where
a
meeting
point
might
need
to
be
shared.
A
So
all
of
those
we've
had
discussion
around
already
I've
also
revised
the
section
on
how
we
plan
to
extend
and
versions
back
in
future.
So
one
of
the
points
that
was
made
when
I
proposed
that
we
would
move
forward
and
getting
a
1.0
version,
respect
released
is
that
we
ought
to
have
some
statement
in
spec
around
backwards
compatibility,
so
I've
included
some
stuff
there,
so
commitment
that
we
will
aim
to
add
properties
to
preserve
the
meaning
of
current
properties
and
deprecated
properties,
rather
than
just
removing
them
from
the
spec.
A
So
that
should
work
towards
minimizing
the
impacts
on
any
published
data.
So
we
don't
really
want
to
do
is
make
any
publish
data
invalid
according
to
the
specification,
so
there's
no
clarifications
there
and
then
Germany,
just
some
just
general
tidy
up
and
housekeeping
on
the
spec
cover
type.
Those
wording
fixes,
but
I've
also
put
in
some
cross
references
to
some
of
the
other
deliverables.
So
in
particular
the
model
inspect
now
references.
A
The
activity
list
encourages
organizations
to
use
that
where
it's
suitable,
I've
also
we've
also
a
comment
behind
which
we
discussed
this
on
the
call
last
time.
But
there
was
a
suggestion
that
we
ought
to
have
a
way
to
allow
the
community
to
experiment
with
new
properties,
so
new
ways
to
extend
the
model
in
a
kind
of
I
guess
a
safe
space,
without
necessarily
having
to
include
all
of
those
properties
in
the
drafted
specifications.
A
So
we've
we've
created
this
beaten
namespace,
where
we
can
start
to
put
some
properties
that
are
still
going
to
be
under
discussion
whose
meaning
and
scope
might
change
in
a
way.
That's
a
bit
looser
than
we'll
be
doing
now
for
the
main,
the
main
spec
in
the
main
namespace,
where
we're
trying
to
make
stronger
guarantees
around
versioning.
So
that's
quite
an
early
document.
I've
included
some
links
in
there
to
the
documentation,
as
is
but
I've
got
an
action
to
put
together
a
bit
more
process
documentation
than
there.
A
The
real-time
paging
specification
has
been
updated,
but
I
need
to
get
that
published
today.
The
really
the
main
change
there
is.
It
now
refers
to
the
modeling
specification,
so
while
the
the
paging
spec
that
people
are
using
to
publish
their
opportunity,
data
currently
is
fairly
agnostic
to
the
type
of
data
that's
been
published.
We
want
to
encourage
people
to
conform
to
the
modeling
spec.
Where
is
appropriate,
so
there's
some
wording
in
there.
Now
that
says
the
you're
publishing
data
about
events
or
places
or
organizations.
A
So
the
types
of
things
that
are
described
in
a
standard
model,
then
you
should,
you
should
be
to
be
using
that
model
and
if
you're
not,
then
it
recommends
that
a
publisher
should
be
trying
to
document
their
non-standard
model.
So
at
least
it's
described
and
useful
for
developers
who
may
be
using
their
data,
but
this
is
part
of
trying
to
starting
to
encourage
people
now
to
converge
on
I'm,
using
the
standards
all
of
the
standards
that
were
producing.
So
we
can
get
a
consistent
way.
The
publishing
data
across
the
sector.
A
So
those
are
the
main
changes.
I'm
planning,
an
update
to
the
primer
this
week.
So
having
gone
through
with
revisions
to
the
other
specifications,
I'm
going
to
update
their
tutorial
documentation
in
the
primer
to
include
examples
of
all
of
the
new
properties
and
address
some
of
the
questions
that
have
come
up.
It's
some
of
the
implementation
discussions
also
increasing
a
bit
of
extra
guidance
around
managing
managing
both
publishing
of
personal
data
and
some
of
the
things
that
organization
should
should
think
about
just
as
a
way
to
put
a
bit
more
guidance
around
that.
A
So
this
is
all
kind
of
still
part
of
the
the
planet
line
last
time
around
moving
us
towards
a
kind
of
one
point:
release
of
the
least
of
at
least
the
modeling
spec
by
the
end
of
this
month.
My
feeling
is
that
we've
kind
of
at
a
good
in
a
good
position
with
that
spec
at
the
minute,
the
for
those
people
who've
been
implementing
it
recently,
it
seems
like
the
spec
is
covering
a
vast
majority
of
kind
of
use
cases.
In
a
few
places,
some
of
the
publishers
have
use
extra
markup
from
schema.org.
