Meeting Date
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
Time | Item | Lead | Notes |
5 min | Start recording | Chairs | |
20 mins | Review the hyperlinking proposal | Daniel Hardman | See Hyperlinking proposal (one specific component of PR #45 below) |
20 mins | Review the updated spec (after Daniel Hardman's action items) and any other WG input and decide about merging | All | See CTWG PR #45 |
10 mins | Discuss requesting a bounty from the ToIP Steering Committee | Chairs | |
5 mins | Review of Decisions and Action Items and planning for next meeting | Chairs |
Recording
Presentation(s)
- link to the file
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
Notes
- New members
- Review the Hyperlinking proposal - Daniel Hardman
- This is the most significant aspect of the proposed spec - see slide #1 below.
- Daniel articulated that the scope of what he's proposing are basic hyperlinks represented in a standard way—see slide #2.
- 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 we had the ability to take on.
- We next discussed Fully Qualified Links and their requirements, including:
- Attribution to the source.
- Diagrams.
- Usage examples.
- Cross-scope links must be able to be converted to fully-qualified links.
- These are links that are within the corpus but not within the same scope.
- That means they cross two folders within the same overall CTWG repo, but they are not within the same repo.
- This led to a discussion of the proposed Internal Data Model—see slide #3.
- We clarified that a scope can be any curated subset of the corpus.
- That raised the topic of whether there would be an "uber" scope at the top level.
- Daniel said no.
- But then we discussed having a "toip" scope that would be curated either by the CTWG or by a Task Force within it.
- Scott Whitmireasked who the governance authorities (GAs) would be.
- Drummond Reedproposed that every scope have an associated GA.
- Michael Michaelbrought up the attribution requirement per the CC by SS Licenses.
- Should also be in the hovertext.
- Review the updated CTWG tooling spec (CTWG PR #45 after Daniel Hardman's action items) and any other WG input and decide about merging
- Discuss requesting a bounty from the ToIP Steering Committee
- Review of Decisions and Action Items and planning for next meeting
- We agreed to hold a special meeting next Monday at the same time.
- Dan Gisolfiproposed that everyone come to the meeting prepared with any questions or issues.
Slide Shots
#1 from Daniel Hardman
#2
#3
Decisions
- Sample Decision Item
Action Items
- Sample Action Item