2021-04-26 CTWG Meeting Notes

Meeting Date

• 26 Apr 2021 

Attendees

• Drummond Reed
• Rieks Joosten
• Daniel Hardman
• Dan Gisolfi
• Foteinos Mergroupis-Anagnou (GRNET)
• Brian Dill
• Line Kofoed
• Michael Herman
• sankarshan
• Scott Whitmire
• Scott Perry
• Steve Magennis
• Steven Milstein

Main Goal of this Meeting:

Discuss two potential revisions to the ToIP Term tool spec; approve the ToIP Term tool bounty writeup; share updates on several other time-sensitive CTWG topics.

Agenda 

Recording

• link to the file

Presentation(s)

• link to the file
  

Documents

• File 1 - link

Notes

1. New members

2. ToIP Term tool internal data model: adding a Scope/Context object

   1. The purpose of this object is to define the following properties
      1. Purpose
      2. Description
      3. Governing entity name
      4. Governing entity URI
      5. Licensing type URI
      6. Licensing info (everything necessary to generate the Licensing Page)
      7. Notes with any additional information
   2. Daniel had not considered some of these elements, but they could be included in a document at the root of the Scope directory for each scope.
   3. Rieks Joosten agreed that these were good properties.
      1. A purpose is needed because each concept should be fit or that purpose.
      2. He encourage us to keep an open mind about what this may be used or.
   4. Michael Herman pointed out that if the same entity is contributing multiple scopes, it would be ideal if there was one reference to that scope definition.
   5. ACTION: Take it to Slack to figure out the best way to add to the data model.
3. ToIP Term tool: question about scope-specific definitions
   1. What do we do if two scopes are using the same term with slightly different definitions?
   2. Example: the term "agent" in scope A and scope B
   3. Each would have its own definition of the concept associated with the term "agent" in its scope
   4. To harmonize them, the stewards for scope A and scope B could decide to harmonize and point at one definition, or create a new one
   5. Daniel Hardman pointed out a subtlety that, if there are two different governing entities, will one agree to defer to the other in perpetuity, or will they agree to point to a specific version but reserve the right to evolve it independently in the future. This question of evolution of thinking is supported, but an open question of how it will work.
   6. Rieks Joosten pointed out that it is important for an author to be able to link to the exact version of a definition.
   7. That raised the question of whether a term itself can be versioned
      1. Daniel Hardman gave an example of the term "organization" being changed to "organisation", or a change in punctuation.
      2. Rieks Joosten  shared that it could be handled by the status of the term.
      3. Daniel Hardman  clarified that the original URI for the file is different from the representation of the term in the Markdown file. He proposed the following:
         1. The URI of the term is intended to stay the same provided the authors believe it is the same term.
      4. Daniel Hardman pointed out that we have the ability to point to an exact version of any file.
   8. This led us to a discussion of linking to versions. The author can link to:
      1. The most recent version of a term
      2. A specific version of a term at a point in time
4. ToIP Term Tool bounty writeup — are we ready to approve?
5. Progress on the Good Health Pass Ecosystem Governance Framework Glossary
6. Can we/should we import the ESSIF-Labs Glossary and Mental Models?
7. Review of Decisions and Action Items and planning for next meeting

Slides

#1 — 

Decisions

• Sample Decision Item

Action Items

• Sample Action Item