IRC log of annotation on 2014-10-28

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:40:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:40:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
15:40:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:40:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
15:40:13 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_ANNO WG()11:00AM scheduled to start 40 minutes ago
15:40:14 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:40:14 [trackbot]
Date: 28 October 2014
15:40:16 [smailus_]
smailus_ has joined #annotation
15:40:26 [rayd]
rayd has joined #annotation
15:40:37 [fjh]
ScribeNick: tilgovi
15:40:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
15:41:35 [JohnPedersen]
JohnPedersen has joined #Annotation
15:42:03 [tilgovi]
Zakim, who is here?
15:42:03 [Zakim]
I notice DPUB_ANNO WG()11:00AM has restarted
15:42:04 [smailus_]
zakim, who is online
15:42:05 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Salon7, john-salisbury, john_pederson
15:42:05 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JohnPedersen, rayd, smailus_, RRSAgent, Youngsun_Ryu, Davis, shepazu, tilgovi, hioh, paoloC, tac, raphael, TimCole, ArronEi, mgylling, bjdmeest, Zakim, fjh, azaroth,
15:42:05 [Zakim]
... Morbus, Mitar, JakeHart, bigbluehat_, dwhly, MarkS, stain, zz_nickstenn, trackbot
15:42:05 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who is online', smailus_
15:42:17 [JohnPedersen]
Zakim, who is here
15:42:17 [Zakim]
JohnPedersen, you need to end that query with '?'
15:42:21 [fjh]
15:42:29 [JohnPedersen]
Zakim, who is here?
15:42:29 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Salon7, john-salisbury, john_pederson
15:42:30 [Zakim]
On IRC I see JohnPedersen, rayd, smailus_, RRSAgent, Youngsun_Ryu, Davis, shepazu, tilgovi, hioh, paoloC, tac, raphael, TimCole, ArronEi, mgylling, bjdmeest, Zakim, fjh, azaroth,
15:42:30 [Zakim]
... Morbus, Mitar, JakeHart, bigbluehat_, dwhly, MarkS, stain, zz_nickstenn, trackbot
15:42:42 [MarkS]
zakim, Salon7 has me
15:42:42 [Zakim]
+MarkS; got it
15:42:50 [fjh]
fjh has changed the topic to: Code 2666,: agenda
15:43:02 [fjh]
Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:43:22 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:43:26 [smailus_]
Present+ Thomas_Smailus
15:43:29 [azaroth]
Present+ Ray_Denenberg
15:43:43 [azaroth]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:43:51 [rayd]
present+ Ray Denenberg
15:43:59 [TimCole]
Present+ Tim_Cole
15:44:00 [paoloC]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:44:06 [mgylling]
Present+ Markus_Gylling
15:44:49 [bjdmeest]
Present+ Ben De Meester
15:44:51 [raphael]
Present+ Raphael Troncy
15:45:05 [tilgovi]
present+ Randall Leeds
15:45:11 [dwhly]
Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:45:17 [JakeHart]
Present+ Jake Hartnell
15:45:19 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
15:45:30 [ArronEi]
Present+ Arron_Eicholz
15:45:37 [bigbluehat]
Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:45:55 [MarkS]
Present+ MarkS
15:46:08 [tilgovi]
present+ Randall_Leeds
15:46:29 [Davis]
Present+ Davis
15:46:31 [JohnPedersen]
Present+ John_Pedersen (observer)
15:46:41 [shepazu]
RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight.
15:46:41 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'this meeting spans midnight.', shepazu. Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:46:45 [tac]
Present+ Takeshi Kanai (observer)
15:46:49 [shepazu]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
15:47:13 [fjh]
Topic: Agenda reveiw
15:47:21 [fjh]
15:48:02 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
15:48:15 [tilgovi]
fjh: we had a meeting with webapps which shepazu lead
15:48:23 [em]
em has joined #annotation
15:48:26 [tilgovi]
... we need to talk about the model, what we need to do to get an editor's draft out
15:48:36 [tilgovi]
... paoloC will give us an update
15:48:44 [tilgovi]
... we have to decide as a WG how to handle the issues
15:48:56 [tilgovi]
... we've added a topic for the social web group to visit us
15:49:08 [tilgovi]
... we'll take breaks and lunch
15:49:20 [tilgovi]
... we'll need to discuss implementations
15:49:25 [em]
Present+ Erik Mannens
15:49:36 [tilgovi]
... we should also discuss serialization
15:49:45 [tilgovi]
... HTTP API and Client side are lower priority
15:50:40 [tilgovi]
... we can also talk about i18n, security, privacy, but probably premature
15:52:39 [azaroth]
rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight
15:53:06 [tilgovi]
azaroth: do we want to move implementation discussions up front?
15:53:12 [tilgovi]
fjh: maybe... it might inform what we're doing
15:54:17 [tilgovi]
rayd: we might want to give consideration for when some people have other meetings, when planning break times
15:55:57 [tilgovi]
fjh: is there any concern with the minutes from our last call?
15:56:02 [fjh]
Topic: Minutes
15:56:04 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
15:56:43 [tilgovi]
paoloC: we discussed json-ld and sparql queries in the last meeting, we should revisit those
15:57:17 [fjh]
RESOLUTION: minutes from 15 Oct approved
15:57:25 [fjh]
Topic: Recap CSV
15:57:27 [bjdmeest]
15:57:43 [tilgovi]
fjh: we met with the CSV WG, who is putting CSV files on the Web
15:57:51 [tilgovi]
... what they want to do is annotate that data -- cells, rows, etc
15:58:08 [tilgovi]
... the target is straightforward because they have a URL fragment that's well defined
15:58:17 [tilgovi]
... they have the CSV and then a separate metadata file
15:58:27 [tilgovi]
... they want to be able to embed the annotations into the metadata
15:58:40 [tilgovi]
... they understand annotations can be distributed separately, but they want this ability
15:58:47 [tilgovi]
... they have a JSON-LD format, where annotations may fit
15:59:03 [tilgovi]
... discussions about what's normative, what dependencies, etc. They will think about an extension point to decouple.
15:59:16 [tilgovi]
... They do not want the annotation representation to be complicated.
15:59:23 [tilgovi]
... Example: when the body is text, they just want text.
15:59:35 [tilgovi]
... so that discussion may resume
15:59:39 [shepazu]
15:59:48 [tilgovi]
... they want to be done by August, but we should be okay because we can cover the data model this year
16:00:09 [tzviya]
tzviya has joined #annotation
16:00:23 [bjdmeest]
minutes of the csv meeting:
16:00:26 [tilgovi]
... I don't think everyone in the room was convince about the rationale for simplifying bodies
16:00:36 [fjh]
16:01:06 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I anticipate that most of the people that are supplying annotations are going to be things like (insert social media thing)
16:01:12 [tilgovi]
... they're not going to want (what they say are) complicated models
16:01:20 [tilgovi]
... Two things can address this:
16:01:40 [tilgovi]
... 1) A serialization. HTML or JSON that maps specifically, for simple cases, to the data model.
16:01:47 [tilgovi]
... 2) We might be able to do something with context headers.
16:02:02 [tilgovi]
fjh: We've talked about JSON-LD. There are tradeoffs, but it will help with the common cases.
16:02:07 [tilgovi]
... we'll talk about this later, though.
16:02:21 [tilgovi]
Present+ Tzviya Siegman
16:02:28 [fjh]
Topic: WebApps Robust Anchoring
16:02:30 [MarkS]
Minutes from discussion with webapps ->
16:02:34 [tilgovi]
fjh: We had an hour session with WebApps yesterday and talked about robust anchoring
16:02:44 [tilgovi]
... Doug (shepazu) presented
16:02:58 [tilgovi]
... Travis (Microsoft) gave some feedback to Doug
16:03:40 [tilgovi]
... Simpler summary: Doug gave the summary, things we've looked into, and got feedback about performance, etc
16:04:12 [tilgovi]
fjh: We'll add robust anchoring to the agenda
16:04:17 [tilgovi]
... after serialization
16:04:32 [tilgovi]
azaroth: we should probably do an interest poll
16:04:39 [tilgovi]
... we should prioritize our time
16:04:48 [tilgovi]
... so everyone is feeling like they can contribute to the discussion
16:05:03 [tilgovi]
... straw poll for model, vocab, and serialization
16:05:10 [tilgovi]
fjh: We _have_ to do this
16:05:16 [tilgovi]
azaroth: HTTP API?
16:05:32 [tilgovi]
... Client side APIs?
16:05:51 [tilgovi]
TimCole: Can we wrap targeting into that?
16:06:03 [tilgovi]
fjh: We should maybe keep it separate.
16:06:09 [tilgovi]
azaroth: Robust anchoring?
16:09:05 [shepazu]
16:09:27 [tilgovi]
shepazu: an editor's draft is an informal specification, not necessarily consensus, it's scratch space
16:09:41 [tilgovi]
... when the WG says "we agree with this" then we can publish it as a working draft
16:09:53 [tilgovi]
... in this case we'll publish it as a first public working draft
16:10:13 [renoirb]
renoirb has joined #annotation
16:10:23 [tilgovi]
... right now we have a draft that we're working from (the open annotation data model)
16:10:31 [tilgovi]
... published as an editor's draft on
16:11:02 [tilgovi]
... the spec itself has annotation support so I propose we use annotations as a way to give feedback
16:11:07 [Hitoshi_]
Hitoshi_ has joined #annotation
16:11:24 [tilgovi]
... If anybody's interested in the break find me (shepazu) and we'll get you signed in
16:11:46 [tilgovi]
... There's a lot of a value in us doing some simple annotations so that the AC understands what we're doing on how it impacts the W3C when Dan (dwhly) presents to the AC later
16:12:10 [tilgovi]
azaroth: Does anyone want to be the annotator scribe? While we discuss topics, they could add comments to the spec itself.
16:13:37 [tilgovi]
fjh: The next topic is implementations.