A
You
know
what
1.1
will
look
like
what
revisions
we
want
to
make
in
the
future
in
terms
of
process
as
the
the
chair,
the
group
I
can
just
indicate
that
any
one
of
our
deliverables
is
a
more
formal
specification
from
the
community
group.
So
w3c
provide
some
tooling
on
that,
but
they
I'm
still
waiting
on
them
to
confirm
whether
there's
any
additional
process.
A
There
documentation
talks
about
asking
for
approval
or
kind
of
endorsements
from
members
of
the
group
to
indicate
that
everyone's
happy
with
the
specification
kind
of
moving
to
that
stage,
so
I've
just
queried
with
them.
What
that
actually
involves.
So
that
might
mean
that
I
need
to
come
back
to
the
group
over
the
next
week
or
so
and
just
check
in
and
try
and
get
those
endorsements
if
we
need
them
so
I
think
what
I
would
say
is
that
I
would
say
were
at
the
point
where
this
is
the
kind
of
last
call.
A
You
know
we
need
to
make
a
decision
on
whether
they
are
significant
enough
that
we
want
to
delay
putting
that
1.0
stamp
on
it
further.
But
I
will
kind
of
promise
to
look
through
everything
that's
raised
and
they
make
decision
on
whether
we
need
to
include
it
in
1.0,
maybe
bump
it
to
one.
So
this
isn't
them.
A
B
One
thing
on
them
on
that
a
few
people
have
been
using
things
from
the
specification
that
aren't
actually
in
the
specification
but
they're
in
schema.org,
and
they
obviously
reference
from
the
primary
and
comment
I've
heard
around
if
you're
consuming
the
data
from
these
feeds,
because
the
scale
of
schema.org
is
pretty
vast.
If
you're
gonna
write
something
that
consumes
all
the
available
data
from
all
these
feeds
to
know
what
exactly
you'd
expect
to
see
in
there.
It's
quite
difficult,
because
the
schema
don't
all
kind.
B
Get
as
a
data
publisher,
so
it's
almost
especially
as
we've
also
recommended
that
we
don't
include
null
values
that
we'd
rather
leave
out
keys
for
those
items
that
don't
have
the
relevant
values,
and
so
what
that
means
is
you
might
get
a
feed
like
gol,
where
only
5%
of
the
data
has
a
particular
key
and
that
key
is
from
schema.org,
and
so
it's
not
referenced
in
the
opportunity.
Spec,
it's
only
reference.
It's
give
it
all,
and
so
then,
when
you
are
consuming
that,
you
will
not
know
about
that.
B
A
It's
a
good
point:
I
mean
it's
going
to
be
an
issue
generally
in
the
fact
that
any
any
publisher
can
can
extend
the
model,
so
there
may
be,
or
not
just
incorporating
properties
from
schema.org
but
other
kinds
of
local
custom
extensions.
So
it's
something
we
need
to
have
a
policy
around,
but
it's
a
it's
more
a
kind
of
struggle
with
a
bit
because
the
more
that
we
type
not
the
schema,
then
the
less
flexibility
we
have
about
people
of
using
things
that
might
be
useful
to
them.
A
Encoding
particular
styles
of
using
some
of
the
mark-up
from
schema.org
in
publishing
data,
and
that's
something
that
I'm
hoping
that
the
primer
will
do
so
it'll
indicate
you
know
this
is
this
is
how
we're
recommending
we
use
these.
Please
elements
we
could
include
more
of
the
schema
level
properties
in
the
modeling
spec,
but
I
think
that's
a
kind
of
we
open
the
door
to
every
time.
A
I'm
in
another
option,
it
is
to
think
about
asking
individual
publishers
to
indicate
which
bits
of
the
spec
or
which
business
keep
it
all.
They
might
be
using
right
in
some
ways
for
them
to
do
that,
but
I
think
yeah.
So
I
guess
I
don't
have
a
single
answer.
If
there's
like
it
might
be
need
to
be
a
combination
of
things
and
kind
of
validation
tools
which
we've
done
a
little
bit
of
work
on,
but
have
a
meeting
move
forward,
which
will
also
help
maybe.
B
A
super
basic
version
of
this
analysis,
just
think
of
my
head,
is
if
publishers
were
to
publish
a
example
of
the
outflow
of
their
feed,
which
is
most
complete,
ie
all
the
features
that
are
possible
for
you
to
output
in
one
place,
so
there's
an
example
of
one
of
the
feeds
which
has
got
two
different
ways
of
displaying
an
event
depending
on
the
recurrence
rule.
So
in
one
view
it's
a
single
event
and
if
there's
a
recurrence
and
there's
multiple
events
and
obviously,
if
you're
looking
through
that
feed.
