Re: [MINUTES] W3C CCG Traceability Call - 2023-10-24

I get 404 for both links. Could you please check?

Thank you.
Devi Prasad


On Wed, 25 Oct, 2023, 18:54 CCG Minutes Bot, <minutes@w3c-ccg.org> wrote:

> Thanks to Our Robot Overlords and Our Robot Overlords for scribing this
> week!
>
> The transcript for the call is now available here:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2023-10-24-traceability/
>
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> Audio of the meeting is available at the following location:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/meetings/2023-10-24-traceability/audio.ogg
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Verifiable Traceability Task Force Transcript for 2023-10-24
>
> Agenda:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject&hdr-1-query=%5BAGENDA&period_month=Oct&period_year=2023&index-grp=Public__FULL&index-type=t&type-index=public-credentials&resultsperpage=20&sortby=date
> Organizer:
>   Orie Steele, Mike Prorock, Mahmoud Alkhraishi
> Scribe:
>   Our Robot Overlords and Our Robot Overlords
> Present:
>   Benjamin Collins, Chris Abernethy, TallTed // Ted Thibodeau
>   (he/him) (OpenLinkSw.com), Russell H (mesur.io), Orie Steele
>
> Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
> Benjamin Collins:  Of attributing bad words to us but that's.
> Chris Abernethy:  It was in rare form last week I didn't see any
>   swears but some of the stuff is ridiculous.
> Benjamin Collins:  I'm waiting for like recording it's on.
> Benjamin Collins:  Is it going to crash on that again.
> Chris Abernethy:  I hope not.
> Benjamin Collins:  We have the transcriber Bobby of the CG but.
> Benjamin Collins:  It stopped recording okay let's set itself
>   recording but there's no like red button next to it.
> Benjamin Collins:  But I hit like stir okay let me hit start
>   again.
> Our Robot Overlords are scribing.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay there we go.
> Benjamin Collins:  Think I think we're ready to start.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay so I guess no new people here so we don't
>   need to go through the introduction notes sung in the ccg remit
>   let's start with Trace vocab week.
> Benjamin Collins:  And go to pull request.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/893
> Benjamin Collins:  And there is only one request open from me
>   this is a work in progress this is a specific narrowly defined
>   invoice for cfd f.c. FDI invoice for Mexico this is their digital
>   invoicing standard and this is kind of creating a compatibility
>   layer between medical credentials and their digital invoices.
> Benjamin Collins:  Kind of redundant but just we have feedback
>   from customers and trying to do that so this will probably be
>   ready for next week's meeting and if we go other any pull request
>   over on Trace picture up.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pulls
> Benjamin Collins:  So one is a draft.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-interop/pull/603
> Benjamin Collins:  Yes this is not here this week we'll give him
>   one more week to do that and then the second one is pull 603 from
>   the mood which has no reviews on it.
> Benjamin Collins:  So this is.
> Benjamin Collins:  See Chris did you want to jump in on that.
> Chris Abernethy:  I have not had a chance to review this yet so
>   just taking a quick look.
> Chris Abernethy:  I would say one issue here is that it looks
>   like the report index has been committed which I don't.
> Chris Abernethy:  Think was intended.
> Chris Abernethy:  Not 100% sure on that yeah it looks like a new
>   file that's generated that should not be in a PR.
> Benjamin Collins:  Hi but otherwise.
> Chris Abernethy:  Is also it looks like a client secret was
>   committed in the Run dot sh.
> Benjamin Collins:  Oh hey Ya Wanna be quite secure that's.
> Benjamin Collins:  Not a good thing to happen.
> Benjamin Collins:  So I guess we can give feedback but it looks
>   totally out of the two things are agility readme and.
> Benjamin Collins:  IPhone 3 point 9 / 11 and reports that index
>   though so what's actually being changed oh it should be using so
>   it's just removing the one line from agility that beat me right.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah that seems to be the only substantive
>   change there and then he has a question as to whether or not we
>   should just remove this whole tutorial as an alternate.
