Main Goal of this Meeting:
To determine next steps with the tooling that Daniel Hardman has proposed and how this will mesh with the GitHub infrastructure that Dan Gisolfihas proposed.
|1 min||Welcome & Antitrust Policy Notice||Chairs|
|2 mins||Introduction of new members||Chairs|
|1 min||Agenda review||Chairs|
|10 min||Configuring the first glossary artifacts||Daniel Hardman|
|5 mins||Update on tooling proposal||Daniel Hardman|
|20 mins||Presentation of GitHub tooling and processes for non-CTWG deliverables||Dan Gisolfi|
|15 mins||Discussion of action plan for integrating CTWG tooling and other GitHub tooling||All|
|2 mins||Review of Decisions and Action Items ||Chairs|
|4 min||Next meeting and holiday meeting schedule||Chairs|
- File 1 - link
- File 2 - link
- File 3 - link
- No new members were present on the call
- Configuring the first glossary artifacts - Daniel Hardman
- Each new submission would get two reviews
- The CTWG validity review
- The stakeholder community review
- To do this, we need to figure out what communities we have. Daniel had us fill out a simple spreadsheet for the following stakeholders.
- Bedrock. Tag #bbu (for Bedrock Business Utility). Curator is DanG for now. Artifacts:
- Markdown (that will be rendered as other artifacts).
- eSSIF-Labs. Tag #essif-labs. Curator is Rieks for now. Artifacts:
- Browsable glossary
- Mental models glossary
- Terminology glossary (hyperlinkable)
- Sovrin. Tag #sovrin. Curator is Drummond for now. Same artifacts as Bedrock.
- We also agreed all ToIP WGs will need tags.
- Update on tooling proposal
- Scott Whitmire asked about data formats
- Daniel responded that he wants to keep the internal data model as simple as we can, and then it lets them be rendered differently
- See the graphic "Richer internal data model" below
- Discussion of action plan for integrating CTWG tooling and other GitHub tooling—Dan Gisolfi
- ToIP Deliverables Portal is up and running—https://trustoverip.github.io/deliverables/
- DanG gave us a tour of the portal and the resources available there
- Each deliverable has type indicator. Each type has a set of rendering formats that can be produced under the ToIP brand.
- Outputs use either MkDocs or SpecUP
- They can output all the forms we need
- Daniel asked a question of DanG about how we can reference terms that we've included from other sources (example: NIST terminology)
- DanG's answer is that each term should have an origin
- Our glossaries can include terms that are from other sources
- We also may need to extract an output that can be referenced someplace else (e.g., a PDF)
- We discussed allowing other communities (like DIF) to get their own branded outputs - there was strong support for that
- We should set up our own minimum
- MyData, DIF, etc.
- Outreach to other communities
- Review of Decisions and Action Items - see below
- Next meeting and holiday meeting schedule
- We agreed to still meet on Monday Dec 21, and then our following meeting is Monday Jan 4.
- We will support exports from the CTWG database to produce artifacts (e.g., glossaries, PDFs) for other communities who wish to collaborate with us (e.g., DIF, Hyperledger, W3C CCG, etc.)
- Dan Gisolfi Produce description of the artifacts needed for a Bedrock glossary
- Daniel Hardmanand Dan Gisolfi: have a 1-on-1 to go over how to bring together Daniels' thinking on CTWG tooling and DanG's on ToIP deliverable process tooling.
- After the 1-on-1 above, Daniel Hardmanand Dan Gisolfimeet with RJ Reiserand Rieks Joostento discuss how their tooling proposal will meet the needs of those two curation communities.