B
If
you
have
happen
across
all
the
single
events
and
miss
the
recurrence,
then
you'll
have
implemented
the
wrong
stuff.
So
you'll
have
to
go
through
and
like
that's,
not
written
anywhere.
You
just
have
to
bark.
Both
are
in
schema.org,
both
are
valid,
and
so
is
it
valid
not
obvious
at
all
to
someone
that's
just
kind
of
looking
at
it.
Yeah.
A
A
And
that's
kind
of
consistent
with
what
you've
been
asking
people
to
do
to
begin
with
in
reviewing
that
how
they're
publishing
under
the
feeds,
so
perhaps
we
can
just
incorporate
that
into
the
primer
I
mean
at
the
moment
it's
my
mr.
Flamm
is
focusing
on
modeling
things,
but
we
can.
We
can
talk
about
these
more
general
implementation
issues
as
well.
I'll.
Add
that
to
my
list.
A
A
Right
Oh,
actually
yeah
I've
got
a
question
for
Nick
about
the
paging
spec,
because
you're
the
editor
for
that
you
know
formally
you're
the
editor
for
the
patient
spec
there's
the
number
of
people
have
implemented
it
now,
I
suppose
my
question
is
I.
Think
we're
currently
42
nine
or
something
I
mean.
Is
it
okay
to
cut?
Should
we
who
think
about
moving
and
calling
it
1.0?
So
we've
got
to
version
specs
or
do
you
think
that
there
are
issues
on
the
backlog
that
need
to
be
addressed
before
you
kind
of
get
at
that
point?.
B
B
B
A
B
Yeah,
so
any
so
yeah
any
clarification
points
that
are
in
there
we're
hoping
it'll
fold
into
the
spec
which
doesn't
change
anything.
It
just
makes
it
clearer
and
then
no
I,
don't
think
there's
any
suggested
changes
other
than
the
license
key
being
a
required
field,
which
was
something
we've
been
out.
Staying
for
a
while
to
just
put
in
there.
We
do
need
to
say
that
it
requires
a
license.
Obviously,
whatever
that
license
is
ideally
cc-by,
okay,
but
but
that's
the
only
addition,
I
think
everything
else
is
just
clarity.
B
I
mean
happy
to.
If
we've
got
the
the
build
working
now
I'm
happy
to
work
quite
quite
quickly
to
hold
those
things
in
because,
like
I
said
it's
not
gonna
it
all
existing
implementations
will
conform
to
that.
It's
just
not
because
that's
why
everyone's
been
doing
I
just
need
to
make
it
really
clear
that.
A
A
So
basically
there
were.
There
were
two
ways
that
we
could
have
approached
merging
those
lists.
We
could
have
chosen
to
just
take
activities
that
are
on
say
at
least
two
of
the
lists
so
that
we
ended
up
with
a
subset,
but
that
was,
you
know,
just
used
the
things
that
were
that
were
common
on
the
basis
that
they're
most
likely
to
be
to
be
used
in
existing
data
existing
systems.
But
having
looked
at
that,
looking
at
I
did
some
analysis
on
the
kind
of
over
between
the
different
lists.
A
It
would
have
me
it
meant
I'm,
pretty
much
ignoring
everything
in
the
nd
list,
because
that
is
focused
on
a
particular
particular
area.
It
didn't
really
overlap
with
the
other
two
at
all
and
it
would
have
meant
excluding
the
number
of
recognized
sports
as
well,
so
I
didn't
feel.
That
was
a
kind
of
useful
way
forward.
So
the
other
option
was
to
do
a
proper
merge
of
the
lists,
which
is
essentially
what
Becky
had
already
started
to
undertake.
So
that's
kind
of
combining,
together
all
of
the
lists
to
end
up
with
a
more
comprehensive.
A
Set
of
activities,
so
that's
currently
currently
where
we're
at
with
the
list.
So
what
I've
done
is
I've
kind
of
made
sure
that
everything
that
is
on
the
existing
three
lists
has
been
added
to
our
current
editors
draft
and
I've
also
checked
to
make
sure
that
all
of
the
recognized
sports
are
in
there.
I
think
it'd
been
all
of
the
disciplines,
but
all
of
the
I
can
I
support
should
be
in
there,
but
I
was
also
checked
and
they're
on.
A
We
haven't
included
any
new
terms
so,
rather
than
add,
add
new
things
to
the
list
of
this
stage.
I
wanted
to
get
to
a
point
where
we
could
kind
of
easily
communicate
to
anyone.
Looking
at
the
draft
that
we'd
put
it
together
and
then
have
a
some
sensible
steps
forward
for
improving
it.
