Page Comparison

Meeting Date

• 18 Jan 2021 

Attendees

• David Luchuk

• Drummond Reed
• Rieks Joosten
• RJ Reiser
• Brian Dill

Drummond noted that Daniel Hardman

...

was not

...

able to attend

...

today due to onboarding in a new position, but plans to be back at the next meeting.

Main Goal of this Meeting:

To see if we can reach consensus on our Specification for Creating and Using Terms.

Agenda 

Recording

• link to the fileNo recording was made of this meeting due to light attendance

Presentation(s)

• link to the fileNone
  

Documents

• Specification for Creating and Using Terms

Notes

1. New members
2. Priorities for q1 2021: In their meeting last week, the ToIP Steering Committee clarified the following four priorities in this order:
   
   1. Focus on baseline deliverables—especially those in the charters of the GSWG and TSWG.
      1. Rieks Joosten asked about quality vs. deadlines. Drummond Reed said that quality is more important than the deadline, but that we are trying to set reasonable targets for this baseline layer.
      2. We also had a side discussion about "qualified data" as an set of infrastructure services as described in Rieks Joosten's paper on Decentralized SSI Governance. Drummond agrees with that metaphor.
   2. Support emergence of digital trust ecosystems—especially those with the potential to gain quick market traction.
   3. Develop and deliver our Communications Strategy and Editorial Calendar—this includes a schedule of at-least-monthly webinars and blog posts coordinated across the WGs.
      1. Examples: Decentralized SSI Governance webinar, Guardianship webinar.
   4. Implement a more robust resource/revenue model—with our rapid growth in 2020 and the strong market demand for ToIP solutions, it is clear we need more resources to help members achieve deliverables and promote ToIP.
3. Discuss Specification for Creating and Using Terms
   1. Rieks Joosten commented that we come from different backgrounds and perspectives. For example, there is an American perspective is a workflow. If you think about that as an itinerary, and if you stray from that, you're lost. The other view is more of a map that you can explore any way you want.
   2. For us, the "scenic route using a map" is a general processing model, vs. a linear workflow model.
   3. In the Ingestion phase, Rieks Joostensuggests being able to take in any kind of contents, vs. Daniel wanting us to initially stick to a single template.
      1. Daniel also suggests specific types of processing, vs. Rieks is wanting to make sure we support all the types.
      2. RE "marker" syntaxes. See Riek's screenshots #1 and #2 below. Reik's proposal for this is in the first comment at the end of the wiki page. This requires post-processing code to produce the final rendered output.
      3. In summary, the ingestion phase should not be difficult—that should prepare everything for further processing in the curate stage.
   4. For the Curate stage, this will require technically-savvy contributors.
      1. Rieks said that it is important that content curators should be able to curate their own terminology. Ownership is important for good curation.
      2. In doing so, they can refer to not only their own content, but also to what others are producing.
      3. Rieks and Daniel disagree about how to structure ownership—Daniel wants to tag it and Rieks wants to put it in separate folders.
   5. RJ started a broader discussion on ownership
      1. Would it be hierarchical? Do WGs have their own glossaries? How do WG's coordinate on terms?
      2. Rieks desribed that his metaphor is based on how programming languages work. They define their own funtions, and they version them. They are very careful about changing definitions because it can "break" working code. But sometimes that is necessary, and when that happens, they create a new version. Terminology discussions could mature much more like programming languages.
      3. Rieks also suggested that terminology should not be "top-down". Terminology is defined by—and evolved by—the stakeholders.
      4. Riek's approach is to choose the term that conveys the meaning that he intends. That doesn't mean that there's no negotiation with other groups.
4. Request to publish glossary for the Sovrin Utility Governance Framework and Sovrin Ecosystem Governance Framework
   1. We ran out of time to discuss this, but Drummond noted that it will be a very real dependency by the end of Q1, both for the Sovrin Foundation deliverables (the Sovrin Utility Governance Framework and Sovrin Ecosystem Governance Framework
   Any other business
   1. ) and for the "Big 5" deliverables from the GSWG and TSWG.
5. Guidance for collaboration with WGs
   1. RJ asked for this and we ran out of time to discuss other than we know we must provide this, and we hope to get to it ASAP.
6. Review of Decisions and Action Items
7. Next meeting: in two weeks

Rieks screenshot #1:

Image Added

Decisions

•  Sample Decision Item

Riek's screenshot #2:

Image Added

Decisions

None taken.

Action Items

•  Sample Action ItemDrummond Reed to finish reviewing and adding comments to Specification for Creating and Using Terms
•  Drummond Reed to send email to the CTWG email list requesting that Rieks Joosten and Daniel Hardman have a 1-on-1 to resolve their different POVs on the Specification for Creating and Using Terms and agree on a plan for implementing.