16:13:51 [tilgovi]
... There's been a bunch of work at, and by paoloC
16:14:12 [tilgovi]
paoloC: I've been focusing on the backend
16:14:22 [tilgovi]
... we have several applications that can produce annotations (CG model)
16:14:26 [tilgovi]
... interop has not been proven
16:14:33 [tilgovi]
... so the idea is to have a backend that can accommodate different clients
16:14:34 [fjh]
interoperabilty at scale
16:14:48 [tilgovi]
... I've developed a backend that can receive annotations in the community group spec data model
16:15:20 [fjh]
text mining services, entity recognition servcies can do work and store as annotations, including provenance
16:15:31 [tilgovi]
... And there is a framework to plug in text mining and entity recognition services to get back machine annotations
16:17:09 [tilgovi]
paoloC: I take existing services and build connectors to translate results into open annotations
16:17:23 [tilgovi]
... OpenCalais, DBPedia Spotlight, etc
16:17:29 [raphael]
NERD ( is a named entity recognition and disambiguation platform
16:17:33 [tilgovi]
... you can take these and connect them by translating results into open annotation
16:17:40 [stain]
I'll lurk from IRC
16:17:50 [raphael]
NERD is summing up DBpedia Spotlight, OpenCalais and 12+ extractors
16:18:17 [paoloC]
Annotopia server on github
16:18:26 [tilgovi]
raphael: A commonality for all those tools is the ability to locate entity strings in the original text
16:18:38 [tilgovi]
... a lot of these tools use the same model, which is a NIF, an abstract way of locating strings in a text
16:18:45 [tilgovi]
... I think there is a connection here between robust anchoring and NIF
16:19:09 [tilgovi]
paoloC: there is another way emerging, called BioC, which was made by the biomedical community
16:19:21 [tilgovi]
... it's a bit tricky to translate into open annotation, but it would be nice to have a connector for that
16:19:47 [fjh]
connectors have value to crreate open annotations from various sources
16:19:52 [tilgovi]
s/NIF/NIF (Natural Language Processing Interchange Format)/
16:20:08 [paoloC]
Annotopia server presentation
16:20:38 [paoloC]
Annotpia presentation at I Annotate 2014
16:20:49 [tilgovi]
16:20:50 [raphael]
NLP Interchange Format (NIF) 2.0 - Overview and Documentation at
16:20:53 [ujvari]
ujvari has joined #annotation
16:21:05 [tilgovi]
Present+ Gergely Ujvari
16:21:12 [azaroth]
ScribeNick: azaroth
16:21:29 [paoloC]
BioC: A Minimalist Approach to Interoperability for Biomedical Text Processing -
16:21:32 [azaroth]
ScribeNick: tilgovi
16:21:45 [tilgovi]
fjh: Nick, talk about what's new with implementation at
16:21:57 [tilgovi]
... not everyone was at I Annotate or the Workshop, so some of this is new
16:22:22 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I used to work on a project OpenShakespeare, and one of the things we built was an annotation tool
16:22:28 [tilgovi]
... it became obvious this might bea more general purpose tool
16:22:33 [tilgovi]
... it was extracted and became a thing called Annotator
16:22:41 [tilgovi]
... A "hack on a stick" of a javascript library for annotating HTML
16:22:52 [tilgovi]
... Slowly but surely more people got interested in it
16:23:01 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has joined #annotation
16:23:07 [tilgovi]
... Eventually picked up by and now sits at the core of a somewhat more mature annotation product
16:23:10 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has left #annotation
16:23:21 [tilgovi]
... In parallel, people who have worked on Annotator in the past are now working with or alongside
16:23:41 [tilgovi]
... In the last six months or so, we've been focusing on making Annotator the library be a platform for implementing annotation applications on the Web.
16:23:56 [tilgovi]
... That means turning it from a ball of mud into an assembly of useful components.
16:24:11 [tilgovi]
... We are within a couple of months of being able to release Annotator v2
16:24:26 [tilgovi]
... It will hopefully have native support for something like Open Annotation
16:24:29 [tilgovi]
... At least harmonizing the vocabularity of the data model.
16:24:35 [fjh]
16:24:49 [TimCole]
16:24:54 [tilgovi]
... Additionally, the UI has been pulled out, so you can pick what you need out of it
16:24:59 [fjh]
ack shepazu
16:25:00 [tilgovi]
fjh: Is it Open Source?
16:25:01 [fjh]
ack fjh
16:25:20 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: Annotator is dual-license, MIT and GPL, which we may change and are interested to know what opinions are in the group
16:25:25 [tilgovi]
... is also all open source
16:25:30 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
16:25:43 [tilgovi]
TimCole: We will probably get to the HTTP APIs today, but will not get to the Client API topic.
16:25:58 [tilgovi]
... How do we make use of this work, but still get our work done.
16:25:59 [tilgovi]
... ?
16:26:41 [tilgovi]
fjh: (summarizing) Question from Tim is, how does the WG activity relate to the tooling work?
16:27:21 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I think what's more relevant (HTTP API) than the stuff is the stuff the Social Web WG is doing.
16:27:32 [tilgovi]
... I wouldn't want to create a new thing if there's something that is existing
16:27:48 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I would add that we ( are not here to shop our implementation.
16:27:59 [tilgovi]
... We're here to share our experiences (much of it is lessons about what is not good)
16:30:06 [tilgovi]
azaroth: At Stanford we build an LDP (linked data platform) server that is compliant with the latest and then some middleware between the LDP and the server to make it easier to bridge annotations
16:30:21 [tilgovi]
... a very thin layer between the client and the LDP server
16:31:02 [fjh]
16:31:43 [tilgovi]
raphael: Having the CG data model as a starting point does not prevent us from making changes to it
16:31:48 [tilgovi]
shepazu: there have already been suggested changes
16:32:07 [tilgovi]
fjh: Another question about Open Source... do we have a sense for how Annotator has extended beyond the community here
16:32:20 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: Every time I talk to people about annotation I discover more people using annotator
16:32:31 [tilgovi]
paoloC: EdX is using it with extension for thousands of students
16:33:17 [tilgovi]
fjh: Are is more implementation work that's represented here that we should mention?
16:33:42 [tilgovi]
paoloC: Manchester University work, focused mostly on bio, is going to save the annotations through Annotopia in Open Annotation
16:33:44 [MarkS]
rrsagent, make minutes
16:33:44 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MarkS
16:33:53 [tilgovi]
TimCole: The Maryland Institute for the Humanities has some implementation
16:34:11 [paoloC]
We are working to integrate Utopia for PDF with Annotopia using Open Annotation
16:34:12 [tilgovi]
raphael: Within the European LinkedTV work, there is some extension of the Open Annotation data model
16:34:29 [tilgovi]
... using media fragments URI for anchoring and the Open Annotation core for anchoring
16:34:38 [raphael]
LinkedTV core ontology:
16:35:00 [tilgovi]
16:35:04 [azaroth]
16:35:06 [TimCole]
Maryland Institute for the Humanities:
16:35:13 [tilgovi]
mgylling: IDPF has been doing work on bundling annotations, etc
16:35:16 [raphael]
s/Open Annotation core for anchoring/Open Annotation core for annotating
16:35:20 [tilgovi]
... I know of two implementations done, but we expect more to come
16:35:26 [tilgovi]
... we hope to follow any changes done in the model here in our work
16:35:36 [tilgovi]
azaroth: Who were the implementors?
16:35:38 [paoloC]
Video that showcases the integration of Domeo Annotation tool and Utopia for PDF through Open Annotation and Annotopia
16:35:57 [tilgovi]
mgylling: One in Korea, and another, PubliWide (sp?)
16:36:09 [raphael]
LinkedTV annotation server and SPARQL endpoint: and
16:36:24 [paoloC]
16:36:30 [tilgovi]
alastair: We use CFI in iBooks to map references between editions and provide a fallback for annotation anchoring
16:36:39 [tilgovi]
... As far as storage, it's just Core Data
16:36:53 [tilgovi]
... Forward compatibility has been something we have to pay attention to. With Core Data that's very painful.
16:37:15 [tilgovi]
... We have had to leave some things empty to be populated in the future, so as not to change the schema
16:37:22 [fjh]
CFI compound fragement identifier
16:37:25 [azaroth]
16:37:57 [fjh]
Topic: Data Model
16:37:58 [tilgovi]
paoloC: Who is using a triple store in their implementation (besides me)?
16:38:01 [tilgovi]
raphael: <raises hand>
16:38:55 [ericP]
ericP has joined #annotation
16:38:59 [tilgovi]
paoloC: In the last emails, it's been a little confused the difference between model and serialization
16:39:06 [shepazu]
ericP says Annotea used a tripple store
16:39:06 [shepazu]
16:39:15 [tilgovi]
... I just want to make sure that when we talk about model we talk about model and serialization as separate things
16:39:26 [tilgovi]
fjh: is that a consequence of how we're creating our deliverables?
16:39:38 [tilgovi]
paoloC: we decided in the oct 15 call that we would take the old spec and swap turtle with json-ld
16:39:45 [tilgovi]
... and a lot of the discussion came out of that
16:39:50 [tilgovi]
... (making lists in a nice way, etc)
16:40:07 [tilgovi]
... We agreed on that (the turtle -> json-ld) and taking out the sparql
16:41:35 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: Is one of the serializations less prone to attract discussion of the serialization? Is one better for focusing on the model?
16:41:43 [tilgovi]
fjh: I think the turtle is better for this
16:41:46 [tilgovi]
raphael: I think it depends on the people
16:41:57 [tilgovi]
bigbluehat: I'd like to see the turtle around
16:42:21 [tilgovi]
fjh: It's important not to lose the underlying benefits of the model and not get carried away with the serialization
16:42:33 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: It would seem to me (not knowing much about either) that having both side-by-side might be a sensible self-check
16:42:46 [raphael]
16:42:52 [azaroth]
ack paoloC
16:42:58 [fjh]
ack paoloC
16:43:44 [tilgovi]
fjh: I think some people think there's a fear that some people will be scared off by the turtle
16:43:48 [tilgovi]
... I don't think that's founded
16:44:02 [tilgovi]
... I think we should have both in the document for now
16:44:43 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I think we've talked about this before and Ivan has experienced this... when people experience unfamiliar syntax and discover it's RDF they get scared off
16:44:49 [tilgovi]
fjh: We just won't tell them it's RDF
16:45:02 [tilgovi]
... I don't think we should yank it out
16:45:04 [bjdmeest]
16:45:08 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I think ti might hurt success
16:45:15 [tilgovi]
fjh: I think you're making assumptions
16:45:34 [tilgovi]
... we're assumnig for some reason this is going to be a barrier to adoption
16:46:04 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: my take is that, as a rule, having more representations (if they're conceptually consistent) allows people to focus on the one that makes the most sense to them
16:46:10 [ericP]
-> OWL 2 Primer gives readers a serialization choice
16:46:20 [ericP]
q+ to show off OWL 2 Primer
16:46:31 [bigbluehat]
q+ to show off examples
16:46:50 [tilgovi]
shepazu: We (W3C) have seen many people, especially in the browser community, move on when the discussion moves to RDF
16:47:02 [tilgovi]
... I think if we make it a representation of RDF we're making a big mistake, shooting ourselves in the foot
16:47:04 [fjh]
16:47:25 [tilgovi]
... companies we have interacted with (not just browser vendors) have said they are not interested in RDF
16:47:35 [nickstenn]
16:47:41 [tilgovi]
... These same companies often specifically prefer JSON-LD
16:47:46 [tilgovi]
... They do not realize that JSON-LD is RDF
16:47:46 [azaroth]
ack bjdmeest
16:48:00 [tilgovi]
bjdmeest: Why don't we make a tabbed inferface (default on JSON)?
16:48:07 [azaroth]
ack bigbluehat
16:48:07 [Zakim]
bigbluehat, you wanted to show off examples
16:48:12 [tilgovi]
bigbluehat: does that
16:48:57 [ericP]
16:49:08 [shepazu]
16:49:35 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:49:38 [tilgovi]
fjh: we do make printable versions of recs, so I'm not sure how that would work, but I see.
16:49:45 [raphael]
+1 for following the ways of tabbing multiple serializations regarding the examples to be used in the data model
16:49:45 [TimCole]
16:49:57 [tilgovi]
... I hear what you (shepazu) is saying, but I question whether the first document they're going to look at is the data model
16:50:14 [tilgovi]
... I think the browsers have other reasons for saying they're not interested, I think they're smart people, and I think they can read two representations.
16:50:16 [bigbluehat]
16:50:42 [tilgovi]
... I don't buy the argument that RDF is such a scary thing. Maybe focusing on RDF a lot is, but not as one representation for examples.
16:50:49 [tilgovi]
... Maybe we should talk to some people, because I don't understand.