So
the
shared
Google
spreadsheet
has
got
a
separate
tab
now
for
a
number
of
new
terms.
They
could
go
on
the
list
that
Becky
had
identified
when
she
was
doing
the
merge.
A
So
we
can
look
at
those
as
a
separate
set
of
issues
and
exercise.
We've
also
assigned
unique
identifiers
to
all
of
the
activities,
so
they
will
have
a
UUID
now,
so
we've
got
a
stable
identifier.
So
that
means
that
we
can
start
to
publish
the
list
but
give
people
a
give
developers
a
way
to
start
to
link
their
activity
layer,
so
their
systems
do
the
rest.
Even
if
we
decide
to
later
change
the
structure
of
the
list
will
change
summer
labeling.
So
we
have
unique
identifiers
there
in
the
process
of
adding
in
descriptions
and
synonyms.
A
So
it's
now
more
than
just
a
google
document.
There
is
a
web
page
for
it
on
the
open,
active
sites
and
it's
available
in
a
number
of
different
machine,
readable
versions
under
an
open
license.
The
reason
I
wanted
to
kind
of
do
to
do
that,
so
we
had
just
take
stock
and
publish
the
list
as
it
is.
This
draft
is
because
that
in
itself
is
a
useful
step
forward
in
having
an
opening
license
resource
will
help
will
be
a
useful
thing
for
the
community
and
I
didn't
want
us.
A
I
didn't
want
our
discussions
around
the
scope
of
the
list
and
stretch
to
the
list
to
impede
kind
of
in
hinder
people
using
that
as
a
resource,
so
really
I'm.
Thinking
of
that,
the
current
edges
of
traffic
is
a
baseline
that
will
evolve
and
improve
over
the
coming
weeks,
but,
having
spent
a
quite
a
bit
of
time
working
through
the
details
of
the
list,
just
to
see
how
you
know
how
they
compare,
you
know
it
kind
of
brought
them
to
me
how
how
time-consuming
is
to
work
through
the
full
list.
A
So
you
know
I
appreciate
that
not
everyone
is
going
to
be
able
to
spend
time
kind
of
looking
at
the
lists
in
detail.
So
I
also
wanted
to
try
and
find
a
way
to
surface
what
I
think
some
of
the
key
issues
and
key
decisions
that
we
need
to
make
around
the
kind
of
next
steps
with
with
the
list
so
that
we
could
focus
on
those
as
a
group
without
necessarily
asking
everyone
to
kind
of
look
at
the
detailed
list.
A
So
I've
I'm
getting
her
I've
filed
a
list
of
issues
that
I
think
we
we
should
discuss,
and
we
can
look
at
some
of
those
in
a
minute
but
actually
think
when
we
take
a
step
back,
most
of
them
actually
about
categorization
issues.
It's
about
the
structure
of
the
list,
rather
than
the
content
I
think
at
this
stage.
A
So
the
kind
of
main
observation
for
where
at
the
moment
is
the
list,
while
we've
allowed
for
two
levels,
so
we've
got
the
sort
of
top
terms
level
one
and
a
set
of
terms
that
are
nested
underneath
that
and
level
two.
The
list
is
still
relatively
flat.
Most
of
the
terms
are
at
level
one,
but
I
think
that
some
additional
structure
would
make
it
easier
for
the
list
to
use.
It
would
make
it
easy
for
to
drive
kind
of
discovery
tools,
offer
easy
to
drive
kind
of
filtering.
A
You
know
if
you,
if
somebody's
interested
in
finding
activities
of
a
particular
type,
you
kind
of
want
some
structure
to
help
them
find
the
things
that
they're
interested
in.
Similarly
from
a
developer
point
of
view,
if
you're
only
interested
in
a
subset
of
the
list,
it
would
be
helpful
if
the
list
was.
You
know
structured
in
some
useful
ways
to
make
it
easy
for
you
to
just
say
import,
just
all
of
the
martial
arts,
for
example,
or
all
of
the
team
sports.
If
that's
a
particularly
focus
for
you
and.
B
Just
gonna
say:
oh
this
house
I'll
just
bring
in
Ben's
point.
He
called
me
before
this
meeting,
unfortunately
he's
not
able
to
to
take
the
the
course
they
use
on
holiday,
but
you
want
to
make
the
point
that
the
structure
of
the
list
being
more
than
two
levels
deep,
is
quite
useful
from
user
experience.
B
A
I
mean
looking
at
yoga.
Specifically,
if
you
look
at
the
AIT
list
that
was
shared
with
the
with
a
group
think,
week
or
so
ago,
that
has
a
useful
categorization
for
yoga.
