14:46:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:46:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-annotation-irc
14:46:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:46:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:46:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:46:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:46:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:46:30 <trackbot> Date: 08 July 2015
14:46:43 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0029.html webex
14:46:50 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0029.html
14:47:25 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:47:39 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:47:56 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:56:14 <Guest> Guest has joined #annotation
14:57:55 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:58:12 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
14:59:13 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:59:45 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:00:29 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:00:30 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:00:41 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:01:12 <tbdinesh> Present +TB_Dinesh
15:01:16 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:01:17 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:01:20 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:01:24 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:01:26 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:01:30 <RayD> ray
15:01:32 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt_Haas
15:01:33 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:02:05 <azaroth> Ray
15:02:08 <azaroth> gah
15:02:11 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:02:12 <azaroth> s/Ray//
15:02:15 <azaroth> s/gah//
15:02:57 <fjh> ScribeNick: Jacob
15:03:19 <fjh> Web Annotation Protocol FPWD published, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0023.html
15:03:32 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin Young
15:03:40 <chrisbirk> present+ chrisbirk
15:03:48 <Jacob> fjh: Add tweaks / clarifications to the agenda
15:03:53 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:04:02 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 24 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-annotation-minutes.html
15:04:07 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:04:20 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 24 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/24-annotation-minutes.html
15:04:22 <fjh> s/Benjamin Young/Benjamin_Young/
15:04:26 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:04:29 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:04:32 <fjh> Topic: TPAC schedule
15:04:40 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:04:46 <fjh> doug: no need to change schedule
15:04:57 <Jacob> doug: no change to schedule, re: ivan had conflict
15:05:01 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: TPAC Annotation schedule unchanged, Mon/Tue
15:05:36 <Jacob> ... [doug] attending web anno but popping out to help with other working groups as needed
15:05:39 <fjh> s/proposed RESOLUTION: //
15:05:58 <fjh> no change to Annotation schedule
15:06:05 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:06:19 <fjh> Topic: Testing - Sparql based model validation
15:06:31 <fjh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0275.html
15:06:40 <fjh> fjh: is there an action here for someone?
15:06:40 <Jacob> fjh: is someone taking an action to actually do the testing that Rob suggested?
15:06:52 <chrisbirk> I can take that
15:06:59 <TimCole> here's the list of SPARQL queries used by Open Annotation for Community Group work
15:07:01 <TimCole> https://github.com/uq-eresearch/lorestore/blob/master/src/main/resources/OAConstraintsSPARQL.json
15:07:30 <TimCole> q+
15:07:37 <Janina_> Janina_ has joined #annotation
15:08:13 <Jacob> azaroth: should test feasibility and report back to the group with a summary of how it works, if it fufillis requirements, and what it would take to update moving forward
15:08:16 <PaoloCiccarese> q
15:08:21 <shepazu> q+
15:08:28 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:08:50 <Jacob> chrisbirk: can take this action item
15:08:54 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:09:28 <Jacob> TimCole: pasted in link to the Anna's list of SPARQL that were used for testing the OA community specs
15:09:36 <PaoloCiccarese> q-
15:09:54 <fjh> ack shepazu
15:10:02 <azaroth> q+ to offer help, & re protocol testing
15:10:03 <Jacob> ... useful starting place, could examine if they can be used to suggest the form of protocol testing, happy to help with that action
15:10:54 <davis_salisbury> Davis (me) has called in
15:11:19 <ivan> Davis
15:11:44 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:12:29 <Kyrce> I am muted on my phone, I am not muted on webex.
15:12:50 <azaroth> q?
