Michaela Iorga

@degenaro - Thank you for your comments. They are very useful. You are asking: 1. > Matching: The link to set theory provides explanation of the relationship mapping rationale choices....

I agree with @jpower432 . Thank you for the `props` and `links` recommendations. Please also see the replies above.

> As discussed today, the following changes can be made - > > 1. Make confidence-score optional under provenance. > 2. Status can also be made optional > 3. Have...

> As discussed today, the following changes can be made - > > 1. Make confidence-score optional under provenance. > 2. Status can also be made optional > 3. Have...

@vikas-agarwal76 - I agree with all recommendations, with a caveat fro the following one: > 1. keep 'matching-rationale' at both provenance and map level but make them optional. Applications will...

@sshiells-scottlogic & @eddie-knight - I received an automatic meeting indicating I have been removed from the ccc. Does it mean my support is no longer needed?

> Yes! We are working with @robmoffat and the Communications WG to determine the next meetings. > > We'll notify the [CCC mailing list](https://lists.finos.org/g/ccc-participants) and put the public meetings on...

@robmoffat - It looks like WG:Security and WG:Delivery are back-to-back. Is there a vision that members will be involved in more than one WG? Since I do not see a...

> Should we open a new issue for this question? If there is no vision , no guidance, then we will need those and opening an issue might be a...

> @iMichaela @eddie-knight @damienjburks - agree that we need more clarity on where the assessment layer falls. @mlysaght2017 - the clarification I requested is going beyond assessment. 1. I initiated...