> Benjamin Collins:  Why I think.
> Benjamin Collins:  Might be a separate issue of what Agility Test
>   we need for our Falcon Angels 2.0 but.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah it looks like this is.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah the issue 562 is for removing Json web
>   signature 2020 is that I am work items been withdrawn so it makes
>   sense to make that modification for sure and the read me the
>   question is to whether or not we should remove this entirely this
>   tutorial I agree I think we should perhaps propose that to a
>   larger group.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay is that on the issue.
> Benjamin Collins:  Tell the SEC moved yes it's me so this is an
>   issue 562.
> Benjamin Collins:  Banana Joe dictatorial to three weeks ago okay
>   I think we can all I think this this poor request address is
>   issue 562 and if we want to create a different issue we can
>   create one for removing the entire tutorial right.
> Chris Abernethy:  I think that's yeah that makes sense although
>   wounded comments on 562 that the first PR should also remove Ed
>   to 5519 signature 2018.
> Chris Abernethy:  What she has not done so.
> Chris Abernethy:  That's potentially why he may be asked if we
>   should just remove this tutorial entirely.
> Chris Abernethy:  But either way I would definitely have some
>   change request here the index shouldn't be there and you
>   certainly shouldn't be committing client Secrets he'll probably
>   want to rotate that.
> Benjamin Collins:  All right so that's it for pull requests of
>   this week two we want to go hold ahead any agenda items we will
>   bring.
> Benjamin Collins:  We can go directly into issues and sort by.
> Benjamin Collins:  Least recently updated.
> Benjamin Collins:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
> Chris Abernethy:  Sorry just making a note on this issue here.
> Benjamin Collins:  So let's go ahead with the shoe.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/804
> Benjamin Collins:  This is replace traceability hashtag products
>   with schema.org products.
> Benjamin Collins:  I think what kind of depends are we asserting
>   that this is the exact same thing is his product because if our
>   if our product diverges from their product and were you know
>   defining new things under their attributes.
> Benjamin Collins:  Having our own which can have attributes that
>   say Hey this is the same thing as schema.org.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah it's a we have does anyone know whether or
>   not our product is different than schema doors product.
> Benjamin Collins:  Without looking out probably to their
>   different.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): If these are cases where the properties
>   being defined are references to mesh Rio products I think it is
>   kind of the.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): The no I'm too when we are referencing one
>   of our own schemas use traceability hashtag.
> Chris Abernethy:  I think it might be good to get some more
>   information on where this is being used maybe a link into the
>   code and also see whether or not we are defining this item.
> Chris Abernethy:  Just referencing it.
> Benjamin Collins:  The comment on the issue.
> Benjamin Collins:  And that seems like a more nuanced json-ld
>   example.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/532
> Benjamin Collins:  Um I would imagine that a lot of these four
>   requests are going to be nuanced json-ld examples.
> Benjamin Collins:  Let's see it completed units weight versus net
>   weight xsd double versus xsd decimal.
> Benjamin Collins:  This one is currently assigned to my mood.
> Benjamin Collins:  I 531 is currently a side so all the places
>   he's weight can be found were measured it for quantitative value
>   should be correct structure prospective.
> Benjamin Collins:  Is weak yeah currently a few strings have
>   childish those should all be changed.
> Benjamin Collins:  So it looks like this is just waiting for PR I
>   guess if my mood has a suggested.
> Chris Abernethy:  It sounds like he has a path forward here and
>   perhaps.
> Benjamin Collins:  Mike this is ready for PR and.
> Benjamin Collins:  Buddhism on the call to get the Ping of shame
>   but.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/811
> Benjamin Collins:  I might be of Shame is coming up in a few
>   issues so don't want to talk all right so next is issue 811 looks
>   like this is for me semantic issue for commercial invoice from
>   808 we deleted performance voice that have lien tag for
>   commercial invoice credential Boolean work since cumulonimbus Bap
>   semantics.