15:13:07 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:13:07 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to offer help, & re protocol testing
15:13:28 <Jacob> fjh: confirming the Chris volunteered to conduct the testing, Tim volunteered to help
15:13:38 <fjh> s/the/that/
15:13:59 <Jacob> azaroth: also volunteering to help; familiar with Anna's queries, can confirm which ones still apply and which need changing
15:14:30 <fjh> tasks: confirm that query approach can work, review exisitng queries for needed change, share draft of test results
15:14:39 <fjh> s/tasks:/tasks - /
15:14:43 <Jacob> ... mentioned protocol testing, once queries have been examined, then protocol testing (for HTTP conformance) can be approached separately
15:15:06 <Jacob> ... once model is testable, is much easier, can examine whether or not headers, status codes are correct
15:15:13 <fjh> q+ to mention protocol
15:15:27 <azaroth> +1 to not testing protocol yet
15:15:28 <fjh> ack fjh
15:15:28 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to mention protocol
15:15:34 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:15:39 <Jacob> fjh: may be premature to test the protocol until collections and similar issues are resolved
15:15:40 <fjh> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:16:24 <azaroth> +1 to Paolo, re testing the /model/ vs testing the /serialization/  [which we can also do]
15:17:10 <azaroth> q+ to distinguish application level validation, vs testing requirements for implementation conformance
15:17:15 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: regarding queries, even if the rdf structure is changed, recompiling the annos out of the triple store, they can be compiled different ways, testing queries is helpful because they ignore the order (structure) of the rdf, however, it is a major task
15:17:47 <Jacob> ... in addition to this kind of testing, we need to consider framing and how to test framing, may be difficult to validate
15:18:01 <azaroth> http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-framing/
15:18:50 <Jacob> ... framing -- precise json-ld structure, (because serializations can be different)
15:19:01 <azaroth> Sample annotation frame: https://github.com/IIIF/iiif.io/blob/master/source/api/presentation/2/annotation_frame.json
15:20:03 <Jacob> ... annotation parts can be put into different places in the serializations, so client-side is complicated because a annotation can have many possible permutations of serializations
15:20:04 <fjh> q?
15:20:22 <fjh> q+ to ask if we need annotation canonical serialization
15:20:24 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:20:24 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to distinguish application level validation, vs testing requirements for implementation conformance
15:20:25 <Jacob> ... SPARQL always works, but other forms of validation will be much more complex
15:20:53 <ivan> q+
15:21:07 <Jacob> azaroth: verbally +1 distinguishing testing the model from testing the serialization
15:21:33 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:22:02 <Jacob> ... also application vs. incoming requests, etc. [lost some of the permutations Rob discussed]
15:22:02 <TimCole> q+ regarding whether RDF Data Shape Working Group might help address real-time validation of annotations as submitted
15:22:17 <TimCole> q+
15:22:33 <fjh> ack fjh
15:22:33 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask if we need annotation canonical serialization
15:22:33 <shepazu> q+
15:22:57 <Jacob> fjh: will we have to test canonicalization?
15:23:28 <fjh> s/test canonicalization/define serialization canonicalization and test this, will it be complicated/
15:23:44 <fjh> ack ivan
15:23:49 <Jacob> azaroth: simpler in our case because can test json keys and bits and pieces, similar to past epub work
15:24:35 <azaroth> EPub oriented json-schema for OA:  http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/schema/oa-epub-schema.json
15:24:48 <Jacob> ivan: framing document -- general framing algorithm was quite complicated and community group could not come up with a satisfactory algorithm that could be tested and meet the requirements
15:25:04 <Jacob> ... important to understand where the problems are when framing is defined
15:25:36 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/csvw/csv2json/#nesting-objects
15:26:07 <fjh> q?
15:26:09 <Jacob> ... useful to have a target to help define the shape of the serializations, one example of such a thing is csvw solution
15:26:15 <fjh> ack paolo
15:27:17 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: using framing for a while, normal framing works pretty well, using framing from CG to avoid creating own, easy if structure is simple, but becomes complicated when annos are structured
15:28:16 <Jacob> ... because of the SPARQL queries, was able to implement a two-level strategy for validation, one syntactic validation and one semantic validation
15:28:19 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:28:42 <Kyrce> ah. SPARQL. boooring.