You
know
it
breaks
you
down
in
a
couple
of
different
ways,
so
we
can
you
know
we
could
combine
that
with
the
existing
structure
from
the
EMD
list
and
create
some
of
those
a
bit
more
accessible
for
people,
I.
D
So
they're,
just
on
the
kind
of
organization,
I
think
what
we
talked
previously,
you
know
wasn't
things
we
did
say.
Was
we
using
tags
there
were?
Those
tags
are
with
the
collections,
because
I
think
awards
means
that
the
d20
PGR
and
going
and
trying
to
layer
it
more
complicated
it
gets
and
I
think
then
it
gets
more
you're.
B
B
D
Okay,
no,
that's
fine
I,
just
that
some
of
these
things.
If
we
start
to
start
breaking
them
up
even
further,
it
will
start
to
cause
kind
of
more
kind
of
issues.
I
mean
there
are.
There
are
issues
away.
You
know
when
we
talk
about
mounted
bike,
you
see
it's
it's
a
separate
issue,
but
the
governing
body,
but
I
psychically
matter
by
it
does
come
under
British
Cycling,
and
this
is
the
bit
way
he
will
have
to
kind
of
through
the
collections
or
things
like
that.
A
You
know
well,
I
think
this
is
where
having
some
kind
of
editorial
guidelines
and
kind
of
a
policy
for
how
we're
kind
of
structuring
the
list
might
help.
You
know
that
we're
creating
a
list
that
reflects
what's
useful
for
participants,
not
the
way
that
supports,
are
governed
or
managed,
but
also
try
and
highlight
where
we
can
use
features
of
the
model
to
group
things
together
in
useful
ways.
A
E
Make
sure
the
categories
and
they're
super
haps
and
I
think
yesterday
we
we
make
specific
what
we're
asking
off
them.
So
it
might
be
if
we
decide
that
we
don't
have
to
me
levels
and
we
decide
to
just
relive
eh
a
free
sample,
its
happy
23
and
then
the
thing
loving
to
would
be
cycling.
The
conversation
that
cycling
would
be
half
we've
got
everything
selected,
but
the
fries
are
making
their
consultation.
We
just
can't
happen
the
whole
list
being
London
negotiation.
E
A
A
Yeah
I
know
he's
bleep
worth
making
the
point
that
if
we
decide
to
add
so
we're
going
to
add
more
levels
which
the
the
data
model
handles
anyway,
they're
makin
we've
kind
of
made
more
or
less
an
arbitrary
decision
to
only
have
two
levels
initially,
and
we
don't
have
to
have
that
consistently
consistency
across
the
entire
list.
So
not
everything
needs
to
go
to
level
3,
you
know,
so
we
might
just
that.
We
need
to
be
know
going
to
go
really
deep
into
yoga,
because
that
merits
some
more
structure.
A
Example,
but
you've
got
kind
of
yogurt
additional
yoga
and
then
traditional
yogurt
general,
because
it's
kind
of
there
has
to
be
something
at
the
third
level,
which
is
often
just
a
repeat
of
what's
at
level
two.
But
we
don't
want
to
do
that
kind
of
things,
because
it
just
adds.
What's
basically
noise
to
the
list,
I.
A
E
D
I
mean
we'd
have
to
have
a
direct
engagement
and
see
I
mean
I
would
be
more
trying
to
get
them
to
agree
some
of
the
level
before
we
move
a
bit
further.
I
think
with
your
with
moving
with
a
dance.
You
have
that
you
have
that
level
of
depth.
I'm,
not
sure
that
occurs
with
a
lot
of
the
other
sports
and
you've
got
the
knowledge
at
the
moment.
So
I
think
I
think
I'd
be
more
comfortable
that
mime
in
trying
to
get
them
to
think
about
more
about
their
level.
D
C
B
I
was
gonna,
say
one
of
the
things
we've
noticed
with
speakers.
Someone
jeebies
is.
B
Person's
opinion,
that's
how
it
is,
but
obviously
there's
others
where
this
is.
Maybe
there's
a
lot
of
debate
about.
You
know
Concours
for
the
new
ones
or
Taekwondo.
If
there's
not
in
South
Korea,
they
might
have
internal
politics
stuff,
which
is,
if
we
need
to.
Is
it
a
lowest
common
denominator
approach,
or
is
it
possible
find
these
easy
wins
here.
D
Is
way
to
do
this
is
probably
for
your
conversations
you
and
Amanda's
conversations
with
the
ndb's
about
as
they
talking
about
opening
my
data.
