2021-03-29 CTWG Meeting Notes

Meeting Date

• Mar 29, 2021 

Attendees

• @Drummond Reed

• @Rieks Joosten

• @Daniel Hardman

• @Dan Gisolfi

• Foteinos Mergroupis-Anagnou (GRNET)

• chloe immunodex

• @Scott Whitmire

• @RJ Reiser

• @Michael Michael

• @Brian Dill

• @Paul Knowles

Main Goal of this Meeting:

To see if we can close on the ToIP Term tooling specification and prepare to request a bounty from the ToIP Steering Committee.

Agenda 

Recording

• LINK

Presentation(s)

• none

Documents

• 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 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, 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 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).

Slide Shots

#1 from @Daniel Hardman

Open

#2

Open

#3

Open

Decisions

Action Items