15:29:21 <Jacob> TimCole: first, these are two separate issues, need way to validate annos to assure that docs are proper, however, most folks will not want to deal with rdf and so we'll accommodate that
15:29:47 <Jacob> ... one solution could be to develop some services that offload some of the validation work
15:30:14 <fjh> ack shepazu
15:30:18 <Jacob> ... need to face up to the fact that most folks won't add validation to their clients
15:30:49 <Jacob> shepazu: if this is the case, is there another way to test the model
15:30:58 <Jacob> ... problem seems specific to semantic web and not data models
15:31:29 <Jacob> ... specific entities (structures) might be necessary but not in a specific order
15:31:39 <Jacob> ... don't need to spend the energy on an rdf frame
15:31:56 <Jacob> fjh: need to clarify what our goal is and what we're going to do
15:32:16 <Jacob> ... Chris, Tim and Rob going to work on the testing of the model
15:32:56 <Jacob> azaroth: do we want to track testing related issues in the current git repo or do want a new/separate one?
15:33:10 <chrisbirk> I think a separate would be easiest
15:33:22 <Jacob> ivan: no set rule, in the csv group, we just have a single repo, but if it is easier to manage...
15:33:34 <Jacob> ... whoever is managing should give their preference
15:33:48 <Jacob> fjh: moving further discussion offline
15:33:54 <fjh> +1 whoever manages tests should arrange tracking
15:34:04 <Jacob> ... what is the time estimate for this activity
15:34:29 <Jacob> chrisbirk: sometime in the next week or so
15:34:29 <fjh> Topic: Model: Open vs Web Annotation namespace etc
15:34:47 <fjh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0011.html
15:35:01 <Jacob> fjh: seems to be general agreement on the list to go with the web anno namespace
15:35:22 <azaroth> q+
15:35:23 <Jacob> ... can expect additional changes in the future but no reason not to move to the namespace now
15:35:26 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:35:29 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:36:22 <Jacob> azaroth: naming change ok, best practice is not to change namespace unless absolutely necessary, personal preference not to change namespace
15:36:27 <fjh> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:36:38 <Jacob> ... should consider the namespace issue separately from the naming issue
15:37:16 <fjh> q?
15:37:27 <azaroth> q+
15:37:28 <ivan> q+
15:37:39 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: is web anno going to supercede the open anno name / namespace; what is the public message to the folks who have already implemented older versions of the oa model?
15:37:46 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:37:50 <Jacob> ... are we saying that open anno is dead?
15:37:59 <TimCole> q+
15:38:18 <Jacob> azaroth: don't want to change the namespace if we change to something that is not 100% back compatible
15:38:42 <fjh> q+
15:38:50 <fjh> ack ivan
15:39:06 <Jacob> ... market will decide on the name
15:39:43 <azaroth> s/the name/which model will be used/
15:40:24 <Jacob> ivan: problem with namespace issue, in practice, is back compatibility, old foaf files are still valid foaf files, same has been done with rdf and owl, those cases are clear agreements in the charters to focus on back compatibility
15:41:13 <fjh> q?
15:41:15 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:41:18 <Jacob> ... web anno has no such agreement, the message is that -- web anno is a more advanced version of the older open anno doc/standard
15:42:41 <fjh> merit to Paolo's concern and Tim's rationale
15:42:56 <Jacob> TimCole: understand and sympathetic to that position, CG members also understood that the working group's output was going to be an evolution; so if we create a new namespace it seems like it could bifurcate the community
15:42:56 <azaroth> q+ to note that the CG's work is a draft
15:43:01 <fjh> existing implementations matter
15:43:16 <fjh> ack fjh
15:43:24 <Jacob> ... risk that some current implementers may see the new namespace as a competing standard rather than a new rendition of open anno
15:44:12 <fjh> ack fjh
15:44:23 <Jacob> fjh: shouldn't change namespaces just as a "hygiene" issue, do we have a compelling reason to make the change?
15:44:31 <azaroth> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/
15:44:32 <ivan> there is probably no reason, fjh, to do it *now*
15:45:30 <fjh> I think we should reserve the right to change, but only if we need to, when we have good reasons. I don't hear that we are at that point now. Agree we can, but we should give it consideration later.
15:45:31 <Jacob> azaroth: final thought, CG did not publish a definitive document, output was a draft, updating the draft could mitigate some of the potential problems, so the namespace issue may not be a big deal
15:46:10 <Jacob> fjh: not ready to make a decision on this call, no compelling rush, can we continue this discussion on list?