If
you
run
now,
we've
got
this
list,
you
run
the
list,
pass
them
as
Paul
that
conversations
I,
think
if
you
try
and
send
it
to
him
cold
outside,
they
won't
really
understand
the
full
text
for
it.
So
I
think
you
just
fold
it
into
that
into
those
conversations.
B
A
Know
I
think
they'd
be
useful
to
do
that,
because
I'm
also
a
bit
worried
about
getting
them
to
sign
off
on
the
list,
because
that
if
we
just
feel
like
I'm
a
heavier
weight
kind
of
consultation,
whereas
you
know
we
might
want
to
organize
the
list
based
on
you
know,
actual
actual
user
testing.
You
know
when
people
are
actually
trying
it
out
in
in
applications.
So
we
might,
you
know
necessary,
want
to
have
to
kind
of
we.
A
A
So
at
the
moment,
I
think
the
sports
week
in
particular,
has
quite
a
lot
of
collections
in
its
list,
which
we
haven't
included
in
the
editors
draft,
because
I
wanted
to
have
some
discussions
about
them.
First,
so
I've
just
pulled
out
the
kind
of
list
into
this
issue
so
that
we
can
decide
which
of
these
we
might
want
to
include
or
not
so
they
have
a
kind
of
top-level
division
of
they
have
a
broad
division
between
sports
and
physical
activities.
So
we
previously
decided
not
to
make
that
be
a.
You
know.
A
The
top
level
split
between
our
you
know
within
our
list,
but
they
could
be
featured
as
as
a
collection.
You
know
if
a
developer
is
only
interested
in
sports,
then
that
they
weigh
in
it
might
be
useful
to
have
the
Sport
England
recognized
sports
as
as
a
collection
in
here
as
well,
but
the
rest
of
them
are
all
kind
of
groupings,
I,
think
more
natural
groupings.
So
you
know
it's
variations
like
ball
games,
water,
sports,
racquet,
sports
things
that
would
potentially
pull
things
together
from
across
the
list.
A
So
we
used
to
just
get
some
feedback.
We
don't
necessarily
have
to
go
through
in
detail
on
the
call
now,
but
it
used
to
just
get
some
input
on
that
list.
Whether
we
want
whether
there's
a
few
that
we
think
which
is
definitely
need
or
whether
we
just
work
out
a
process
for
adding
the
when
people
request
them.
There's
a
kind
of
balance
of
how
much
kind
of
structure
do
we
want
to
find
up
front
and
how
much
do
we
just
want
to
be
driven
by
user
needs?
A
But
one
thing
I
will
call
out,
is
handling
of
disabled
sports,
so
in
the
process
of
merging
we've
kind
of
ended
up
putting
all
of
the
one
of
the
kind
of
disabled
sports
that
kind
of
power
sports
and
the
main
kind
of
variation.
So
it
main
the
main
sport
so
like
wheelchair
football
is
on
the
football.
Where
is
it
I
think
some
of
the
lists?
It
was
separate
that
felt
to
me
like
a
kind
of
natural
part
of
reorganizing
the
list,
but
I
wasn't
sure
whether
there's
any
sensitivities
there.
B
B
A
Yeah,
okay,
okay,
so
in
terms
of
the
that
what
I
think
the
next
steps
are
so
edges
draft
is
basically
a
baseline
as
I
said,
it's
something
that
we
can
start
to
to
improve
on
so
I
guess
my
asks
to
you're
here
and
anyone
watch
a
video
is
to
take
a
look
at
the
issue,
lists
associated
with
the
activity
list
and
provide
some
right
now
comments.
If
you
have
them,
because
they're
all
kind
of
fairly
general
issues
that
will
help
inform
the
general
the
approach
of
how
we
structure
and
manage
and
let's
go
forward.
A
B
Just
in
terms
of
think
here
on
how
we
do
the
feedback
and
suggest
other
people
feedback,
one
of
the
previous
emails
you
sent
round
included
collaborative
tools
for
editing,
ontology
is
or
something
which
so
I
didn't.
I
didn't
look
at
much
detail
around
that,
but
what's
your
I
guess
suggested
to
let's
say
that
we
speak
10
GB
tomorrow
like
fencing
and
they
say
actually
there's
Sabre,
Foyle
and
one
of
the
top
ten
solution.
We
think
you
should
all
be
in
there.
How
would
we
ideally
deliver
that
feedback
into
this
process?.
A
Where
the
moment
is
probably
either
finding
an
issue
on
github
or
adding
notes
to
the
I
did
take
a
look
at
tooling
and
the
reason
really
a
great
deal
of
tooling
the
supports
collaborative
development
of
this
type
of
vocabulary.