> Benjamin Collins:  People reply to the Boolean flag.
> Benjamin Collins:  I mean I think the main thing here is.
> Benjamin Collins:  You know who's who's consuming The json-ld
>   View on these credentials.
> Chris Abernethy:  So I when you say this is semantic issue how
>   can you can you elaborate on that is it because commercial
>   invoice credential isn't really isn't necessarily a question that
>   can be answered by a Boolean or.
> Benjamin Collins:  I think it's if you were to imagine of
>   converting this into a graph a commercial invoice you know we'll
>   have a type as the primary note so if you want to say you had a
>   commercial invoice and a pro forma invoice you have two notes at
>   both these labeled invoice invoice for the type of in how they
>   look.
> Benjamin Collins:  You'd have to go through and look at okay type
>   invoice and then on top of that search for this attribute
>   performing voice true so you know say you had you know 10 pro
>   forma invoices and like 20 invoices it would just show up as 30
>   invoices as nodes which could probably be good misleading.
> Benjamin Collins:   You know.
> Benjamin Collins:  This I think this would be better handled for
>   you know someone like this or.
> Benjamin Collins:  Of blood who's consuming the json-ld and they
>   say like hey converted this to know so if you better if the nose
>   look like this.
> Chris Abernethy:  Okay should we should we paying them to get
>   some assistance.
> Benjamin Collins:  I'll go ahead and take this on this.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/816
> Benjamin Collins:  Update bank account profile credentials a to
>   include commercial status section.
> Benjamin Collins:  So this is so Pink So bank account can be
>   revoked if effectively.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah it might be good if this person commented
>   on why they wanted to add this.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay add a comment to confirm in normal human
>   language what's going on here rather than just kind of a Jason.
> Benjamin Collins:  If we get confirmation on that we can probably
>   add up bed for PR label on this but let's cycle back to that next
>   traceable cap section.
> Benjamin Collins:  It looks like there too.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/819
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay I guess it's good because it's on the
>   call to say is this a dupe.
> Benjamin Collins:  The previous one.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay and then we get confirmation from that we
>   can go ahead and close the duplicate.
> Benjamin Collins:  Avoid schema.org data types.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/573
> Benjamin Collins:  What is the side to me.
> Benjamin Collins:  OC schema.org data type should be avoided
>   because there are not indexed by semantic repositories and our
>   home for interoperability see secured our discussion plenty of my
>   chicken was that 70% of schema date found in the world are in
>   fact xsd date and not schema daytime okay so this is a specific
>   type.
> Benjamin Collins:   Please action.
> Benjamin Collins:  When all the daytime address plus separate
>   issue is filed.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay so I'm going to create a checklist for
>   me.
> Benjamin Collins:  Say first thing I need to do is scan through
>   the code to find.
> Benjamin Collins:  Being used and then from there it would be to
>   either open a pull request or edit her probably first edit the
>   issue to make the action items very clear and then have a poor
>   request that addresses those specific items.
> Chris Abernethy:  Is he suggesting that we not use any schema or
>   data type or just a daytime looks like any schema.org data type.
> Benjamin Collins:  The do you want to edit the issue name to
>   address nut.
> Chris Abernethy:  I don't think so I mean in his.
> Chris Abernethy:  Initial comment he is grabbing for schema.org
>   date number Boolean text time and URL so it sounds like he is in
>   fact talking about all data types.
> Chris Abernethy:  Whereas already suggested that the issue can be
>   closed and all date-time types are addressed.
> Benjamin Collins:  I think it would be a lot easier too.
> Benjamin Collins:  Keep this narrow and just focus on the daytime
>   aspect and if there are other specific ones that come up look for
>   create other issues for those.