16:50:52 [azaroth]
ack nickstenn
16:51:11 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I have a lot of sympathy because I am one person who scratches my head when RDF is brought up
16:51:32 [tilgovi]
... If, as a group, we agree with Doug (fundamentally) that RDF is a thing that's scary then we should remove it entirely.
16:52:01 [tilgovi]
... Having a JSON serialization isn't a solution if these people are scared by RDF
16:52:14 [tilgovi]
... I don't know who these people are that don't understand that JSON-LD is a serialization of RDF
16:52:23 [raphael]
s/Having a JSON/Having a JSON-LD
16:52:25 [tilgovi]
... My preference would be to have both since I believe we cannot rip RDF entirely out of the spec
16:52:30 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
16:52:48 [tilgovi]
s/Having a JSON/Having a JSON-LD/
16:53:11 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I would be happy with a solution like (tabbed interface with different serializations)
16:53:28 [tilgovi]
... I would note that I was just with a person on Sunday and he joked that "at some point" we'll tell people this is RDF
16:53:42 [tilgovi]
azaroth: danbri
16:53:53 [tilgovi]
shepazu: People think of RDFa as something different from RDF
16:53:58 [azaroth]
16:54:02 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
16:54:39 [tilgovi]
shepazu: before we go to first editor's draft we should think carefully about who we're trying to target
16:54:47 [azaroth]
16:55:08 [tilgovi]
TimCole: Things are not static. One of two things will happen: people will hate RDF and recognize JSON-LD is RDF, or people will not be as scared when they realize they're already using it.
16:55:52 [azaroth]
ack bigbluehat
16:55:59 [tilgovi]
... let's make a decision before the first public draft, but I think times are changing
16:56:57 [tilgovi]
bigbluehat: <showing the playground for other examples of making thing less scary and showing the equivalence>
16:57:04 [tilgovi]
... Turtle, to me, is this nice base.
16:57:19 [tilgovi]
shepazu: fwiw, as I was reading the spec, I was completely befuddled by the Turtle
16:57:21 [azaroth]
ack azaroth
16:57:26 [tilgovi]
fjh: I was the opposite
16:57:29 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: sometimes people are different from other people
16:57:40 [tilgovi]
raphael: we will not find a solution that fits all
16:57:53 [tilgovi]
tilgovi: <stares blankly, trying to scribe 5 people babbling at once>
16:58:14 [bigbluehat]
JSON-LD by default, text/turtle as an additional tab...then...whatever else
16:58:17 [tilgovi]
azaroth: General consensus (maybe) is that a tabbed interface with JSON-LD as the primary one may have the most support?
16:58:26 [nickstenn]
16:59:19 [tilgovi]
fjh: The resolution would be that we'll keep both forms but add a mechanism to allow the reader to display the format they like.
16:59:21 [shepazu]
16:59:22 [azaroth]
RESOLUTION: We will keep both forms and use some mechanism to have JSON-LD as primary
16:59:23 [tilgovi]
... For the editor's dratf.
16:59:37 [tilgovi]
raphael: Process point: was that a resolution or a proposal for a resolution?
16:59:47 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
16:59:51 [mgylling]
17:00:07 [tilgovi]
fjh: we'll ask if there's consensus, but not have a vote
17:00:26 [tilgovi]
... I'm assuming, that you're asking if we need further discussion of the resolution that we're proposing
17:00:33 [azaroth]
17:00:52 [tilgovi]
raphael: we should not scribe "RESOLUTION" before we have a resolution
17:01:05 [tilgovi]
azaroth: is there any objection the proposed resolution?
17:01:43 [azaroth]
s/both forms/multiple forms for serialization/
17:01:59 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
17:02:43 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: We will have some examples, which will be serializations of a data model by virtue of the fact that the data model *is* abstract
17:03:00 [tilgovi]
... We were discussing whether or not we'd have Turtle in addition to JSON-LD... are we now discussing whether we'll have other ones?
17:03:07 [tilgovi]
... I'd like to move on.
17:03:08 [tilgovi]
fjh: I agree.
17:03:20 [tilgovi]
paoloC: Ultimately, we have to write a document. So let's have an understanding.
17:03:29 [tilgovi]
... Rob (azaroth) and I used pictures in the community group spec.
17:03:36 [tilgovi]
... We still used RDF because we have the Turtle
17:03:46 [tilgovi]
... I've seen abstract ways of defining these models that were not intimately connected to serialization.
17:03:54 [tilgovi]
... However, my personal position is that these ways always throw me off.
17:04:03 [tilgovi]
... Can we keep figures and the two serializations as we used to do?
17:04:08 [tilgovi]
fjh: I think we should agree to that now and keep that for the first editor's draft.
17:04:15 [tilgovi]
paoloC: We start with JSON-LD...
17:04:23 [tilgovi]
fjh: ... and we're going to iterate.
17:04:35 [raphael]
+1 for the proposal
17:05:17 [tilgovi]
Present+ Renoir Boulanger
17:05:33 [shepazu]
s/supporting shepazu/
17:05:48 [tilgovi]
azaroth: I'll spend a minute describing the current issues
17:06:04 [tilgovi]
... Serialization of lists is a current issue. In the current data model the multiplicity constructs don't use RDF list consistently
17:06:04 [fjh]
Present- Renoir Boulanger
17:06:13 [fjh]
Present+ Renoir_Boulanger
17:06:18 [tilgovi]
... Do we change to a model that results in an easier serialization in JSON-LD?
17:06:30 [fjh]
Topic: Data Model issues review
17:06:36 [tilgovi]
... The second issue is another multiplicity issue: should choice have a priority order or weighted items?
17:06:52 [tilgovi]
... Embedded content is a big issue: most current and previous annotations systems only allow textual comments
17:06:59 [tilgovi]
... so it is expected that the body of the annotation will be somehow embedded.
17:07:04 [tilgovi]
... The data model says that any resource can be used as a body.
17:07:21 [tilgovi]
... Hence, you could have a URI. If we have both at once we should have some way of embedding a representation within the graph.
17:07:28 [fjh]
17:07:36 [tilgovi]
... We used to use Content in RDF but they're not progressing so we *have* to change that.
17:07:48 [tilgovi]
... A recommendation is that we consider allowing string literals to be directly attached.
17:07:56 [tilgovi]
... Regardless of voting, this is a priority topic.
17:08:13 [tilgovi]
... Another issue is distinguishing semantic tags from from resources.
17:08:22 [tilgovi]
... We currently distinguish a tag by giving it a class of oa:SemanticTag
17:09:11 [tilgovi]
... Another issue: if we have lists do we need both sets (unordered) and lists (ordered)
17:09:14 [shepazu]
17:09:16 [fjh]
17:09:26 [tilgovi]
.... Another issue: Do we need to be more expressive about agents and provenance?
17:09:57 [tilgovi]
... Intended audience. This issue is about some resources having intended audience. Example: some resources may be better for K-12, some for university ... how do you express that?
17:10:04 [tilgovi]
... Also, Annotations could have an intended audience.
17:10:13 [shepazu]
17:10:26 [tilgovi]
... Should the annotation concept and document be distinguished? Another issue -- we decided not to have two URIs, one for the serialization and one for the conceptual annotation.
17:10:52 [tilgovi]
... This means we had to do the annotator and the serializer attached to the same resource. This makes life easier for consumer but is maybe bad for provenanenc.
17:10:59 [tilgovi]
17:11:21 [tilgovi]
paoloC: The "Role of Target/Body" issue is when we have multiple targets and bodies how do we distinguish and relate them
17:12:18 [tilgovi]
azaroth: JSON-LD context issue: the current context uses exactly the same names (e.g. hasBody) as the RDF, but that may be unintuitive for those more familiar with "regular" JSON
17:12:41 [tilgovi]
... The final one: should we, and how, do we allow literals directly as a body.
17:13:09 [tilgovi]
... The embedded content issue is, I strongly believe, the big one.
17:14:24 [tilgovi]
rayd: the proposal you made a week ago is still a viable way forward?
17:15:45 [TimCole]
17:15:52 [nickstenn]
17:15:57 [tilgovi]
paoloC: <discussing adopting content as text> The only advantage is to have no dependencies, but the meaning will overlap almost exactly.
17:16:28 [tilgovi]
rayd: There's a draft spec for bibframe in the library community that directly references that stuff
17:16:40 [tilgovi]
s/that stuff/content in rdf/
17:16:45 [fjh]
ack fjh
17:16:48 [fjh]
ack TimCole
17:16:48 [tilgovi]
TimCole: For our purposes, we would not want the entire thing
17:17:11 [fjh]
ack nickstenn
17:17:14 [azaroth]
ack nickstenn
17:18:06 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: from my perspective being able to embed small bodies is probably a requirement for many people embedding annotations in their system
17:18:13 [tilgovi]
... so it is probably important that we have support
17:18:26 [tilgovi]
... I have no technically insight into the right answer, but we certainly shouldn't build something if a good specification already exists
17:18:57 [tilgovi]
azaroth: We should ask the content in rdf group if it's alright with them if we adopt their namespace for work (minus the xml)
17:19:07 [tilgovi]
... or we should do it ourselves. These are the two options.
17:19:27 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
17:19:31 [tilgovi]
TimCole: Is anything else priority that we have to get to, or can we do it all on email after?
17:19:36 [tilgovi]
... Are there opinions in the room?
17:20:59 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: what's the difference in use case between a literal and an embedded resource?
17:21:34 [tilgovi]
rayd: I think there are two separate issues: supporting embedded content and allowing (or not) literals.
17:21:51 [tilgovi]
TimCole: even if we allow literals as a body, we may still want to accommodate embedded resources
17:22:00 [azaroth]
17:22:02 [shepazu]
17:22:14 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: to clarify, my understanding was that if we were take content as text it would probably be a limited subset (utf-8, text)
17:22:27 [tilgovi]
... is the only difference between these two types of body the only difference that you could have different metadata
17:22:28 [tilgovi]
17:22:35 [tilgovi]
azaroth: yes
17:22:39 [fjh]
rrsagent, who is here?
17:22:39 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. Sorry, nothing found for 'who is here'
17:22:46 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
17:22:46 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Salon7, john-salisbury, john_pederson
17:22:47 [Zakim]
Salon7 has MarkS
17:22:47 [Zakim]
On IRC I see dauwhe, tantek, ErikMannens, ericP, ujvari, Hitoshi_, renoirb, tzviya, ivan_, JohnPedersen, rayd, smailus_, RRSAgent, Youngsun_Ryu, Davis, shepazu, tilgovi, hioh,
17:22:47 [Zakim]
... paoloC, tac, raphael, TimCole, ArronEi, mgylling, bjdmeest, Zakim, fjh, azaroth, Morbus, Mitar, JakeHart, bigbluehat, dwhly, MarkS, stain, nickstenn, trackbot
17:22:52 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
17:24:16 [tilgovi]
shepazu: we have a tight charter, we should not do things that are about fundamental features of rdf. I suggest people who want to do that join the WG under whose charter this work is done.
17:24:26 [tilgovi]
TimCole: but the annotation wg still has to decide...
17:24:42 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: if we decide this is important for annotation then this working group has to do this work. why would we do it again ourselves?