There
are
some
tools
that
allow
you
know
an
editorial
team
to
work,
to
build
out
this
kind
of
list,
so
review
each
other's
work.
A
A
Yeah
though
I
have
started
to
oh
I
might
do
at
some
point,
is
to
take
a
another
copy
of
the
of
the
activity
list
and
create
some
separate
tabs,
some
structuring
to
indicate
where
people
can
make
suggestions
for
the
new
terms
and
revisions
as
a
way
to
kind
of
manage
the
process
a
bit
easier.
Who
may
need
to
think
the
structure
the
spreadsheet,
if
we're
going
to
start
to
move
beyond
two
or
three
levels
anyway,.
A
Okay
but
I
think
if
everyone's
on
board,
with
just
kind
of
focusing
on
the
structure
at
the
moment,
rather
than
any
additional
new
terms,
then
I
think
that
will
help
us
build
a
bit
of
momentum
around
it.
That's
not
to
say
that
adding
isn't
an
easy
thing
to
do,
but
I
just
think,
rather
than
pile
more
into
the
list
now
and
have
more
to
reorganize
who
miles
just
kind
of
get
a
policy
around
how
we're
organizing
the
list
and
then
start
to
build
it
out
in
other
sections.
So.
B
A
Yes,
I
think
essentially
yeah
I
think
there's
some
changes
that
we
can
do
too
so
Jays
already
volunteered
to
do
some
reorganization,
there's
some
refactoring
of
the
list
that
we
can
do
before
we
take
it
out
wider,
but
the
part
I'm
just
highlighting
this
is
there's
currently
I.
Think
72
suggested
additions
new
terms
to
into
the
list
in
the
spreadsheet.
So
rather
than
debate
those
individual
a
moment,
I'd
like
to
get
the
structure
sorted
and
then
then
incorporate
them.
A
Okay,
so
we've
got
a
few
minutes
before
we
wind
up
the
call
I
was
gonna,
give
Jamie
an
opportunity
just
to
kind
of
talk
through
some
of
the
stuff
that
he
shared
earlier,
because
we're
coming
to
this
point
of
having
kind
of
1.0
of
the
basic
specs
together,
we
need
to
I
road
map
is
for
future
work.
So
I
call
in
a
couple
of
weeks
time.
I
want
to
focus
specifically
on
road
map
there
and
I
think
things.
A
C
C
We
just
try
and
process
only
the
bits
that
we
need,
make
it
really
structured
and
and
and
making
this
been
site
and
then
to
make
a
booking.
So
to
have
a
look
at
the
document.
You'll
see
the
spent
three
parts,
really
the
availability,
the
placing
our
backing
and
then
the
confirming
a
backing
on
the
availability
side.
We
have
just
the
essential
data
for
a
start
to
exist.
C
It's
got
a
start
time
and
an
end
time,
ideally
with
the
time
zone
attached,
laughs,
I
would
certainly
seen
some
data
that
doesn't
and
the
times
owners
process
on
the
server
side,
but
it's
certainly
our
preference
that
that
doesn't
happen,
and
we
recently
published
our
own
data
with
the
time
zone.
The
price
the
currency,
NV
availability,
is
how
many
pitches
or
courts
are
available.
C
We
then
you'll
see
a
kind
of
a
slightly
felissa
underneath
that
which
has
what
type
of
Schloss
is.
We've
only
really
got
one
type
at
the
moment
and
then
the
idea
of
that
slot
so
that
when
it
comes
to
placing
a
booking,
it's
extremely
easy
to
do
so
we
do
take
an
approach
to
do
a
start
time
and
an
end
time.
C
I
know
that,
within
the
opportunity
data
model,
there
is
another
approach
to
a
duration
on
to
that,
not
something
we're
looking
at,
but
this
is
how
we
started
and
done,
and
currently
it
certainly
makes
sense,
but
would
love
to
get
some
feedback
on.
That
is
not
the
biggest
question
so
then
going
down.
We
also
then
place
a
booking
within
the
software
figs,
for
example,
Gladstone.
C
How
we
reprocess
all
of
our
payments
through
stripe?
We
can
then
pass
those
payments
on
to
a
third
party
processes
such
as
well
pay
us
a
stage
pay,
but
all
of
these
payments
to
begin
with
the
car
through
strike,
and
that
allows
us
to
put
a
kind
of
stripe
token
into
the
API
and,
for
example,
whistle
sports
village.
C
We
put
it
in
and
the
payment
reference
is
a
stripe
token
effectively,
and
that
proves
the
payment
loss,
and
then
we
effectively
request
that
booking
from
the
software
and
obviously
we
hope
to
get
a
nice
201
response
after
that.
