/
2020-12-22 Meeting

2020-12-22 Meeting

Jan 06, 2021

Send an email to inputs-and-semantics-wg@lists.trustoverip.org to request a calendar invite (you can subscribe to the mailing list at lists.trustoverip.org).

Agenda

Guiding Goal: The granularity of OCA. What might the next version of OCA look like?

Meeting Notes

Recording

 

From the chat:

@Mike Bennett (Deactivated) to Everyone (6:27 PM)

You can't rely on human-readable labels as a reliable source of meaning. Need some formal semantics.

@Neil Thomson to Everyone (6:29 PM)

Need schema path identification scheme.

This is used in dimensional data models as the "schema base" identification model

@Steven Milstein to Everyone (6:30 PM)

If you consider systems that support Internationalization (i18n), attribute names, like labels, messages or any text would have unique IDs(keys)

It’s time consuming from a human-readable point of view, if you’re only concerned with one language.

Can the schema base have “required overlays”?

@Robert Mitwicki to Everyone (6:43 PM)

yes we call it core overlays

@Burak Serdar to Everyone (6:46 PM)

I suggest you change the schema base examples to use hashes as attribute names, so they don't look like arrays.

@Neil Thomson to Everyone (6:46 PM)

Would agree on the base data - which is the storage format. Otherwise "type" is really formatting convenience (e.g. time of day, height, weight)

@Carly to Everyone (6:47 PM)

The risk of hashes is it is really hard to type or compare. I agree attr-1 suggests an array, but it is also easy to compare.

@Paul Knowles to Everyone (6:48 PM)

Thanks, Burak. Agreed. We can go with hashes as attribute names.

@Salvatore D'Agostino to Everyone (6:49 PM)

depends on the size of the name space.. collisions  concerns

identifier space..

@Burak Serdar to Everyone (6:50 PM)

Are attributes globally unique? Or are they only unique within the schema it is used in?

@Robert Mitwicki to Everyone (6:51 PM)

the idea was to have something global unique

as soon as we can capture the context

@Burak Serdar to Everyone (6:52 PM)

I suppose that can work, but then you get into a registry of attributes, who governs that, etc.  I suggest the only requirement be that they are unique within the schema, and schema.attr globally identifies it

@Salvatore D'Agostino to Me (Direct Message) (6:53 PM)

consider signed object vs. hash

@Mike Bennett (Deactivated) to Everyone (7:02 PM)

I concur this can be used to present and review schema details in the different OCA layers.

 

Participants (Name / Location / Time zone / Affiliation):

 

Leadership positions:

  • Inputs and Semantics WG

    • ISWG Lead : @Paul Knowles  (Human Colossus Foundation)

    • Operations Team Group Representative : Nick Nayfack (Team Ikigai)

    • Inputs Group

      • Chair : @Robert Mitwicki (Human Colossus Foundation)

      • Vice-Chair : @Sam Smith (ProSapien)

    • Semantics Group 

      • Chair : @Paul Knowles (Human Colossus Foundation)

      • Vice-chair : @John Wunderlich (JLINC Labs)

  • Medical Information TF

    • Chair volunteers

      • @Mukund Parthasarathy (SemanticClarity)

      • @John Walker (SemanticClarity)

    • Vice-chair volunteers

  • Notice & Consent TF

    • Chair volunteers

      • @Mark Lizar (Open Consent Group)

      • @Salvatore D'Agostino (Open Consent Group)

    • Vice-chair volunteers

  • Privacy & Risk TF

    • Chair volunteers

      • @Former user (Deleted) (Linaltec)

    • Vice-chair volunteers