Page Comparison

Meeting Date

...

...

• Hyperlinking proposal (one specific component of PR #45 below)
• CTWG PR #45 — this is the heart of the specification for our proposed ToIP Term tool
• Issues — the `[PROCESS]` issues are to be addressed for the tool spec.

Notes

1. New members
2. Review the Hyperlinking proposal - Daniel Hardman
   1. This is the most significant aspect of the proposed spec - see slide #1 below.
   2. Daniel articulated that the scope of what he's proposing are basic hyperlinks represented in a standard way—see slide #2.
   3. Michael brought up the possibility of compound links or link relationship objects such as ArchiMate can do (he provided this example). Daniel felt that was more complex that than we had the ability to take on. It could still be generated by production (rendering) tools.
   4. We next discussed Fully Qualified Links and their requirements, including:
      1. Attribution to the source.
      2. Diagrams.
      3. Usage examples.
   5. Cross-scope links must be able to be converted to fully-qualified links.
      1. These are links that are within the corpus but not within the same scope.
      2. That means they cross two folders within the same overall CTWG repo, but they are not within the same repo.
      3. This led to a discussion of the proposed Internal Data Model—see slide #3.
      4. Rieks Joostenquestioned whether cross-scope links have to be converted to fully-qualified links. 
      5. We clarified that a scope can be any curated subset of the corpus.
      6. That raised the topic of whether there would be an "uber" scope at the top level.
         1. Daniel said no.
         2. But then we discussed having a "toip" scope that would be curated either , e.g. by the CTWG or by a Task Force within it.
         3. Scott Whitmireasked who the governance authorities (GAs) would be.
         4. Drummond Reedproposed that every scope have an associated GA.
   6. Michael Michaelbrought up the attribution requirement per CC by SA licenses.
      1. We agreed discussed that this should also be in hovertext produced from the corpus.
3. Review the updated CTWG tooling spec (CTWG PR #45 after Daniel Hardman's action items) and any other WG input and decide about merging
   1. We ran out of time to complete this task. See Action Items below.
4. Discuss requesting a bounty from the ToIP Steering Committee
   1. Drummond Reedwill take the action item for this to be on the agenda for the April 7 meeting of the Steering Committee.
5. Review of Decisions and Action Items and planning for next meeting
   1. We agreed to hold a special meeting next Monday at the same time.
   2. Drummond Reedwill request the special meeting calendar invite from David Luchuk
   3. Dan Gisolfiproposed that everyone come to the meeting prepared with any questions or issues so that we can close on a bounty request at that meeting (which is two days before the Steering Committee meeting).

...

#1 from Daniel Hardman

#2

#3

Decisions

•  We want to close on the ToIP Tool specification within the next week and will hold a special meeting (at the same as our standing bi-weekly meeting time) next Monday April 5.

Action Items

•  Drummond Reed: request a special meeting calendar invite for one week from today's meeting from David Luchuk
•  ALL: review CTWG PR #45 and lodge any issues in GitHub or come prepared to the special meeting one week from today with any feedback or questions.
•  Drummond Reed: request for a bounty for coding the ToIP Tool to be on the agenda for the April 7 meeting of the ToIP Steering Committee.

...