That
will
give
some
confirmations
that
that
that's
coming
through
okay,
just
thinking,
if
there's
anything
else,
that's
important.
We
always
place
a
phone
number
within
the
flat,
so
we
give
that
phone
number
to
the
venue
in
case
they
need
to
get
in
touch
with
the
customer.
Last
minute
we
give
them
the
full
name
of.
C
C
To
do
I
think
that's
just
about
it
on
the
placing
a
booking
and
then
to
get
that
bit
and
confirmed
we'll
get
a
response
back
from
the
from
the
software
saying
that
that
has
gone
through
successfully.
What
the
price
is,
what
the
current
thing
is
on
certain
providers.
They
also
give
a
stated,
for
example,
the
facility
number
what
pitch
will
caught
as
these
are
playing
on,
for
example,
power
leagues.
They
have
you
know
10
15,
5,
side
pictures.
We
need
to
tell
the
user
what
pitch
they're
on
under
Nino's
that
are
advanced.
C
D
More
facilities
in
terms
of
what
Gladstone's
have
made
available
to
you.
Are
they
just
allowing
you
the
potential
at
the
moment
to
book?
Just
try
to
understand
the
time.
Tell
you
anything.
One
facility
per
hour
is
another
pushing
free
to
you,
because
they've
got
four
five
side
pitches.
But
when
you
look
at
slot
say
Wednesday,
the
24th
you've
only
got
one
slot
at
1400.
C
D
C
E
E
C
C
You
may
know
they've
been
looking
back
for
a
while,
and
you
know
that
provides
you
know
a
very
sturdy
but
relatively
basic
software,
that's
kind
of
our
simplest
level
and
that
deals
with
the
kind
of
sports
a
question.
You
know
absolutely
perfectly
well,
so
you
have
five
badminton
courts.
You
are
able
to
come
what
and
where
and
see
and
Farmington
courts
under
five
sided
and
that.
C
A
B
B
Outside
the
documentary,
so
that's
a
slob,
but
then
in
in
others,
clarity,
there's
there's
a
schedule
that
sits
behind
that,
and
so
what
are
you
getting
the?
Would
you
ideally
like
to
get
only
the
available
slots
and
I'm,
not
the
schedule,
that's
behind
them,
because
the
pricing
changes
between
each
who
would
you
rather
get
I
guess
this
is
huge.
C
So
I
think
I
understand
your
question
correctly
in
there,
for
example,
with
sorted,
they
gave
us
an
option
to
you
know
a
starter,
color
past
half
past
quarter
two
and
on
the
alley,
and
whereas
we
just
want
to
simplify
that
by
saying
maybe
bookings
on
the
hour
or
how
the
venue
bath
structure
a
depending
on
opening
closing
costs.
So
we
don't.
We
don't
pour
the
full
schedule.
We
just
request
for
kind
of
the
product
which
is
a
starting
at
five
o'clock
on
the
hour
and
don't
do
that
kind
of
that
they
propose
asking
them
outside.
C
B
C
We
could
there's
one
of
those
things.
That
is
the
effort
worth,
because
most
people,
you
know,
are
absolutely
fine
to
start
at
five
o'clock.
That's
the
normal
thing
and
by
us
trying
to
normalize
the
structure
of
the
data.
I
think
we
can
just
make
it
more
simple,
imposing
a
full
schedule
and
then
trying
to
work
it
out
from
now.
We
just
need
to
issues
undoubtedly
and
I
would
make
it
more
concrete.
B
C
B
C
C
C
Yes,
so
we
we
just
make
a
I
believe
a
separate
cool
just
to
get
the
data
that
what
type
of
services
are
then
for
us.
We
we
go
through
a
kind
of
a
process
called
then
your
page
mapping,
where
we
using
the
authority
from
one
endpoint
endpoint.
We
put
it
within
the
facility
page
on
my
local
page
and
we'll
actually
again
sure
the
exact
process
of
accidentally
like
myself.
It's
just
a
case
of
teeing
up
an
endpoint
with
a
kind
of
facility
ID
on
my
local
patch.
A
Great
I'm,
going
to
it's
just
coming
off
the
ten
plus
three,
so
I'm
gonna
kind
of
wine,
this
up
so
yeah.
So
thanks
everyone
for
coming
along
again
to
this
session,
thanks
to
anyone
who's
watching
the
video,
just
reuse
rate,
I
guess
my
requests
just
have
a
think
about
whether
there's
anything
anything
major,
any
major
concerns
or
bits
of
feedback
on
the
modern
inspect
that
would
stop
us
moving
leads
1.0
and
have
a
look
at
the
issues
on
the
activity
list
to
see.