Page Comparison

• Start recording
• Welcome & antitrust notice
• Introduction of new members
• Agenda review

• Antitrust Policy Notice: Attendees are reminded to adhere to the meeting agenda and not participate in activities prohibited under antitrust and competition laws. Only members of ToIP who have signed the necessary agreements are permitted to participate in this activity beyond an observer role.
• New Members:

Key Points and Discussion Highlights:

1. Self-Attested Expertise for Potentially Dangerous Activities (Skiing):
   • Allows individuals to declare their experience level in activities such as skiing, offering flexibility.
   • It can be a starting point for discussions (traveler/travel provider) when determining service offerings (e.g., ski resorts).
   • There are concerns about the reliability of self-assessed expertise or abilities, as users may exaggerate their skills or underplay/underreport their limitations, which may lead to a negative outcome for the traveller (disappointment or injury).
     • Using the example of self-attested downhill skiing expertise (as a Things-to-do/activity), Steven pointed out the relative nature of expertise (e.g., skiing on a "double black diamond" at Blue Mountain versus Whistler).
     • Carly noted that regional variations in ski difficulty grading (e.g., European vs. North American) could complicate the value of self-attested expertise​
2. Pros and Cons of Capturing Personal Preferences:

Pros

1. • Helps tailor services to individual needs, such as dietary preferences, accessibility, and activity preferences.
   • Supports travel agencies and service providers in personalizing travel experiences, leading to customer satisfaction

Cons

1. • Potential inaccuracies in self-reported preferences, leading to mismatches between service offerings and actual preferences.
   • As Steven mentioned, as well as not being reliable, capturing too much specific data could become burdensome for users.
   • What goes into your travel profile (cross trip/experience personal data/preferences) vs what is specified as trip/event-specific requirements and desires needs to be considered
   • Feeding back travel/trip/event experience to the traveller to assist (or have AI assist) in updating their travel/traveler profile will become increasingly important.​
2. Travel Profile Issues:
   • Carly and Neil discussed several challenges in the travel profile system:
   • Gaps in addressing travel experience levels (e.g., ski proficiency) based on self-attestation rather than validated records.
   • Limited focus on accessibility issues for specific activities like skiing with accessibility devices​(GMT20240903-160111_Reco…)​(GMT20240903-160111_Reco…).
   • Undervalued or Missing Aspects:
   • Carly suggested considering specific cases, such as blind skiers or other travelers with unique requirements​.
3. Agreed Actions:
• Neil Thomson will continue refining the travel profile framework, especially in areas such as self-attestation and the complexity of capturing personal preferences. He will collaborate with the participants to define the governance of ontologies related to these profiles​(GMT20240903-160111_Reco…)​(GMT20240903-160111_Reco…).
• Carly and Steven suggested looking into different regional classifications of activities (e.g., skiing) and how the platform could adjust for these variations.
  
  Note: that is likely to be part of what each industry-specific segment (e.g., physical activities, such as walking, hiking and skiing) will have to do algorithmically to assess a traveller's preferences for a given specific destination activity location, etc. 

• Review decisions/action items
• Planning for next meeting