> Chris Abernethy:  I would think that his intention was to in fact
>   specify all of these and that we should create issues for them
>   before closing this.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay well let's see I'm going to the the
>   easily I'm going to take the easy two for a way out on this and
>   say I think the action item for me is to create a.
> Benjamin Collins:  Or I could do that I could grab and create a
>   test list of specific what needs to be changed for all these and
>   then create create the issue that can be tackled.
> Benjamin Collins:  So I think that we're so basically it with
>   with with daytime there's a specific.
> Benjamin Collins:  Proposal for what needs to be addressed with
>   that and then the other ones we could say okay we found these
>   instances what should these instances be changed too.
> Benjamin Collins:  I think that should work.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/462
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay next is 2462.
> Benjamin Collins:  So this is.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay this is my issue and this is I think this
>   is effectively outdated now that we're in lining all the
>   credentials before we were kind of going for the style of you
>   know invoice contains a product product contains a commodity of
>   like linking the problem is that that kind of approach of
>   creating smaller units means that the size of our.
> Benjamin Collins:   Our credentials like blue.
> Benjamin Collins:  Exponentially with stuff that wasn't needed
>   and so.
> Benjamin Collins:  Proposed that we should do that but my mood
>   assigned himself to this we put as pending close last one I'm
>   going to go ahead and close this issue and if someone wants to
>   resurrect it they can.
> Benjamin Collins:  Section on gs1.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/700
> Benjamin Collins:  This is pretty straightforward or a made the
>   comment Paul said I can take this and then we can just paint
>   Poland say any updates.
> Benjamin Collins:  See is there anything else we want to.
> Benjamin Collins:  This issue on the call or is that enough.
> Chris Abernethy:  I think that's good.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/702
> Benjamin Collins:  Alright next one is 702.
> Benjamin Collins:  This is reflect new ID requirements from Trace
>   interrupt.
> Benjamin Collins:  Specks of drifted presentation must be seen to
>   with presentation credentials credential examples must be a
>   updated to use only uuids looking for volunteers on this might
>   have resulting ideas we need to be able to fit in I think
>   currently.
> Benjamin Collins:   The oh.
> Benjamin Collins:  It can we have is an iri.
> Benjamin Collins:  Do you want to create a very specific regex
>   for the kind of your and the format needs to be.
> Chris Abernethy:  Not sure on this one.
> Benjamin Collins:  That's the question on the issue.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay I asked you a question on the issue and
>   we can kind of move on.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/270
> Benjamin Collins:  All right that's one is 270.
> Benjamin Collins:  Is think they do nothing problems versus
>   classes no one is assigned.
> Benjamin Collins:  Some mistakes in semantics we have a lot of
>   back and forth on the thread.
> Benjamin Collins:  And we're trying to Ping flood to get some.
> Benjamin Collins:  Clarification but that was back in June with
>   no more updates on flood and or you suggest a closeness in March
>   so I guess we just want to add the label pending close there's no
>   more updates on this threat.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah I mean this is just been languishing for
>   so long but I mean at the same time or he did acknowledge that
>   these were bugs that needed to be fixed so I'd hate to lose sight
>   of that.
> Benjamin Collins:  I agree but you know it's kind of.
> Benjamin Collins:  It's also kind of frustrating for you know fly
>   to come in and say oh this sucks and it's like okay you know we
>   agree we acknowledge that what should we do and then we just kind
>   of get ghosted on you know on the actual path forward for it so.
> Benjamin Collins:  I'm going to go ahead and put a pending close
>   and if there's no more updates next time we see this weekend.
> Benjamin Collins:  Thing but you know I completely agree with
>   want to get feedback rather than actually using that's.
> Chris Abernethy:  Okay makes sense.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/822
> Benjamin Collins:  Next one is a 22 from told Ted and this is
>   pointing back to 815 so this is singular versus plural Ted can
>   you.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah this is
>   just the best practices question singular is generally preferable
>   to plural in.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Naming of
>   things like this.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): It's not a
>   big deal many people consider the word instructions to be
>   singular.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay put a comment on that and this is from a.