17:25:04 [tilgovi]
raphael: this is all tied to the fate of whether the content in rdf document is still in progress anywhere in w3c
17:25:33 [tilgovi]
bigbluehat: I think shepazu's concern is that this conversation only affects rdf representations
17:25:40 [tilgovi]
shepazu: we'll talk offline and we'll address it some other time
17:26:09 [tilgovi]
fjh: maybe it's more productive to figure out first exactly what we need and then discuss which is the best way to address it
17:26:31 [tilgovi]
TimCole: the use case that motivated this was wanting to be able to talk about the annotation body rather than just the annotation
17:26:38 [tilgovi]
... in the case of text... is it HTML text? some other specialized text?
17:26:47 [tilgovi]
... (which may come up in the CSV use cases... or maybe not)
17:27:02 [tilgovi]
... We may have an annotation that multiple bodies... these are use cases which I think are real
17:27:08 [tilgovi]
... that require a way to talk about the text that is the body of an annotation
17:27:17 [JohnPedersen]
or if you wanted to annotate MathML - or does that count as text?
17:27:20 [tilgovi]
... that's not to say there aren't more uses cases where yo ujust want the string
17:27:47 [tilgovi]
azaroth: I sent an email last night with the various options we should look through
17:27:52 [paoloC]
Rob's email
17:27:54 [tilgovi]
... the simplest case is simpler than now if we allow a string in hasBody
17:28:20 [tilgovi]
... currently, we would do {"hasBody": {"rdf:value": "this is the comment"}}
17:28:31 [tilgovi]
... a proposed simplification is {"hasBody": "this is the comment"}
17:28:58 [fjh]
17:29:00 [tilgovi]
... however, if we allow literals, we have to allow this construct {"hasBody": {"@value": "This is the comment", "@language": "en"}}
17:29:20 [fjh]
17:29:38 [tilgovi]
azaroth: The concern is if you come from an RDF store that you'll get the language representation
17:30:12 [TimCole]
17:30:34 [bigbluehat]
17:30:37 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
17:30:40 [tilgovi]
... another concern is the distinction between (3) and (5) (using @type vs "dc:format", which allows any mime types)
17:30:53 [tilgovi]
TimCole: Another concern is that sometimes we might get a string literal and sometimes we might get a URI
17:30:58 [nickstenn]
17:31:25 [tilgovi]
... is there really a problem with allowing all of the examples?
17:31:41 [fjh]
ack TimCole
17:31:46 [fjh]
ack nickstenn
17:32:05 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: Is it harder, if you've implemented your own storage, to automatically spit out objects? No. But if you are aiming for true interoperability then yes, it's harder.
17:32:25 [fjh]
ack bigbluehat
17:32:35 [nickstenn]
17:32:45 [tilgovi]
bigbluehat: the later ones that inline the context is tedious if it's just a string body
17:32:53 [tilgovi]
... one of the things I love most about JSON-LD is the context object
17:33:46 [fjh]
ack nickstenn
17:34:08 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: there is another difference between an implementation that provides for both (1) and (2)... there is an on-ramp
17:34:34 [tilgovi]
... the implementation complexity of having to deal with different types is comparable or lower than the complexity of dealing with big, complex resources
17:35:11 [fjh]
randall: concern about allowing 1 and 8a, which might result in an ambiguity
17:35:25 [fjh]
randall: want to have consistent context
17:35:35 [fjh]
rob: they are mutually exclusive
17:35:44 [fjh]
17:36:12 [tilgovi]
azaroth: The last thing to point out is that there is no equivalent for (7) in literal form. It's not allowed to have a type and a language. That won't change any time soon.
17:36:19 [tilgovi]
... If you have to have a format and a language then you must use a resource.
17:36:59 [tilgovi]
TimCole: what we're basically doing is ignoring the preference and saying "you have to parse it"
17:37:03 [nickstenn]
17:37:13 [tilgovi]
... one proposal was to have hasBody and hasLiteralBody, but most people (I think) thought that was unnecessary
17:37:23 [fjh]
ack nick
17:37:38 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: brief point about the nature of the trade-off here
17:38:17 [tilgovi]
... one of the reasons people might accept that utf-8 was adopted more than utf-16 is that a broken utf-8 encoding is more useful than a broken utf-16 encoding
17:39:45 [tilgovi]
... the analogy is that we're imposing the cost of discovering implementation failures later if we allow simple cases because implementations may get on well for a while until suddenly something breaks in a complex example
17:40:14 [tilgovi]
azaroth: the distinction between (2) and (6), and (3) and (5), is going to be confusing to people. Having sometimes an "@" and sometimes not puts bumps in the on ramp.
17:41:02 [fjh]
17:41:43 [tilgovi]
TimCole: the only thing on this we've experienced in the past is that some people will assume the model cannot support the complexity they need if no one is implementing it
17:42:01 [TimCole]
TimCole has left #annotation
17:42:03 [shepazu]
17:42:21 [tilgovi]
fjh: 80% or 90% are going to want (1) for usability, but a naive implementor may then not implement the other cases.
17:42:27 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: they may not be naive, just busy
17:42:57 [tilgovi]
paoloC: If you are creating your own client, you make a decision.
17:43:07 [tilgovi]
... but if I implement a backend for interop then I have to accept different clients
17:43:11 [fjh]
17:43:16 [tilgovi]
... Maybe not everyone wants to do that, but our goal is interop
17:43:33 [azaroth]
17:43:33 [JohnPedersen]
17:44:48 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I want to make sure we understand there are classes of conforming agents here. We should make the conforming agents explicit in the document which we don't do now.
17:44:52 [azaroth]
17:44:55 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
17:45:00 [azaroth]
ack fjh
17:45:14 [tilgovi]
... If we think it's okay for a MUST and a SHOULD so that authors and implementors could conform to one, but not the most complex
17:45:20 [tilgovi]
... that isn't great for interop, but it is understandable.
17:46:10 [shepazu]
17:46:29 [azaroth]
ack azaroth
17:46:34 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: my intuition is that we should write a spec that encourages people to implement more of the spec but that gives a starting point so there are at least some implementations that conform to some subset
17:47:41 [fjh]
levels of conformance
17:47:44 [tilgovi]
azaroth: one way to avoid this is to have a separate property for literal bodies
17:47:59 [paoloC]
Maybe we could think of having multiple levels of compliance to the specs
17:48:08 [tilgovi]
... when you see "body" it's always a resource. when you see "literal body" it's always a literal.
17:48:20 [nickstenn]
17:48:45 [azaroth]
ack JohnPedersen
17:49:10 [tilgovi]
JohnPedersen: when we say "string literal" does that include being able to include mathml (without loss of generalization) in your comment?
17:49:34 [tilgovi]
azaroth: No, but you would have to specify the format of that literal.
17:49:49 [tilgovi]
TimCole: That's the motivation for case (3)... give the consuming application information about how to interpret that literal
17:49:56 [azaroth]
17:49:57 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
17:50:28 [fjh]
issue: how to specify language of annotation
17:50:28 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-8 - How to specify language of annotation. Please complete additional details at <>.
17:51:10 [fjh]
ISSUE-8: annotation is relationship of body target, hence they have languages but not annotation itself
17:51:10 [trackbot]
Notes added to ISSUE-8 How to specify language of annotation.
17:51:37 [azaroth]
ack nickstenn
17:52:06 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: to me having a separate literal body relationships muddles the line between model and serialization
17:52:20 [paoloC]
17:52:32 [fjh]
rrsagent, close queue
17:52:32 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'close queue', fjh. Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:52:33 [tilgovi]
... from an implementation perspective, detecting the presence of a key is similar in complexity to detecting the data type of the value
17:53:43 [tilgovi]
paoloC: I see a parallel to the tags. We had a separate relationship for semantic tags, but now we add a class to the body.
17:53:53 [paoloC]
17:54:30 [fjh]
17:55:24 [tilgovi]
azaroth: Agree with Paolo bringing back tags to the discussion, a lot of people will want to use literals for tags and bodies and that makes it hard to understand what is a tag and what is a comment.
17:56:09 [JohnPedersen]
resume at what time?
17:57:04 [Zakim]
17:57:30 [JohnPedersen]
what time are we starting up again?
18:00:59 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
18:02:30 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
18:03:15 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
18:03:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fjh
18:09:01 [em]
em has joined #annotation
18:13:21 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
18:13:50 [JohnPedersen]
thanks fjh and assuming that is PDT :)
18:18:17 [smailus]
smailus has joined #annotation
18:18:42 [em]
em has joined #annotation
18:24:11 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
18:27:37 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
18:27:47 [shepazu]
18:29:45 [JakeHart]
^^ Please annotate the above document.
18:30:02 [MarkS]
scribe: MarkS
18:30:03 [tac]
tac has joined #annotation
18:30:08 [MarkS]
zakim, agenda?
18:30:08 [Zakim]
I see nothing on the agenda
18:30:32 [Zakim]
18:31:37 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
18:31:52 [MarkS]
AZ: recommend 4-7
18:32:02 [MarkS]
...literals for the body
18:32:04 [nickstenn]
18:32:34 [nickstenn]
18:32:34 [MarkS]
... option 1 and 4-7. should not use 2-3. onramp for simple annotations, anything more than baseline, you end up in a comparative model
18:32:41 [MarkS]
...then it has to be 8b
18:32:54 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
18:33:20 [MarkS]
NS: right solutions would be to define levels of implementation
18:33:29 [MarkS]
...ordered by the levels of complexity
18:33:40 [MarkS]
...recognize that implementers may want to start more simply
18:33:52 [azaroth_]
18:33:55 [azaroth_]
ack nickstenn
18:34:15 [MarkS]
Paolo: level are a good idea. we have levels for our collections, different assets, et
18:34:41 [MarkS]
...option 1, if I have a triplestore, and it comes back with non-conforming text, what should I do?
18:35:00 [MarkS]
azaroth: you should convert to 6
18:35:13 [MarkS]
NS: not something we should have to handle
18:35:53 [MarkS]
azaroth: do we want to discuss levels then?
18:36:23 [MarkS]
[agreement to table modeling for levels]
18:37:09 [MarkS]
azaroth: if we have levels of compliance, we can then create rules for handling exceptions
18:37:29 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
18:37:36 [MarkS]
nickstenn: levels are realistic assessment of complexity
18:38:46 [nickstenn]
18:39:02 [MarkS]
alister: SVG had something similar where people weren't able to implement the full spec and no mechanism for indicating full or partial implementation
18:39:51 [MarkS]
azaroth: here is an example
18:40:07 [MarkS]
doug: features are not very popular
18:40:15 [MarkS]
18:40:55 [MarkS]
nickstenn: what is the distinction of a profile, how does it differ from level
18:41:20 [MarkS]
doug: i think we should talk to implementers to see how they feel about it.
18:42:01 [MarkS]
nickstenn: ietf's uri every implementation of this spec is level 4. its smaller then what we are taking on, but its been successful here
18:42:13 [nickstenn]
s/uri/uri templates spec/
18:42:22 [MarkS] can create a level 0 in no time, but everyone wants to be level 4
18:42:35 [MarkS]
azaroth: is this like CSS?
18:42:56 [MarkS]
doug: they build on each other, much like levels
18:43:03 [MarkS]
...they are sequential
18:43:05 [azaroth_]
18:43:07 [azaroth_]
ack nickstenn
18:43:31 [KevinMarks_]
KevinMarks_ has joined #annotation
18:43:34 [MarkS]
paolo: the effect this will have on the spec, I will start with literal and then describe resource
18:43:53 [MarkS] avoid levels becoming different specs
18:44:24 [nickstenn]
18:44:30 [MarkS]
doug: levels are not popular among browser vendors. people will push back against optional features.
