Competitors (both athletes and teams) may be attached to federations. There is already a property for that.

Should we create a new class named Federation?
A Federation could be considered as a specialized type of Organization with concrete properties about it (apart from name and contact info). For instance, federations can be federated into other federations. Federations rule Athletics in specific territories or countries.

We already have identified these optional properties to describe organizations:

• identifier: Unique character string to identify the organization.
• name:
• alternate name: An alias to name the organization (acronym, etc.)
• postal address
• logo
• email
• url: webpage
• telephone

If so, what specific properties should we include?

• territorial scope? - Country or territory
• is federated into? - another Federation
• member(s)? Clubs, athletes, federations that are federated in this organization

Entries for competitions should be included. This is a list of potential competitors. It's different than start list.

There is the possibility to define all roles related to competition management (apart from athletes and coaches).

IAAF defines a list of roles for officials in international competitions. Also, Peter Crawshaw developed a list of real roles they manage in local competitions. Both approaches in this document as a starting point.

Proposal by Nicolas Launois:

• Does the data model allow to categorize the category of "competition" or "competition series" like it is done on the EA calendar ?(ex. World Championships, Area Championships, National Championships, IAAF meet, EAA meet, national label meet....). It doesn't bring value for that meet in itself, but that would be useful later, looking at the statistics angle, as it will allow to extract and group results of the same type. If all National championships from Europe are tagged as National Championships, you can filter those results easily from the mass of result files.That could also be useful to reflect a certain hierarchy of events at the time when the IAAF and EA are setting different meet categories for the purpose of the new athletes rankings. However, that would require to create a new list of values, so I'm not sure if that would fit in the high level definition of the data model.

Mirko suggested adding a new property for athletes in case they used another name (e.g., before getting married).

“'OpenTrack' naming is confusing. Proposal: change name of vocabulary to
'Open Athletics'. The community group will continue as is it but I would
announce it and clarify the change.”

— https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-opentrack/2018Oct/0005.html

GH handles renaming of repos quite well, redirecting from the old to the new URLs. But if we want to be conservative and don't mind the repo keeping the old name, at least we should change titles and references in README and other documents to reflect the new name of the CG…

We're building a public registry and basing the URLS on this

For a competition which has been given a short code (e.g. "og" for "Olympic Games"), do people prefer "country before year", or "year before country"?
/x/bra/2016/og
/x/2016/bra/og

I've listed possible statuses of competitions (https://github.com/w3c/opentrack-cg/blob/master/spec/model/overview.md#event-status).

@captainrobbo , I included all from OpenAth. I found that 'Completed' overlaps with 'Finished' (specified by IOC). Can we remove completed and use finished instead?

The model should enable organizers to represent the events in competitions during the planning process.

There are several Places in the model, as well as PostalAddresses. To guarantee interoperability we need to recommend the way to describe countries.

At first sight, I would recommend ISO 3166 codes, but I found that IAAF uses IOC codes that are different. For instance: SLO (IOC) - SVN (ISO3166) for Slovenia.

A colleague of mine suggested using a third schema wich includes both code schemes, also aligned with others such as ITU, NATO, IATA, etc. This could solve some of the problems we have:

• More than countries. Hierarchically we can have countries>regions>counties>cities.
• Multilingualism. Place names translated into dozens of languages. (e.g. فنلینڈ <- Finland in Urdu).

I have to check if we can customize the list for us. This is, having a easy way to get the code (URI).

In case we define a list of standard age ranges (see #4), should we include those age categories for youth Athletics. IAAF considers U18 (boys and girls aged 16-17) but no more.

There are different rules to set up this classifications depending on body and sport. See this on the main document.

As introduced in the meeting in March, we would need a mechanism to indicate who are the intended participants in a competition. This intended audience was defined as official categories based on age and sex, but a more descriptive and non-technical term (like a tag) would be more suitable for a general audience.

In terms of the vocabulary could be described with the property audience.

Athletes are used to the SEN, M35, W40 terminology, but beginners may not. So, why we don't define a qualitative taxonomy like:

• for all ages
• suitable for kids
• women-friendly race
• serious athletes
• ...

Comments?

Reviewing the Statuses....these describe well what happens at international competition, but perhaps need more at an informal level.

https://github.com/w3c/opentrack-cg/blob/master/spec/model/overview.md#result-statuses

There is a period long before START_LIST, maybe "PLANNING", or "TAKING_ENTRIES", when you know that an event is happening, but you don't know which people are in that unit.