> Benjamin Collins:  See where it says change being applied update
>   requirements.
> Benjamin Collins:  Presentation is this in the respect document.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Oh golly I
>   don't remember.
> Benjamin Collins:  Postal separate VR so it looks like it is in
>   the respect document let's see it says holders should ensure the
>   previous presentation was accepted before presenting and
>   instructions for hesitation within instructions properties are
>   included that each array of credentials ID is this even the
>   standard estimates.
> Benjamin Collins:   For which property.
> Benjamin Collins:  The should be performed on the credentials
>   defined in the specification named our update and delete.
> Orie Steele:  Can you link to the respect document draft that
>   you're commenting on or tissue in the chat.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/pull/815/files
> Benjamin Collins:  Yeah let's see this.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/822
> Benjamin Collins:  This is the issue let's open the Respec
>   document.
> Orie Steele:  DeNiro I made mostly just to lose that document
>   because I think I know what this is.
> Orie Steele:  So there was a pull request that was merged That
>   was supposed to cover updates to previous presentations and then
>   there was debate around different more complicated versions of
>   that I don't think got clear consensus.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/#presentation-replacement
> Orie Steele:  To me like potentially the respect document
>   contains text that doesn't reflect consensus that needs to be
>   removed it's kind of like the high-level overview.
> Benjamin Collins:  Yeah I tend to agree with that looks like this
>   section is five point one point six and.
> Benjamin Collins:  This is the update remove presentations part.
> Orie Steele:  This seems fine to me so the respect document seems
>   correct the issue seems stale and I might suggest is closing the
>   issue.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay let's see and oh instructions are not
>   included here now.
> Orie Steele:  Right they were included in Mike's like proposed
>   thing that never got concerns it and that didn't get merged so we
>   have an issue filed on something that isn't in the document so
>   the issue is sort of stale and regarding a discussion that was
>   resolved by not doing the more complicated and confusing thing.
> Benjamin Collins:  Are you heading closing with comments.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay the next one is.
> Benjamin Collins:  Besides sections linked data.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/271
> Benjamin Collins:  Instruction here we go next one is 271.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay another one from glad for this example in
>   270 has two more problems purchase does not exist even if it did
>   I don't see how I purchased can be semantically and equivalent to
>   related documents purchase it's rare that you bent a lot of
>   discussion.
> Benjamin Collins:  Looks like we actually have the less comments
>   from flood attachment shows 161 schema terms traceability schemas
>   the you make a new head request for each of these Uris and see
>   whether they resolved here's the mistake lowercase terms of
>   property it cannot be used as a type.
> Benjamin Collins:  Anyone summarize what's going on in this
>   thread.
> Benjamin Collins:  The answer seems to be no.
> Orie Steele:  Are we still talking about 271.
> Orie Steele:  It's basically just a high-level comment we're not
>   using rdf predicates and types consistently or correctly and you
>   know for this kind of issue it's always kind of hard to resolve
>   these because.
> Orie Steele:  Now concretely you might have a problem in a
>   specific rdf data month data model instance that you would want
>   to correct but in the abstract you're just dealing with a you
>   know varying degrees of correctness in your.
> Orie Steele:  S nld definitions.
> Orie Steele:  I guess I would suggest closing any kind of issues
>   that are like fix everything and instead file specific issues for
>   cases where the rdf data model instance has some flaw that you're
>   trying to correct so we know for example if you use type
>   identifier incorrectly in some credential that you care deeply
>   about and you would go fix it in that credential but you might
>   not go fix that kind of rdf stuff in the abstract in all places.
> Orie Steele:  My recommendation would be to close it because it's
>   an actionable issue that basically just covers improve things
>   everywhere which is you do want to do that but it's kind of hard
>   to use the issue to track it and I don't think someone's going to
>   close this particular issue the way that it's raining.