18:44:36 [MarkS]
...need to talk to community to collect feedback
18:45:10 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
18:45:13 [MarkS]
alister: i would look at this and the more complicated it gets and if it doesn't fit our needs, I can't justify it to my boss.
18:45:33 [MarkS]
...we already have a "level 0"
18:45:40 [MarkS] will be good enough for us at some point
18:45:50 [MarkS]
...even with ePub, we don't support all of ePub
18:46:03 [MarkS] fact, I don't know of any ePub reader that supports everything
18:46:27 [MarkS]
doug: it may be that we do have the next level as an optional feature.
18:47:09 [MarkS]
nickstenn: i agree with doug that this kind of thing can introduce complexities that I don't think we want to deal with.
18:47:21 [MarkS]
...don't want to end up in feature detection land
18:47:24 [MarkS]
...thats not interop
18:47:43 [MarkS]
...clear precise levels, building on the previous one is the ideal
18:48:06 [MarkS]
...allowing them to identify which piece they want to focus on first, and having a shared language they can use to describe level of support
18:48:30 [MarkS]
doug: perhaps we should be flexible enough that if things go beyond the model, they are still conforming
18:49:04 [MarkS]
azaroth: anything that is not prohibited is allowed
18:49:06 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
18:49:31 [MarkS]
takeshi: certain profiles might be limited to device/platform
18:50:17 [MarkS]
doug: i'm leaning towards simplicity here
18:50:48 [MarkS]
alistair: simple fallback, if you don't understand what I'm sending, you can understand a basic set of it
18:50:54 [MarkS]
18:51:03 [MarkS]
18:54:01 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
18:54:57 [MarkS]
paolo: in terms of writing the spec, is it better to start simple and increase in complexity?
18:55:26 [MarkS]
...or should we write out the entire spec and then break it out into levels
18:56:24 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
18:56:47 [MarkS]
doug: have a specification, then test for implementation support, whatever doesn't get implemented gets moved to a next level spec
18:57:54 [MarkS]
benyoung: its dangerous to do
18:58:33 [MarkS]
paolo: this sounds like very short term planning
18:58:52 [MarkS]
doug: deferring features from one version to the next. builds momentum very well
18:59:27 [MarkS]
18:59:43 [MarkS]
ack nick
19:00:57 [MarkS]
nickstenn: to early to be talking about testing at this point. in terms of whether or not we do levels or what we think people will implement... I think we have a small spec now, easy to implement
19:00:59 [azaroth_]
19:01:01 [azaroth_]
ack MarkS
19:01:18 [kinjim]
kinjim has joined #annotation
19:02:30 [MarkS]
azaroth: too early to be worried about what will be implemented and what wont
19:02:39 [shepazu]
19:02:49 [MarkS]
...we should spec out what we ideally want/need
19:03:05 [MarkS]
nickstenn: we need to give them a language to talk about what they are going to implement
19:03:07 [MarkS]
ack do
19:03:14 [MarkS]
ack shepazu
19:04:24 [MarkS]
19:04:32 [azaroth_]
+1 to levels in the spec
19:04:35 [nickstenn]
19:04:36 [paoloC]
19:04:38 [bigbluehat]
19:04:38 [shepazu]
-1 to levels as static feature of the spec
19:04:44 [JakeHart]
19:04:52 [bjdmeest]
19:04:59 [azaroth_]
fjh: +1
19:05:05 [MarkS]
19:06:20 [azaroth]
RESOLUTION: The WG will define monotonically increasing levels of conformance. The editors will attempt to include these in the specification, and if not will have a separate method for recording them
19:06:48 [MarkS]
azaroth: if we have levels, does it help us embed bodies
19:07:00 [MarkS] level zero, we can require stringless rules only. option 1
19:07:08 [MarkS]
...that is the simplest case. most basic version
19:07:12 [nickstenn]
s/stringless rules/string literals/
19:07:15 [MarkS]
...Level 1, you should use resources
19:07:26 [MarkS]
...Level 2...
19:07:57 [MarkS]
paolo: can we ask people to use literals without language and type
19:08:30 [MarkS]
azaroth: level 1: 4-7 would be supported
19:08:32 [bigbluehat]
19:09:06 [MarkS]
paolo: level 0: option 1. then we have option 2 and 3 for language and type, allow 1 as long as you don't do 2 or 3. wondering if that is a fair request
19:09:14 [MarkS]
...rdf allows language and type as a basic feature.
19:09:29 [MarkS] are saying you can use basic literal but only the way we say you can use it
19:09:44 [MarkS]
nickstenn: serialization hides the details of lang and type
19:09:56 [MarkS] we require level 0 to understand that
19:10:00 [MarkS]
...i would say no
19:10:29 [MarkS]
...we are thinking about a default serialization method. as an implementer, i would like to say I don't have to worry about option 2 or 3.
19:10:40 [MarkS]
19:11:05 [MarkS]
ericP: you can further constrain RDF. I think its useful to pass this info
19:11:10 [MarkS]
ack big
19:12:13 [paoloC]
Pass contraints on RDF to the Data Shapes Working Group
19:12:26 [MarkS]
bigbluehat: i've seen implementations in json-ld that add a graph on to a simple annotation that adds all sorts of other meta
19:12:54 [MarkS]
azaroth: the reason i didn't put that into the list was to foreground the RDF nature of this work
19:13:56 [azaroth]
19:14:30 [MarkS]
Frederick: wouldn't you want to be able to express a simple string in different languages?
19:15:00 [MarkS]
azaroth: the proposal was to allow literals without lang and type, or use option 5 or 6. if you require both, you must use type 3 or 4
19:16:57 [MarkS]
nickstenn: no matter what language it is, I'm just going to print it to the screen. if I need more, I will jump to option 4
19:18:17 [MarkS]
shepazu: agreeing with bigbluehat, its too early to be talking about breakpoints for levels at this point.
19:18:58 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
19:19:13 [MarkS]
...plan to propose to WG is to work in github, and mirror on, editors draft, so that we can annotate them.
19:19:26 [MarkS]
azaroth: can we use our existing repo?
19:19:37 [MarkS]
shepazu: team says we want to have a different repo for each spec
19:20:15 [MarkS]
...the data model spec should be in a new repo
19:21:15 [MarkS]
azaroth: we start using this repo for only this specification and make new repos for related specs
19:23:14 [azaroth]
PROPOSAL: The model will allow literal bodies as the object of the hasBody relationship. Plain xsd:strings are the only thing supported in this manner, and not data typing or language tagging, or any other properties. Any other requirements will use a resource, structure to be defined
19:23:51 [azaroth]
+1 to the proposal
19:23:53 [paoloC]
19:24:01 [azaroth]
fjh: +1
19:24:20 [nickstenn]
19:24:28 [tilgovi]
19:24:30 [bjdmeest]
19:24:31 [JakeHart]
19:24:52 [azaroth]
RESOLUTION: The model will allow literal bodies as the object of the hasBody relationship. Plain xsd:strings are the only thing supported in this manner, and not data typing or language tagging, or any other properties. Any other requirements will use a resource, structure to be defined
19:25:14 [MarkS]
rrsagent, make minutes
19:25:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate MarkS
19:26:30 [Zakim]
19:28:05 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has left #annotation
19:28:12 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
19:28:20 [Zakim]
19:28:35 [Zakim]
19:28:37 [Zakim]
DPUB_ANNO WG()11:00AM has ended
19:28:37 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.845.537.aaaa, +1.434.971.aabb, john-salisbury, john_pederson, MarkS
19:39:50 [mgylling]
mgylling has joined #annotation
19:55:48 [em]
em has joined #annotation
20:08:32 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
20:09:17 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
20:15:22 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
20:16:52 [em]
em has joined #annotation
20:23:35 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
20:25:27 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
20:27:36 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
20:27:56 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #annotation
20:28:41 [hioh]
hioh has joined #annotation
20:28:56 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
20:30:35 [tac]
tac has joined #annotation
20:30:43 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
20:31:43 [raphael]
raphael has joined #annotation
20:32:00 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
20:32:07 [tilgovi]
ScribeNick: tilgovi
20:33:41 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
20:34:31 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
20:35:59 [Zakim]
DPUB_ANNO WG()11:00AM has now started
20:36:06 [Zakim]
20:36:18 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
20:36:39 [JohnPedersen]
is the phone bridge going to open?
20:36:58 [JohnPedersen]
or has it changed from this morning?
20:38:03 [tilgovi]
azaroth: We have a first case where choice is some number of representations that are equivalent
20:38:22 [paoloC]
paoloC has joined #annotation
20:38:23 [Zakim]
+ +1.434.971.aaaa
20:38:25 [tilgovi]
... for isntance, different representations
20:38:38 [tilgovi]
... another case is where there is a defined ordering that matters
20:38:50 [tilgovi]
... perhaps where there is decreasing specificity, or some such
20:38:53 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
20:38:57 [npdoty]
20:39:06 [npdoty]
20:39:15 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
20:39:32 [tilgovi]
... A proposal is to use a real rdf:List construction which specifies "these things in this order"
20:39:33 [tilgovi]
... This solves three problems.
20:40:03 [tilgovi]
... 1) All constructs would serialize the same way, and the only thing that changes is the interpretation
20:40:09 [Davis]
Repeating for offsite attendees: Is the phone bridge open?
20:40:22 [tilgovi]
... 2) The desire to have an unambiguous priority order for choices.
20:40:30 [azaroth]
zakim, dial Salon7
20:40:30 [Zakim]
ok, azaroth; the call is being made
20:40:32 [Zakim]
20:40:34 [Zakim]
20:40:52 [azaroth]
zakim, dial Salon7
20:40:52 [Zakim]
ok, azaroth; the call is being made
20:40:54 [Zakim]
20:41:46 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
20:42:20 [fjh]
zakim, who is here?
20:42:20 [Zakim]
On the phone I see john-salisbury, +1.434.971.aaaa, Salon7
20:42:21 [Zakim]
On IRC I see fjh, naomi, TimCole, paoloC, tantek, dauwhe, csillag, tilgovi, raphael, tac, hioh, npdoty, azaroth, bjdmeest, Hitoshi, em, ivan, mgylling, tripu, ericP, ujvari,
20:42:21 [Zakim]
... renoirb, JohnPedersen, RRSAgent, Davis, Zakim, Morbus, Mitar, JakeHart, bigbluehat, dwhly, MarkS, stain, nickstenn, trackbot
20:42:30 [naomi]
naomi has left #annotation
20:42:33 [tilgovi]
... 3) there are only two problems
20:43:05 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
20:43:15 [tilgovi]
... 3) Actually, the third is that in the current vocab there are three constructs. If we have a list, then there is no distinction between composite and list. Simpler.
20:44:40 [tilgovi]
paoloC: In terms of interop, if you send me something and it says "list", what does it means? What are the semantics?
20:45:13 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
20:45:13 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fjh
20:45:14 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
20:46:30 [tilgovi]
paoloC: If you would like to classify the items of the list you must create separate constructs to do so. That's the only thing I have a problem with.
20:46:33 [fjh]
is there a use case for the potential problem case
20:46:35 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
20:46:48 [csillag1]
csillag1 has joined #annotation
20:47:15 [tilgovi]
azaroth: The issue is that if you want to know all the items in the list you need to follow the chain.
