• 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:

1. Key Discussion Highlights

• Travel Preferences Complexity: The meeting opened with Neil discussing how nuanced travel preferences can be, using seat preferences as an example (screenshot 1). He emphasized the need for a flexible system to accommodate different preference types (air travel, hotels, accessibility needs and preferences), allowing for different preferences in different contexts (personal v business v family travel) (e.g., seat types, accessibility needs) and discussed the importance of balancing the specificity of preferences with practicality.
• Aircraft Seat Preferences: A substantial part of the conversation revolved around categorizing preferences for airplane seating, including factors like legroom, proximity to toilets, and accessibility considerations. Carly proposed integrating an AI model to weigh profile preferences against past hospitality and travel selections automatically. Steven pointed out that some preferences (seat selection) might be irrelevant based on factors such as fare class (1st, Business, Premium, or Basic Economy).
• Use Cases Beyond Standard Travelers: Carly introduced the idea of expanding the discussion to account for diverse travel scenarios, such as traveling with elderly parents, pets, or children, or as a single female traveler​. Neil pointed out those situations are planned to be handled by preferences marked with different travel "contexts". 
• Group Travel & Business Rules: Neil discussed the complexities involved in group travel, especially the need for (personal) assistance and special accommodations (for a mix of travelers with different limitations and travel needs). Steven mentioned the business rules airlines apply based on fare, which can limit how many preferences can be implemented. This is a good example of a providing "trip specific" preferences filter, which can come from a 3rd party (e.g., employee's employer, conference organization for a conference speaker).

2. Issues Raised

• Specificity of Preferences: A recurring issue was the difficulty in balancing the richness of preferences with practical usability. For example, Neil mentioned that while passengers might specify seat preferences, from which they are offered available seats for a given flight for the passenger to select, the air carrier being forced to change planes (mechanical problem, incoming flight late) will often reset the select selection/assignment process.
• Handling Diverse Travel Scenarios: Carly raised concerns about whether the current preference system accounts for all types of travelers, especially those in vulnerable situations like children traveling alone or people with disabilities​. Neil: The scope of the traveler profile includes information on these situations (for each traveler) as part of the traveler profile and/or specific instructions in a travel/journey request.
• Business Rules & Fare Class: Steven highlighted the limitations imposed by airlines, where many of these preferences may not be applicable based on fare class, potentially making detailed preferences irrelevant​. Neil: There will likely be a sequence of applying traveler profile preferences. Example: a traveler's set preferences would be applied to the set class (1st, Business, Economy) they have in their preference and/or for a specific trip.

4. Agreements Reached

• General Preference Structures: The group agreed that a flexible system was needed to handle preferences at both the general and specific levels. Carly suggested integrating taxonomies or ontologies to ensure the preferences can cover a wide range of use cases, and Neil supported the idea of component models for defining preferences​.
• Handling Context Extensions: There was consensus on the need for context-based preferences (e.g., traveling alone vs. with a group, business trip vs a ski vacation) and the necessity of adjusting preferences based on real-time trip data like seat availability and boarding arrangements.

5. Next Steps

• Expand Use Cases: Carly proposed gathering feedback from more diverse travelers to ensure the current preference model covers a broader range of scenarios​
• Preference Framework Refinement: The team will refine the framework for defining preferences, potentially introducing prioritization for different contexts (e.g., personal vs. business travel). This could include further discussions on how to align preferences with industry standards and business rules.

6. Technical Points of Agreement

• Use of JSON for Capturing Data: There was agreement that JSON should be used to capture travel preferences, with JSON Schema potentially used for defining how those preferences are structured​.
• Handling General Preferences vs. Specific Context Extensions: The team agreed on the need to separate general preferences (e.g., window seat) from specific context extensions (e.g., additional legroom when traveling with an elderly parent). Carly emphasized the importance of ensuring this flexibility through an ontology-based approach, and Neil supported using a component model to allow different data objects to represent various preference types​.

• Review decisions/action items
• Planning for next meeting