15:46:51 <Jacob> azaroth: clarification, the documents should talk about web anno but not so with the namespace
15:47:21 <fjh> Topic: RangeFinder
15:47:27 <shepazu> http://w3c.github.io/rangefinder/
15:48:10 <Jacob> shepazu: range finder draft, primary change based on feedback, may need different kinds of unicode folding for different languages
15:48:28 <Jacob> ... changed from boolian value to typed value
15:48:33 <shepazu> http://w3c.github.io/rangefinder/#idl-def-UnicodeEquivalenceType
15:48:46 <Jacob> ... for the UnicodeEquivalenceType
15:49:34 <fjh> action: chrisbirk to propose model testing, review existing Sparql testing for Web Annotation Model (with Tim Cole and Rob)
15:49:34 <trackbot> Error finding 'chrisbirk'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/users>.
15:49:44 <Jacob> ... records which kind of equivalence is preferred, but not sure if browsers are going to be willing to something this complicated for unicode equivalence matching
15:50:26 <fjh> I think Doug is suggesting MUST for one Unicode type support
15:50:46 <Jacob> ... would be surprised if they do more than one kind, so we should probably pick one, should see if the internationalization group can make progress on convincing the browser group to do different kinds of canonicalization
15:50:50 <ivan> q+
15:50:55 <azaroth> q-
15:51:16 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:51:21 <Jacob> ... if anyone has any feedback on the draft would be interested in it
15:51:29 <fjh> ack ivan
15:51:50 <fjh> +1 to publish FPWD soon
15:51:53 <Jacob> ivan: can we publish this document as a fpwd?
15:52:27 <Jacob> shepazu: would like to make an additional round of editing to make the examples match the existing api, then would be ok to publish, so possibly by next week...
15:52:40 <azaroth> +1
15:52:47 <TimCole> +1
15:52:55 <fjh> Topic: Protocol
15:52:55 <Jacob> ivan: publishing community is interested in this, so publishing the draft will be helpful
15:53:48 <ivan> +1 to azaroth
15:53:55 <Jacob> fjh: Ray's suggestion for naming the protocol document may be helpful for working around some of the issues on the list, seems like folks are talking past one another
15:54:00 <fjh> q?
15:54:16 <Jacob> azaroth: Erik's concerns seem deeper than that
15:54:40 <Jacob> fjh: missing why this is breaking the web, what is the problem?
15:55:35 <Jacob> azaroth: my understanding, architecturally, a generic http client should only be governed by the http spec, and the reason the web is successful is because there is no typed coupling at the app level betweem clients and servers using http
15:55:48 <fjh> don't media  types create coupling?
15:56:58 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
15:57:07 <Jacob> ... the protocol doc tries to constrain this by suggesting a simple header rather than spelling out every permutation [?]; Erik's concern is that http doesn't require that every uri handle POST
15:58:01 <Jacob> ... if we agree with that position then we would have to have a protocol that requires creating annos using post, patch, etc. becausre http doesn't require it, but that seems to defeat the entire purpose of the anno standard
15:58:09 <fjh> q+
15:58:16 <Jacob> ... would make testing impossible and conformance meaningless
15:58:27 <ivan> q+
15:58:33 <fjh> ack fjh
15:58:39 <Jacob> ... everything would be consume only, whereas we're trying to get beyond that
15:58:43 <fjh> ack ivan
15:59:14 <fjh> we can ask the tag to look at our protocol spec regarding this concern
15:59:21 <Jacob> ivan: why is he happy with ldp but unhappy with what we have?
15:59:56 <Jacob> azaroth: could reuse some of the weasel words in ldp
16:01:49 <fjh> topic: Adjourn
16:01:59 <fjh> thanks Jacob for scribing
16:02:18 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:02:29 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:29 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:29 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:02:37 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:38 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:38 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-annotation-actions.rdf :
16:02:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: chrisbirk to propose model testing, review existing Sparql testing for Web Annotation Model (with Tim Cole and Rob) [1]
16:02:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/07/08-annotation-irc#T15-49-34