20:47:36 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I think I have a mild preference for the proposal as a whole on the basis that we're talking about data rather than a thing with behavior
20:47:52 [tilgovi]
... to me the difference between a composite and a list is a difference in how it's used
20:48:32 [tilgovi]
Zakim: agenda?
20:49:29 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
20:49:48 [tilgovi]
paoloC: maybe we should take an example and put it in a triple store and see what the queries look like so we know what's happening
20:51:32 [azaroth]
PROPOSAL: Accept issue 1
20:53:22 [bjdmeest]
+1 for simplicity
20:53:30 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I don't think most people are using a triple store and we seem to be arguing from simplicity of querying in that particular storage
20:53:35 [azaroth]
20:53:39 [tilgovi]
azaroth: this is a 10% feature, most people probably don't even need the feature
20:53:40 [nickstenn]
+1 in support of proposal
20:54:02 [azaroth]
( )
20:54:27 [azaroth]
20:54:33 [paoloC]
It would good to have an idea on how that construct translates to RDF and how the SPARQL queries would look like
20:55:00 [tilgovi]
+1 paoloC. I'm also curious to learn this.
20:55:43 [fjh]
+1 to paoloC on getting additional information
20:56:06 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: What should the semantics of an object be if I have the same resource in it twice
20:57:07 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #annotation
20:57:19 [tilgovi]
azaroth: in the past these would have been duplicate triples and therefore not allowed
20:58:21 [tilgovi]
... You must not have the same object twice in the members of a composite
20:58:23 [tilgovi]
fjh: Why does it matter?
20:58:36 [tilgovi]
Alastair: Does order matter?
20:58:47 [tilgovi]
fjh: I would argue that if you create a testable assertion then you have to test the assertion and why bother?
20:59:37 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: when would I _need_ composite
21:00:19 [tilgovi]
Would it help to discuss use cases that place a list or a composite in a body as opposed to a target?
21:00:56 [tilgovi]
paoloC: If I annotate data, I can have multiple targets in the data, but most likely the order won't matter.
21:01:04 [tilgovi]
... to me that's a composite
21:01:06 [Zakim]
21:01:13 [tilgovi]
... but what I want to convey is not that they are in order but that I am annotating them together
21:01:57 [tilgovi]
fjh: there's a risk that if you don't have a composite people will assume it's ordered
21:02:44 [tilgovi]
azaroth: we're not really weighing down the model by saying "this is a set"
21:03:04 [tilgovi]
Could we punt to individual use domains who need a composite to have a resource type that composites the things they need to group?
21:04:16 [fjh]
21:04:16 [tilgovi]
paoloC: in the composite or choice theoretically you can sub property and say something more about the roles of each item
21:04:21 [tilgovi]
... now we totally lose that
21:04:38 [tilgovi]
... we can build that outside, and maybe that's better... wait and see who needs that
21:04:45 [tilgovi]
... but we should understand what we lose
21:04:54 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: is it worth considering that we accept part of the proposal
21:05:10 [tilgovi]
... composite remains, but list and choice become list
21:06:16 [tilgovi]
I'd point out that choice is actually just a list of an item and a composite
21:06:38 [bjdmeest]
21:06:45 [fjh]
21:07:02 [azaroth]
21:07:02 [azaroth]
"@type": oa:Composite",
21:07:02 [azaroth]
"item": [Target1, Target2]
21:07:04 [azaroth]
21:07:06 [azaroth]
21:07:08 [azaroth]
"@type": "oa:List",
21:07:10 [azaroth]
"members": [Target1, Target2]
21:07:12 [azaroth]
21:07:41 [azaroth]
21:07:47 [azaroth]
"@type": "oa:Choice",
21:07:54 [azaroth]
"members": [Target1, Target2]
21:07:55 [azaroth]
21:08:26 [tilgovi]
azaroth: on the wire they are all the same, but
21:08:36 [tilgovi]
... in list and choice the object of the members predicate is an rdf:list
21:08:49 [tilgovi]
... in composite, the order is not important
21:09:05 [tilgovi]
Can you describe the difference between choice and list?
21:09:11 [tilgovi]
azaroth: in choice you pick one
21:10:52 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #annotation
21:12:03 [fjh]
21:14:57 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: the most obvious use case seems to me to be multiple targets
21:15:34 [tilgovi]
... targets may or may not have an ordering
21:16:12 [tilgovi]
azaroth: "I like these six stars" and "These six starts make up the ___ construct"... the first order doesn't matter but in the second we probably wish to put them in order
21:17:11 [tilgovi]
fjh: maybe we shouldn't belabor this and we should just keep all three for now
21:17:50 [tilgovi]
azaroth: I was going to agree with the optimization use case, where you may be incrementally finding targets in the order they appear in a document while incrementally parsing / scanning
21:18:11 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: seriously improtant optimization. consider searching for targets and stopping at the edge of the viewport, then searching for the rest as you continue
21:18:38 [azaroth]
PROPOSAL: Accept the model that generates the above serialization
21:18:49 [nickstenn]
21:18:54 [fjh]
21:18:57 [paoloC]
21:19:12 [TimCole]
21:19:13 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #annotation
21:19:22 [tilgovi]
before I accept this, can we state whether there's any inheritance relatinoship between these multiplicity clasess?
21:19:35 [nickstenn]
s/before/tilgovi: before/
21:19:38 [tilgovi]
fjh: isn't it sensible to say the answer is no?
21:19:41 [tilgovi]
azaroth: I think the answer is no
21:19:45 [tilgovi]
... we should defer the question
21:20:21 [tilgovi]
paoloC: did we talk about list of composite things? just put in the notes that we don't disallow nesting.
21:20:29 [fjh]
not defer, if nobody cannot live with it, lets decide now
21:20:41 [azaroth]
21:20:41 [tilgovi]
21:20:43 [ujvari]
21:20:53 [bjdmeest]
21:21:12 [fjh]
RESOLUTION: Accept the model that generates the above serialization
21:21:24 [tilgovi]
azaroth: the only other issue we starred at the beginning of the day was "should annotation concept and document be distinguished?"
21:21:35 [fjh]
on issue #10
21:21:57 [tilgovi]
21:22:03 [fjh]
21:22:17 [tilgovi]
paoloC: It seems that the reason this has been brought up again is because of provenance
21:22:25 [tilgovi]
... sometimes I need to know who created the conceptual annotation and who created the digital artifact
21:23:07 [tilgovi]
... If you need to have a distinction and we don't want to deal with it in the model then we have to split the annotation into two
21:23:27 [tilgovi]
... I think we can probably sort that out using provenance vocabulary
21:26:11 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
21:26:30 [tilgovi]
paoloC: the way I do it is that I have one new relationship that avoids a lot of triples from prov
21:27:05 [tilgovi]
(everyone looking at Appendix A, Figure A:
21:27:32 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I do not understand how you would do this in a complicated case, but it is my intuition that such a case is a very small subset of people who would use this
21:27:44 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
21:27:52 [tilgovi]
... as long as we're not ruling out their use cases, we needn't have all that expressivity in our model
21:27:57 [fjh]
21:30:19 [mgylling_]
mgylling_ has joined #annotation
21:32:58 [tilgovi]
azaroth: we could say "annotatedBy" means ___ and if you want something else you can use something else
21:33:20 [tilgovi]
TimCole: It was thought to be a practical solution that you colud have multiple annotatedBy's by having more resources
21:33:33 [tilgovi]
paoloC: I wonder if there are use cases within this community where this will matter
21:34:06 [JakeHart]
paoloC: was talking about ebooks.
21:34:08 [daveL]
daveL has joined #annotation
21:34:37 [daveL]
present+ DaveLewis
21:35:00 [azaroth]
RESOLUTION: We will not split annotation into document/concept.
21:35:11 [azaroth]
ISSUE: What are the exact semantics of oa:annotatedBy
21:35:11 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-9 - What are the exact semantics of oa:annotatedby. Please complete additional details at <>.
21:35:16 [paoloC_]
paoloC_ has joined #annotation
21:35:28 [bjdmeest_]
bjdmeest_ has joined #annotation
21:35:39 [shepazu]
21:35:58 [fjh]
ack shepazu
21:36:09 [bjdmeest_]
bjdmeest_ has joined #annotation
21:36:09 [tilgovi]
21:36:35 [hioh_]
hioh_ has joined #annotation
21:36:54 [azaroth]
PROPOSAL: We will not split annotation into document/concept.
21:37:03 [azaroth]
RESOLUTION: We will not split annotation into document/concept.
21:37:19 [azaroth]
21:37:50 [fjh]
tilgovi: can have more than one annotated by?
21:37:55 [fjh]
azaroth: yes
21:38:46 [fjh]
21:39:05 [fjh]
ack tilgovii
21:39:10 [fjh]
21:39:29 [fjh]
ack tilgo
21:39:37 [azaroth]
ISSUE: Can we have a list of agents as the object of oa:annotatedBy?
21:39:37 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-10 - Can we have a list of agents as the object of oa:annotatedby?. Please complete additional details at <>.
21:40:19 [tilgovi]
azaroth: as far as I can tell we have gone through all the critical decisions that we have to before publishing the first working draft
21:43:06 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
21:44:26 [Davis]
I have to leave for the day. Thanks everyone, very interesting stuff.
21:47:50 [naomi_]
naomi_ has joined #annotation
21:57:50 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
21:57:53 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has joined #annotation
21:58:06 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has left #annotation
21:58:50 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #annotation
22:01:11 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
22:04:56 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
22:05:54 [Zakim]
- +1.434.971.aaaa
22:06:11 [tac]
tac has joined #annotation
22:07:38 [npdoty_]
npdoty_ has joined #annotation
22:08:00 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
22:09:56 [tilgovi]
azaroth: (recapping issues)
22:10:04 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
22:10:26 [tilgovi]
... (describing robust anchoring) the issue of a client wanting to know when its selector should anchor to a particular piece of content or not
22:10:44 [tilgovi]
... for instance, a position selector is not enough information to know if the string at that position is the same as it was when the annotation was created
22:10:58 [tilgovi]
... for some use cases where the content of a resource changes
22:14:05 [tilgovi]
azaroth: if browsers would support this kind of functionality natively we would have a better time implementing things
22:14:23 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: I would like to know how the conversation went yesterday. I have a deep hesitation for specifying too much of this right now.
22:14:50 [tilgovi]
... I think it would be very useful if specifications encourage user agents to have a canonical representation of a document (in theory, this is already there, in practice it's not)
22:15:03 [tilgovi]
... The algorithms and selector types, etc, I have no idea what that would look like and I wouldn't want to stifle innovation
22:15:16 [tilgovi]
... But it's obvious that there's a need to extract a canonical string of text or range of video, etc.
22:15:25 [fjh]
zakim, where am i?
22:15:25 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, fjh.