> Benjamin Collins:  I agree it while you were talking about skinny
>   back through it twice and it looks like blood for see it should
>   be able to reopen twice again and so I think we want to have
>   narrow issues around a specific scope.
> Benjamin Collins:  Wrong use of item list.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/569
> Benjamin Collins:  Another one from glad.
> Benjamin Collins:  Scroll down to the last issue removing types
>   Mentor guy Timeless I'm afraid that doesn't fix it simple from
>   revocation list status several mistakes here revocation list
>   index is an integer position search method schema position made
>   integer.
> Orie Steele:  Oh this is all declined to implement because it's
>   controlled by a w3c technical recommendation now so like we're
>   not in control of we don't Define stuff anymore we just need to
>   cite the work item that does to find this I'm going to share
>   here.
> Orie Steele:   In the.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): What's the
>   score.
> Orie Steele:  Basically I shared a link to the w3c repo and I
>   said we should close the issue because.
> Orie Steele:  We're not defining revocation list related stuff
>   that's the w3c's area now.
> Benjamin Collins:  I'm not going to go ahead and close the issue
>   and like and comment and reopen if we need to but I kind of want
>   to be aggressive closing that if it's not a work item.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I mean if he wants to make Corrections he
>   should make them to the w3c work item so everyone who implements
>   that spec and benefit.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/575
> Benjamin Collins:  Alright next one is 575 inflation of value
>   somewhere 25 someone for some skewers by several terms to skua
>   Value which makes it impossible to distinguish least twice
>   featuring rdf.
> Benjamin Collins:  So total order value so numbers are not
>   distinguishable looks like Vivian was assigned to this but she's
>   not on these calls anymore so we.
> Orie Steele:  So for this one my recommendation would be each
>   company and I should confirm the credentials that they care about
>   are defined correctly and then they should open issues for any
>   problems in their specific credentials that they out and it is
>   real if we should fix this for specific credentials and he gives
>   a bunch of examples here.
> Orie Steele:  We could potentially create a separate issue for
>   each of the types that he's claiming are broken.
> Orie Steele:  And then close this.
> Orie Steele:  What it what if our folks want to handle it I mean
>   if there are things that are incorrectly defined and we know
>   where they're incredibly to find it's an actionable issue we
>   should either fix it or.
> Orie Steele:  Leave the issue marker open because it's still a
>   real problem.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): Yeah this does seem like a pretty
>   straightforward fix I can do this for the AG schemas
>   theoretically I guess I'm not as familiar with the other schemas
>   and I don't want to step on any toes actually yes I the egg
>   scheme this is probably enough of a task I can.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I would not volunteer to do anything other
>   than fix this issue in every schema that you specifically care
>   about and I would give the action item to miss and then you know
>   maybe take a look and see if it applies to us if it does let's
>   track it separately in more specific way.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): Were you saying something about.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): Starting a different issue for different
>   companies and groups of schemas or I can just use this issue.
> Orie Steele:  You can use this issue but I think this issue needs
>   to be closed at some point and.
> Orie Steele:  Would be nice to sort of create separate issues and
>   then close this one and then have each of those smaller issues
>   actually be closable.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I might
>   suggest putting in something of a checklist here of the things to
>   be done and then once whatever they are whether they're opening
>   12 new issues or One Mini issue or.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): When all the
>   check boxes that are here are checked off then this can be
>   closed.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I agree.
> Russell_H_(mesur.io): It's okay yeah I can make an issue for egg.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay so I created a pathless at the top so
>   Russell creates an issue for agriculture and been in this create
>   an issue for steel and once these separate rates have been
>   created and this issue is complete does that sound okay.
> Benjamin Collins:
>
> https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/575#issue-1378013237
> Benjamin Collins:  I'm specifically talking about it looks like
>   GitHub allows the maintainers to create a test list so that seems
>   like something we should take advantage of.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah that's a
>   nice new thing I might suggest instead of the human names they're
>   to use their GitHub tags.
