W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openactive@w3.org > May 2017

Activity List Discussion Summary

From: Leigh Dodds <leigh.dodds@theodi.org>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 16:43:08 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJsy4=P=71COeoCjHwV70ZiJohBFr5Lzp8pKbKm9e=aUZ9LeSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-openactive@w3.org
Hi,

This is the second of the summaries from our hangout this week. In the
second half of the call we reviewed the progress and plans around
developing our shared activity list.

This call was our first chance to discuss the initial progress of
developing the list, lead by Kim, Becky and Jade. The ongoing, working
draft version is at [1].

We discussed:

* requirements for the list, e.g. its use in supporting searching and
browsing for opportunities, integrating data across platforms and in
reporting. There's a clear need to balance these requirements: the list
needs to support searching by end-users, but data integration is also an
important enabler for openactive as a whole

* The top terms of the list. The key decision was to remove the top-level
split between Sports and Physical Activities, if these are retained they
will be handled as collections. This reduces the list to 2 levels, not 3

* Whether to have a single or multiple levels in the hierarchy. I think the
consensus, based on our previous discussions is to have multiple levels,
but also note we need to include, e.g. in the primer, some notes about how
the list can be used, to support searching

* Need for more detailed review of some terms, including their labelling,
descriptions, etc

* Focusing on the terms and their metadata before working further on
collections

* Using trademarks as an indicator for including branded programmes in the
list. It's one useful indicator of visibility to participants

* That the list may need review by additional groups. Jade has reached out
to UK Active for input.

* That the list should include unique identifiers to help with versioning

* That the term labels will be formatted for display to users.

The key debate was around the process for moving forward. There were some
different views about the best way forward, e.g:

* just publish the list, after some further review by the group
* inviting further review and feedback from specific groups before
publishing more widely

The balancing act here is fulfilling immediate needs of developers who are
looking to use a list, whilst ensuring that it is reasonably coherent. But
without spending a huge amount of time trying to create a perfect list.

Based on the discussion, I think that the way forward is to:

* share some editorial guidance, that will help us draft the list and
inform its development
* set ourselves a target date for publishing a first version
* work iteratively, aiming to:
 * refine the list within the group, over the next few weeks
 * then invite comment and feedback, within a clear time window, from a
wider group (to be determined)
* ensure that it is clear to everyone, in the group and beyond, how and
when feedback can be provided, and what type of feedback we are looking for
* continue to work within the Google spreadsheet for now, to collate
feedback
* review the list again in our next call, with feedback on the document in
the meantime

There is an early draft of an editorial guide at [2].

Please feel free to add comments to the draft activity list spreadsheet.

Cheers,

L.

[1].
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1yWpVXGr91NiqWuCr7EBdVI2uhzxgN3Qw-oIKNMuhTeQ/edit#gid=735540001
[2].
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15-bSByBhoIdckmlh6Dz3J27xQv7OeTYR0qv-OZh_Mls/edit#

-- 
Leigh Dodds, Senior Consultant, theODI.org
@ldodds
The ODI, 65 Clifton Street, London EC2A 4JE
Received on Friday, 12 May 2017 15:43:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 12 May 2017 15:43:44 UTC