22:16:02 [shepazu]
22:16:17 [tilgovi]
Alastair: I have a fairly deep understanding of the anchors (I was part of the CFI authorship for the epub wg)
22:16:23 [tilgovi]
... basically, cfi breaks down into location and assertion
22:16:33 [tilgovi]
... a location is "this is where I think it is" and an assertion is "this is what I expect to be here"
22:17:08 [tilgovi]
... Things we've done with CFI to keep in mind: we slice and dice HTML to provide better user experience
22:17:21 [tilgovi]
... We do snippets of chapters and cut out parts and then show annotations on top
22:17:49 [tilgovi]
... CFI is pretty dumb in a nice way that means they're just numbers that are ordered in document order
22:17:51 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
22:17:57 [shepazu]
22:18:28 [tilgovi]
... the way that epubs are authored they can be more or less robust, depending on whether ids are provided on spans, spine elements, paragraphs, etc
22:18:43 [tilgovi]
... we also, when we do an update, if we find things we orphan them but don't get rid of them
22:18:48 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
22:19:09 [tilgovi]
shepazu: So the robustness there relies upon an authoring practice?
22:19:16 [tilgovi]
Alastair: Yes, which you can't depend upon.
22:19:24 [tilgovi]
... It does, to a certain extent, have some robustness.
22:19:27 [shepazu]
22:20:09 [tilgovi]
shepazu: does cfi work with other things besides text?
22:20:14 [tilgovi]
Tzviya: yes
22:20:28 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I think we agree that the dumbest, least computationally expensive, selectors should be used first
22:20:36 [tzviya]
tzviya has joined #annotation
22:20:38 [tilgovi]
... that seems uncontroversial
22:20:48 [azaroth]
22:21:16 [fjh]
ack shepazu
22:21:43 [fjh]
ack azaroth
22:22:14 [tilgovi]
azaroth: (hat off, personally) I think it's uncontroversial, but with the addendum that there's concern you use rich assertions to reconstruct an object which is otherwise DRM'd
22:22:24 [tilgovi]
... so there are situations where it's undesireable to use quotations
22:22:57 [ArronEi_]
ArronEi_ has joined #annotation
22:22:58 [tilgovi]
shepazu: Everything I have seen suggests that aggregation of works which serve a different purpose is not a problem
22:23:08 [tzviya]
22:23:10 [tilgovi]
... it is the reconstruction, not the publication of the quotations, that might be a problem
22:23:22 [tilgovi]
... the WG might not be the best place to speculate about legal issues
22:23:41 [tilgovi]
tzviya: I've done a lot of work on the epub specification
22:23:49 [tilgovi]
... ebooks have so much legal stuff around them
22:24:01 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
22:24:01 [tilgovi]
... don't think about it or nothing will get done
22:24:14 [csillag]
22:24:15 [tilgovi]
... the legal implications are up to the implementors and the authors
22:25:12 [tilgovi]
Alastair: we prevent you from making annotations that are copied text that are too large
22:25:16 [tilgovi]
... doesn't need to be in the spec
22:25:42 [tilgovi]
csillag: I wanted to say that we have implemented our strategies for working with selectors and coming up with matches
22:25:52 [tilgovi]
... in a way that they expect to find the quote and context to be available in the selector
22:26:12 [tilgovi]
... but even if they are not, we just don't have an assertion. We can locate without assertions, there's just no guarantee it's the same thing.
22:26:28 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I don't think the spec is going to require that any given selector be saved
22:26:36 [tilgovi]
... no one is obliged to save a quote
22:27:14 [shepazu]
22:27:28 [tilgovi]
paoloC_: legal issues aside, I need the text quote or interop is not going to happen in between formats
22:27:58 [tilgovi]
nickstenn: part of the reason that is true is because there is no concept of canonicalization across different representations
22:28:13 [tilgovi]
... if there were, then perhaps you could use more selectors on documents in different formats
22:28:20 [fjh]
22:28:22 [tilgovi]
azaroth: also applies to selection by quote
22:28:32 [tilgovi]
... character encodings, etc
22:28:55 [tilgovi]
paoloC_: for instance, for pdfs, they've tried to understand the structure of the document of the pdf so the pieces are very well defined
22:29:05 [tilgovi]
... I don't know if this is reasonable or possible for other formats, or to what extent
22:29:05 [azaroth]
ack tzviya
22:29:09 [azaroth]
ack csillag
22:29:15 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
22:30:22 [tilgovi]
shepazu: I'm going to give a visual tour of what we're trying to do, and then you (social) can do the same
22:30:32 [tilgovi]
... maybe start with a couple 3-5m presentations
22:30:34 [tilgovi]
... is that alright?
22:30:58 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #annotation
22:31:01 [KevinMarks]
I thought humming was an IETF thing
22:31:13 [shepazu]
22:31:15 [evanpro]
evanpro has joined #annotation
22:31:18 [tilgovi]
ScribeNick: nickstenn
22:31:19 [evanpro]
Hi everyone!
22:31:31 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
22:31:44 [cwebber2]
cwebber2 has joined #annotation
22:31:48 [dret]
dret has joined #annotation
22:31:51 [oshepherd]
oshepherd has joined #annotation
22:31:53 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #annotation
22:31:57 [elf-pavlik]
elf-pavlik has joined #annotation
22:32:02 [EdK]
EdK has joined #annotation
22:32:09 [Arnaud]
22:32:11 [cwebber2]
22:32:18 [dret]
dret has joined #annotation
22:32:38 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
22:33:23 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #annotation
22:33:28 [azaroth]
ScribeNick: nickstenn
22:33:32 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has left #annotation
22:33:59 [raphael]
raphael has joined #annotation
22:34:58 [sandro]
sandro has joined #annotation
22:36:39 [rhiaro]
rhiaro has joined #annotation
22:37:56 [aron_]
aron_ has joined #annotation
22:42:26 [evanpro]
22:42:45 [evanpro]
shepazu: ^^^^
22:43:44 [KevinMarks]
is that this wiki? or is there another one?
22:46:08 [AnnBassetti]
AnnBassetti has joined #annotation
22:47:51 [Arnaud]
zakim, code?
22:47:51 [Zakim]
the conference code is 2666 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, Arnaud
23:05:32 [dwhly]
KevinMarks: have you considered supporting prefix and postfix in the fragmention syntax? for when fragments are short, and or the document changes?
23:05:49 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
23:06:55 [KevinMarks]
the choice of words should be unique within the document; you could use a fuzzy matching in the implementation
23:07:55 [dwhly]
So "the" would not be a recommended fragmention?
23:08:09 [KevinMarks]
no, not a good idea
23:08:17 [dwhly]
23:08:44 [KevinMarks]
I wrote a bit about this at
23:19:25 [fsasaki]
fsasaki has joined #annotation
23:22:35 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
23:23:05 [EdK]
EdK has left #annotation
23:23:24 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has left #annotation
23:30:34 [KevinMarks]
most spec-like text for fragmention is at
23:32:14 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
23:32:46 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
23:33:01 [AnnBassetti]
AnnBassetti has left #annotation
23:34:24 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: Suggests talking about HTTP API
23:34:45 [TimCole]
... LDP might be a way to go
23:35:10 [TimCole]
azaroth: azaroth is a member of LDP
23:35:12 [Hitoshi_]
Hitoshi_ has joined #annotation
23:35:26 [TimCole]
... But LDP is in Final Call, so feedback would go towards re-chartering
23:35:47 [TimCole]
... Should not expect to have our comments addressed in current draft
23:36:11 [TimCole]
... Might be useful to list out our functional requirements that need to be addressed
23:36:25 [TimCole]
... in order to identify what Social and LDP already addressed
23:36:56 [fjh]
from charter: - HTTP API: An API specification to create, edit, access, search, manage, and otherwise manipulate annotations through HTTP
23:37:01 [TimCole]
???: EPub in Japan contains the inline images
23:37:04 [fjh]
23:37:20 [azaroth]
s/???/Takeshi Kania/
23:37:43 [fjh]
23:38:24 [azaroth]
ISSUE: Anchoring needs to take into account images of glyphs, such as calligraphic japanese text. There's no offset or text to quote
23:38:24 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-11 - Anchoring needs to take into account images of glyphs, such as calligraphic japanese text. there's no offset or text to quote. Please complete additional details at <>.
23:39:05 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
23:39:30 [TimCole]
azaroth: notifying about creation, deletion, modification of annotations
23:39:47 [fjh]
23:39:52 [TimCole]
... we can use ActivityStreams / Social potentially
23:40:01 [fjh]
azaroth: notifications related to annotations might be from social web work
23:40:45 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: Atom doesn't make sense for us?
23:40:48 [KevinMarks]
notifications to users or to publishing site?
23:40:58 [azaroth]
23:41:08 [KevinMarks]
webmention is notification to publishing site
23:41:47 [tac]
ISSUE: some letters in HTML are counted not as 1 letter even though the appearance is one letter. In case we use offset as counter, it might not reach to the expected destination in different systems (non web platform).
23:41:47 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-12 - Some letters in html are counted not as 1 letter even though the appearance is one letter. in case we use offset as counter, it might not reach to the expected destination in different systems (non web platform).. Please complete additional details at <>.
23:42:49 [rayd]
rayd has joined #annotation
23:43:10 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: Doug's SVG shows publication to author, not just publisher
23:43:25 [fjh]
23:43:33 [TimCole]
... how to signal who should be notified?
23:43:50 [KevinMarks]
the publisher could send a webmention to the author?
23:43:53 [TimCole]
... Webmention is insufficient for everything we need to do. One option but not sufficient
23:44:23 [TimCole]
tilgovi: Webmention does this intentionally
23:44:27 [KevinMarks]
author webmention dispay
23:44:33 [TimCole]
azaroth: formalized feedback
23:44:42 [azaroth]
s/feedback/pingback or trackback/
23:44:59 [TimCole]
fjh: we do not want to do Identity Management
23:45:54 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: the Data model identifies the entities, but putting these together for notification goes beyond our scope
23:47:03 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: We should look at RFC 2668 covers linking and unlinking (HTTP 1.1 beta)
23:47:07 [fjh]
23:47:20 [azaroth]
23:47:23 [TimCole]
... in that is a defined protocol for sending annotations to other Websites
23:48:01 [TimCole]
... we may want to look at bringing this bit back
23:49:05 [bigbluehat]
the implementation in progress:
23:49:14 [TimCole]
azaroth: we should strongly consider the second link if it moves forward
23:49:45 [KevinMarks]
23:50:22 [TimCole]
shepazu: Can we talk about takeways from Web App discussion yesterday?
23:50:37 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
23:51:12 [TimCole]
... Doug is now showing the slides from that meeting yesterday.