There are also cases where you think that results are official, but an error is reported after they are published - maybe a missing or mis-identified person - and corrected. I therefore strongly suggest a revision number which could be incremented if there is a correction, or a last_updated field, and maybe some status note to explain any corrections underway.

e.g. (real example)
Q. "Athlete 833 in position 37 was NOT me"
A. "Ok, we'll need to check the video, and also email team 5xx and see if it could have been a 533. Give me 24 hours..."

"Under protest" is not exactly the right description for this.

In long distance events (marathons, orienteering, mountain running, sailing...) it is common to provide real-time GPS tracking of individual athletes/teams. Current specification does not support this and would make sense to agree on a standard.

The only mention of latitude and longitude is currently in the general event location (eg a stadium).

During the monthly call on Feb 15, Andy R raised an open question about the best way for cleaning the database, and avoiding duplicates when inserting new entries. In concrete with competitors, athletes and clubs.

So, please list best practices and ways to detect exact and near duplicates.

For instance: Reversing dates (month, day), name/surname, etc.

We should add a descriptive field, indicating the reason for disqualification of athletes (i.e., IAAF's Article no.).

Currently, the model is able to describe results and start list of relay races (as teams), but we need to represent legs and intermediate times.

Information submitted by Nicolas:

You can find the EA code, in the legend of any result/list page of our website, at the bottom of these pages (http://www.european-athletics.org/records/season=2017/type=0/category=S/index.html). Compared to the IAAF ones, we have added NH, Fn (False start), h (hand timing), a (automatic timing with no hundredths of a second measured), A (performance achieved at altitude), OT (Oversized Track), that Mirko uses. I noticed that we are missing some also (qR, qJ, etc).

When it comes to the IOC, they have a public repository for the definition of the data feed used by their broadcasters, media agencies and Olympic sport federations: http://odf.olympictech.org/
For instance, they keep the sport specific code there: http://odf.olympictech.org/2016-Rio/codes/HTML/odf_codes_OG/odf_codes.htm
In this document (http://odf.olympictech.org/2016-Rio/general/PDF/ODF2_Foundation_Principles.pdf), there is simple and general definition of the structure of competitions: http://odf.olympictech.org/2016-Rio/general/PDF/ODF2_Foundation_Principles.pdf

Unlike what it was with the first version of the ODF (all messages sent after each round and competition, athletes and events defined by codes in the messages, that was highlighted by Cristiano from deltatre in Madrid), the ODF-2 messages can be sent by event and round, specifically for start list or result, and they include the athlete’s name, the name of the event, phase and the details of the result. I will have more details today.

We need to represent the requirements to take part in specific competitions.

Athletics Competitions have classifications based on age and gender. There is already a property named 'age range' to specify age in Text.

IAAF and WMA have concrete rules about this, but there are other federations using alternatives. For instance, NACAC used to had a U25 category, now U23. We cannot control all these exceptions.

Should we define a list of age categories with all of the standard ones? See a preliminary list. In this case, we will have a classification for those standard ones, enabling others to use their own text for exceptions like U25.

My proposal is a representation based on three variables:

• gender (e.g., Male)
• age-range (e.g., M45)
• type of discipline (e.g., DT)

In this case we should develop a taxonomy of disciplines (indeed I drafted one). These disciplines are generic and there may be other non-standard that must be represented (so plain text would be also accepted).

Would this be sufficient to register records and bests information? Or we need to describe also additional features such as 'weight' in throws or 'hurdles height'.

Opentrack.run proposes a way to name event codes. Very complete, by the way.

Examples of these codes are:

SP7.26k, SP6K, SP5K, SP4K, SP3K
DT2K, DT1.75K, DT1.5K, DT1K
JT800, JT700, JT600, JT500, JT400
HT7.26K, HT6k, HT5k, HT4k, HT3k
WT15.88K, WT11.34K, WT9.08K, WT7.26K, WT5.45K

Should we create a complete taxonomy of disciplines with specific metadata for each event type? (Independently of the codification rules we will use)
This would be hierarchical like:

• In-stadia disciplines
  • Outdoor Track and Field disciplines
    • Outdoor Track disciplines
      • Outdoor Sprints
        • 110 Hurdles
          • 110 Hurdles (3'6", 1.067 height)
          • 110 Hurdles (3'3", 0.991 height)

Bests and records should have an optional property to indicate the coverage of the achievement.