> Benjamin Collins:  It didn't come up with that was my thinking to
>   it didn't come up with the suggestion but I can try to fix that
>   so.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Might be
>   better out of band but yeah.
> Benjamin Collins:  Name okay I list fix it for Russell but I
>   don't think it I like it does highlight and Link it okay.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/826
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay but anyways yeah that's it for that issue
>   and then we can fix the other issues.
> Benjamin Collins:  X issue is 826.
> Benjamin Collins:  This is from blood again.
> Benjamin Collins:  Current choice of delimiter is Hash however
>   it's not appropriate large symmetric collections like
>   traceability slashes better.
> Benjamin Collins:  Transit / are of so all the good data patterns
>   book.
> Benjamin Collins:  Disability / transfer mode / are so this is
>   saying don't use fragments effectively.
> Benjamin Collins:  I'm just going to express a little bit
>   frustration of the flood in these fix of the things issues.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): Yeah I think
>   that's an ongoing frustration across the board.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): It's not to
>   say that his issues are not inaccurate they're just huge.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): And it might
>   be I mean he's not going to come back really to these.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I think these are the kinds of things where
>   best case scenario we do a checklist we split them up we close
>   them you know get them into smaller pieces that could be
>   addressed by people who are regularly attending and opening pull
>   requests.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): I think it's
>   also reasonable although he may complain about it at some point
>   to say in all of them this is too big to be actionable you're
>   correct that it's a problem but we can't we can't parse it well
>   enough with.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah I'd be okay with that as well.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): And instead
>   of closing them as completed close them as won't fix or whatever
>   so that it's it's clear we didn't touch it.
> TallTed_//_Ted_Thibodeau_(he/him)_(OpenLinkSw.com): It might also
>   be worth while throwing in some labels like got it a help wanted
>   or.
> Orie Steele:  Yeah better labels is is the thing we could we
>   could definitely do better labeling.
> Benjamin Collins:  Yeah I think what kind of the Gap and I'm kind
>   of identifying right now is like needs to be broken down label in
>   terms of like when when is the correct time to create the
>   checklist because you know that seems like something we're not
>   going to do out-of-band so it might be a good idea too.
> Benjamin Collins:  I don't know if it takes time is it better to
>   just do less issues and more checklist on these calls.
> Benjamin Collins:  Or see I'm pulling up traceability.
> Benjamin Collins:
>
> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/contexts/traceability-v1.jsonld
> Benjamin Collins:  So if we pulled the traceability contact
>   should we just ask in the thread of hey Vlad can you.
> Benjamin Collins:  Create a list of suggestions.
> Benjamin Collins:  I asked on the thread to say is this a blanket
>   copy replace for all of the instances from hash to slash or is it
>   selective and I think the path forward will.
> Benjamin Collins:  Different depending on the answer there.
> Benjamin Collins:
>   https://github.com/w3c-ccg/traceability-vocab/issues/832
> Benjamin Collins:  So it's this is from night program that's one
>   is it 32.
> Chris Abernethy:  A great time then.
> Benjamin Collins:  Yeah we're time okay.
> Benjamin Collins:  Not not that I don't like hosting or anything
>   or put it up.
> Benjamin Collins:  All right let's let's go ahead and wrap it up
>   here I think I think it might be a good idea just to see if there
>   are my total take away from this call is if there are issues
>   without checklist and we should stay on that issue until we have
>   a checklist and just keep crunching through them potentially.
> Benjamin Collins:  Other than that thanks for attending the call
>   I guess I need to Chris for confirmation are you going to post
>   the minutes.
> Chris Abernethy:  Yeah I can post a minutes if you make sure
>   everyone gets booted and cancel recording we should be good to
>   go.
> Benjamin Collins:  Okay let's see I think I can stop recording
>   now.
>
>
>