23:51:46 [TimCole]
... will export a Web version
23:52:22 [TimCole]
... focused on idea of 'find.text' api, which would only be part of a full robust anchoring solution
23:52:46 [TimCole]
... this includes cases for which FragMentions would be insufficient
23:53:07 [TimCole]
... discussed some of the OA and selectors, e.g., Context Wings
23:53:33 [TimCole]
... then proposed a strawman 'element.findText()'
23:53:38 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
23:53:45 [TimCole]
... might pass back an array of matches
23:54:06 [TimCole]
... could include some options, e.g., prefix, postfix, etc. and would find closest match
23:54:34 [TimCole]
... feedback from Web Apps was that this seems like a piece missing from the existing Web
23:54:53 [TimCole]
... they also suggested using existing and prior art as much as possible
23:55:22 [bjdmeest]
XPointer was a suggested technique as well, I think
23:55:23 [TimCole]
... pointed out that the find.text() would need to be incremental (e.g., to slow to return every hit)
23:55:54 [azaroth]
Yup XSLT / XQuery / XPointer / XPath ... lots of research done on this topic in the past to not reinvent
23:55:59 [TimCole]
... so then you could iterate and refine your search
23:56:12 [TimCole]
... idea of confidence sore (how close a match)
23:56:33 [azaroth]
Also regular expressions etc etc
23:56:51 [TimCole]
... should have options like whole word, case insensitive, beacuse it would be useful for broader sense of applications beyond annotation
23:57:01 [TimCole]
... they mentioned polyfills
23:57:46 [TimCole]
... also mentioned that when editing the application, if it knew about regions annotated, could update regions
23:57:59 [Hitoshi]
Hitoshi has joined #annotation
23:58:05 [TimCole]
... also talked about styling range objects
23:58:41 [TimCole]
... psuedo element that uses these range objects (that you have found or selected)
23:58:42 [KevinMarks]
fragmention implementation could be used to make a polyfill:
23:58:59 [tzviya]
23:59:07 [TimCole]
... style would be allowed for properties that repaint but not those that require reflow
23:59:30 [TimCole]
... good to do this for performance and security
23:59:31 [fjh]
23:59:45 [tzviya]
23:59:47 [fjh]
00:00:26 [raphael]
00:00:27 [TimCole]
... like they did with revisit link, these would be visible only in the view, not the page
00:01:13 [TimCole]
fjh: Kristoff offered some suggestions of ways robust targeting could be generalized for other formats like images
00:01:20 [TimCole]
... but not a first step
00:01:53 [TimCole]
raphael: today we have been focused on text. Don't we also need to take into account other formats?
00:01:57 [raphael]
zakim, ack me
00:01:57 [Zakim]
I see no one on the speaker queue
00:02:07 [TimCole]
fjh: yes.
00:02:11 [raphael]
00:02:16 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #annotation
00:02:25 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
00:02:28 [TimCole]
shepazu: Turning to music annotations
00:02:45 [TimCole]
... muscians mark their scores up a lot.
00:03:14 [TimCole]
... on the example shown there are annotations and time signature changes from two sources
00:03:30 [shepazu]
00:03:34 [fjh]
00:03:53 [TimCole]
raphael: Can provide additional demos of music annotation.
00:03:54 [fjh]
00:04:39 [TimCole]
shepazu: not yet a way to render music on the Web, but it is being discussed (e.g., on Wednesday
00:05:03 [TimCole]
... sometimes need to annotate the underlying model, not the visual representation
00:05:10 [TimCole]
00:05:14 [azaroth]
ISSUE: Need a generic method to relay to annotation clients how to annotate the underlying data, rather than the representation in the browser
00:05:17 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-13 - Need a generic method to relay to annotation clients how to annotate the underlying data, rather than the representation in the browser. Please complete additional details at <>.
00:05:27 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
00:06:15 [TimCole]
TimCole: this comes up in other media, e.g., are you annotating the thought behind the paragraph or the translation or the grammar...
00:06:46 [TimCole]
paoloC_: for new spec need to know where and schedule
00:07:15 [TimCole]
fjh: We will be using Respec
00:07:38 [TimCole]
fjh: an effective meeting. We are done.
00:08:32 [stain]
thanks for all the scribing!
00:09:12 [KevinMarks]
did TimCole get all Wittgenstein there?
00:10:29 [tilgovi_]
tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
00:10:29 [fjh]
2possibility 3-24 april iannotate conference, possibly 22 for wg meeting
00:10:32 [azaroth]
23-24 April, I Annotate in San Fran -- potential for f2f meeting on the 22nd
00:10:34 [fjh]
00:10:55 [raphael]
iannotate conference is at
00:11:19 [AdamB]
AdamB has left #annotation
00:12:04 [fjh]
12, 19 Nov
00:12:26 [fjh]
3 Dec
00:12:33 [azaroth]
then not 26 (thanksgiving) and 3 Dec
00:12:40 [azaroth]
sorry not 26, yes to 3rd
00:15:29 [azaroth]
rrsagent, generate minutes
00:15:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate azaroth
00:15:29 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
00:15:29 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate fjh
00:15:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate raphael
00:16:08 [Zakim]
00:16:09 [Zakim]
DPUB_ANNO WG()11:00AM has ended
00:16:09 [Zakim]
Attendees were john-salisbury, +1.434.971.aaaa, Salon7
00:17:09 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
00:32:20 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
00:32:36 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
00:39:47 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
00:42:49 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #annotation
01:02:24 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
01:07:44 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
01:17:26 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
01:19:01 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
02:52:40 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #annotation
03:59:45 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
04:00:27 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
04:16:01 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
04:26:40 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
04:27:33 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
04:28:51 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
04:33:58 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
04:55:17 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
05:02:24 [csillag1]
csillag1 has joined #annotation
05:42:01 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
05:44:10 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
05:44:55 [npdoty]
npdoty has joined #annotation
06:09:28 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
06:47:18 [npdoty]
npdoty has left #annotation
07:16:12 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
08:10:15 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
08:30:57 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
10:16:18 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
10:16:41 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #annotation
10:40:34 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
11:17:51 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
12:11:22 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
12:14:33 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
13:16:04 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
13:24:11 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
13:42:15 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
13:50:37 [em]
em has joined #annotation
13:59:19 [em]
em has joined #annotation
14:02:57 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
14:05:36 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
14:07:12 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
14:07:16 [naomi_]
naomi_ has joined #annotation
14:23:09 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
14:25:24 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
14:33:35 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
14:39:20 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
14:45:00 [em]
em has joined #annotation
15:03:38 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
15:07:02 [em]
em has joined #annotation
15:09:20 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
15:25:22 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
15:26:01 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
15:27:32 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
15:36:43 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
15:37:39 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
15:44:31 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
15:49:52 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
15:54:49 [ujvari]
ujvari has joined #annotation
15:55:04 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
16:03:36 [naomi_]
naomi_ has joined #annotation
16:09:37 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
16:11:08 [RichardLitt]
RichardLitt has joined #annotation
16:13:22 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
16:13:45 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
16:16:23 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
16:18:31 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
16:19:56 [em]
em has joined #annotation
16:21:09 [naomi]
naomi has joined #annotation
16:40:53 [azaroth]
Mental note from #social -- they have the embedded content issue as well as us
16:41:13 [azaroth]
So another point of overlap that we should jointly explore
16:44:36 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
16:46:25 [naomi]
naomi has left #annotation
16:50:01 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
16:55:28 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
16:58:58 [JakeHart]
JakeHart has joined #annotation
17:23:36 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
17:26:37 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
17:29:56 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
17:41:17 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
17:42:37 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
17:44:07 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
17:44:55 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
17:49:34 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
17:55:38 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
17:57:30 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
18:00:02 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
18:04:56 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
18:06:23 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
18:10:04 [em]
em has joined #annotation
18:13:30 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
18:21:27 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
18:24:49 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
18:26:20 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
18:27:11 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
18:27:29 [ujvari1]
ujvari1 has joined #annotation
18:27:37 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
18:28:36 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
18:28:55 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
18:30:26 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:35:29 [RichardLitt]
RichardLitt has joined #annotation
18:39:43 [em]
em has joined #annotation
18:40:04 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #annotation
18:42:44 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
18:49:56 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
19:33:48 [em]
em has joined #annotation
19:37:11 [em]
em has joined #annotation
19:52:17 [em]
em has joined #annotation
20:00:35 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
20:03:05 [em]
em has joined #annotation
20:03:27 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
20:06:11 [oshepherd]
oshepherd has joined #annotation
20:07:47 [tilgovi_]
tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
20:08:39 [ujvari]
ujvari has joined #annotation
20:09:02 [RichardLitt]
RichardLitt has joined #annotation
20:12:28 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
20:15:58 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
20:20:07 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
20:20:59 [csillag1]
csillag1 has joined #annotation
20:35:05 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
20:35:19 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
20:37:22 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
20:37:44 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
20:51:39 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
21:00:12 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
21:05:09 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
21:05:22 [em]
em has joined #annotation
21:15:06 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
21:21:26 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
21:21:36 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
21:31:49 [em]
em has joined #annotation
21:36:18 [RichardLitt]
RichardLitt has left #annotation
21:36:40 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
21:42:05 [em]
em has joined #annotation
21:53:48 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
21:55:01 [em]
em has joined #annotation
21:55:04 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
22:02:47 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
22:15:50 [em]
em has joined #annotation
22:20:46 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
22:23:22 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
22:24:53 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
22:35:13 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
22:47:50 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
22:48:57 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
22:53:55 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
22:56:34 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:03:40 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
23:05:42 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:06:24 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:07:08 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
23:09:40 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:10:24 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:17:02 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:20:45 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:22:41 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:29:01 [ArronEi]
ArronEi has joined #annotation
23:33:30 [ArronEi_]
ArronEi_ has joined #annotation
23:36:43 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
23:52:37 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
01:03:40 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
01:11:31 [em]
em has joined #annotation
01:18:10 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
01:31:14 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
01:38:36 [shepazutu_]
shepazutu_ has joined #annotation
01:39:07 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
01:55:31 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
02:13:48 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
02:28:42 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
05:37:50 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
05:38:55 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
06:00:32 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
06:27:42 [Mitar]
Mitar has joined #annotation
06:31:04 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
06:37:19 [tripu-irc]
tripu-irc has joined #annotation
06:44:33 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
06:50:45 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
11:58:48 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
12:12:17 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
12:45:21 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
12:52:30 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
14:02:59 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
14:26:05 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
15:04:43 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
15:14:52 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
15:19:26 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
15:20:42 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
15:27:13 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
15:27:45 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
15:31:15 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
15:38:00 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
15:43:34 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
15:47:16 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
15:48:05 [ErikMannens]
ErikMannens has joined #annotation
15:50:45 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
16:05:11 [rhiaro__]
rhiaro__ has joined #annotation
16:08:04 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
16:12:25 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
16:14:02 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
16:19:26 [fjh_]
fjh_ has joined #annotation
16:20:27 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
16:24:11 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #annotation
16:53:37 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
17:02:21 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
17:10:51 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
17:11:58 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
17:16:49 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
17:25:53 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
17:31:55 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
17:42:08 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
18:08:50 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
18:25:26 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
18:26:50 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #annotation
19:00:01 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
19:01:13 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
19:04:37 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
19:15:59 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
19:36:12 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
19:54:56 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
20:05:07 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
20:14:45 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
20:21:28 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
20:22:11 [azaroth_]
azaroth_ has joined #annotation
20:28:45 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
20:34:30 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
21:01:50 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
21:03:42 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
21:06:28 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
21:11:29 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
21:19:33 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
21:21:54 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
21:26:10 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
21:30:08 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
21:32:08 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
21:38:10 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
21:38:54 [RichardLitt]
RichardLitt has joined #annotation
21:43:01 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
22:08:03 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
22:08:30 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
22:11:01 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #annotation
22:13:22 [ivan_]
ivan_ has joined #annotation
22:16:03 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
22:42:52 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
22:53:27 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
22:59:12 [dauwhe]
dauwhe has joined #annotation
23:00:53 [MorbusIff]
MorbusIff has joined #annotation
23:03:50 [dauwhe_]
dauwhe_ has joined #annotation
23:11:01 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
23:25:54 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
23:25:55 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
23:27:00 [richlitt_]
richlitt_ has joined #annotation
23:27:19 [tripu]
tripu has joined #annotation
23:29:41 [tantek_]
tantek_ has joined #annotation
23:51:16 [ivan]
ivan has joined #annotation
23:58:31 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
00:21:26 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #annotation
00:53:07 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation