Page Comparison

...

Recording

• link to the fileLink

Presentation(s)

• link to the file
  

...

• File 1 - link
• File 2 - link
  
• File 3 - link

Notes

1. New membersNo new members were present on the call
2. Configuring the first glossary artifacts - Daniel Hardman
   1. Each new submission would get two reviews
      1. The CTWG validity review
      2. The stakeholder community review
   2. To do this, we need to figure out what communities we have. Daniel had us fill out a simple spreadsheet for the following stakeholders.
      1. Bedrock. Tag #bbu (for Bedrock Business Utility). Curator is DanG for now. Artifacts:
         1. Markdown (that will be rendered as other artifacts).
      2. eSSIF-Labs. Tag #essif-labs. Curator is Rieks for now. Artifacts:
         1. Browsable glossary
         2. Mental models glossary
         3. Terminology glossary (hyperlinkable)
      3. Sovrin. Tag #sovrin. Curator is Drummond for now. Same artifacts as Bedrock.
      4. We also agreed all ToIP WGs will need tags.
3. Update on tooling proposal
   1. Scott Whitmire asked about data formats
   2. Daniel responded that he wants to keep the internal data model as simple as we can, and then it lets them be rendered differently
   3. See the graphic "Richer internal data model" below
4. Discussion of action plan for integrating CTWG tooling and other GitHub toolingtooling—Dan Gisolfi
   1. ToIP Deliverables Portal is up and running—https://trustoverip.github.io/deliverables/ 
   2. DanG gave us a tour of the portal and the resources available there
   3. Each deliverable has type indicator. Each type has a set of rendering formats that can be produced under the ToIP brand.
      1. Outputs use either MkDocs or SpecUP
      2. They can output all the forms we need
   4. Daniel asked a question of DanG about how we can reference terms that we've included from other sources (example: NIST terminology)
      1. DanG's answer is that each term should have an origin
      2. Our glossaries can include terms that are from other sources
      3. We also may need to extract an output that can be referenced someplace else (e.g., a PDF)
   5. We discussed allowing other communities (like DIF) to get their own branded outputs - there was strong support for that 
      1. We should set up our own minimum
      2. MyData, DIF, etc.
      3. Outreach to other communities
5. Review of Decisions and Action Items - see below
6. Next meeting and holiday meeting schedule

   Decisions

   •  Sample Decision Item

   Action Items

   •  Sample Action Item
   1. 1. We agreed to still meet on Monday Dec 21, and then our following meeting is Monday Jan 4.

   Image Added

   Decisions

   •  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.)

   Action Items

   •  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.