14:03:32 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:03:32 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-irc
14:03:34 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:03:34 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:03:36 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:03:36 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:03:37 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:03:37 <trackbot> Date: 22 July 2015
14:34:37 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
14:35:17 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0168.html webex
14:35:18 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0168.html
14:35:27 <fjh> Regrets+ Ivan_Herman
14:35:42 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:35:45 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:36:01 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:47:32 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:56:42 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
14:59:06 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:59:06 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:59:27 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:59:37 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
14:59:46 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
14:59:48 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:00:00 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt_Haas
15:01:00 <Guest> Guest has joined #annotation
15:01:37 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:02:10 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:02:59 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
15:03:17 <PaoloCIccarese> PaoloCIccarese has joined #annotation
15:03:35 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:04:09 <azaroth> Scribe: Benjamin_Young
15:04:17 <azaroth> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:04:20 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:04:42 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:04:49 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 15 July approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/att-0156/minutes-2015-07-15.html
15:05:01 <fjh> Topic: Protocol
15:05:04 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:05:11 <fjh> updated draft - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0162.html (Rob)
15:05:11 <fjh> comments - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0167.html (Frederick)
15:05:22 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish updated WD of Web Annotation Protocol and share with TAG
15:05:31 <azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
15:05:32 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 15 July approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/att-0156/minutes-2015-07-15.html
15:05:52 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I made a bunch of changes to the protocol draft based on feedback
15:06:01 <bigbluehat> ...notably I moved publishing out of management
15:06:01 <PaoloCIccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:06:07 <bigbluehat> ...section 4 is now only about retrieving
15:06:34 <bigbluehat> ...if you look for section 4 in page source, you'll see XML comments for where each requirement comes from
15:06:41 <bigbluehat> ...all of them except 1 is from LDP
15:06:47 <bigbluehat> ...the other is a combo of LDP + HTTP
15:06:52 <bigbluehat> ...the Vary header requirement
15:06:55 <fjh> q+ to ask about renaming section to "Annotation Retrieval"
15:07:12 <bigbluehat> ...as far as I know we are not adding any additional requirements
15:07:22 <TimCole> q+ to ask about 5.2.1
15:07:28 <bigbluehat> ...the deletion section starts off by saying "if you support this, this is how you have to do it."
15:07:35 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:07:35 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about renaming section to "Annotation Retrieval"
15:07:36 <bigbluehat> ...POST, PUT, and DELETE are not requiremed
15:07:43 <bigbluehat> s/requiremed/required
15:07:55 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:08:04 <bigbluehat> fjh: purely editorial...it seems we can move everything up a level and remove the publishing and management sections
15:08:14 <bigbluehat> ...making the whole thing less deep
15:08:34 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:08:39 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the reason I had the headers, is that section 4 you could use any old web server with JSON documents sitting somewhere
15:08:51 <bigbluehat> ...section 5, you probably also want to support updating and deleting them
15:09:03 <bigbluehat> ...the two blocks are reasonably important for guiding implementors
15:09:25 <bigbluehat> fjh: maybe section 4 should be renamed to annotation retrieval vs. publishing?
15:09:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I was thinking from a server perspective
15:10:00 <bigbluehat> azaroth: 4.1 is retrieve...so I'm happy to merge 4.1 into 4 until such time as we have a second sub-bullet
15:10:07 <fjh> q?
15:10:09 <bigbluehat> fjh: the rational makes sense to me
15:10:12 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:10:12 <Zakim> TimCole, you wanted to ask about 5.2.1
15:10:34 <bigbluehat> TimCole: small question...in section 5.2.1 the choice between MAY and SHOULD in the start of the second paragraph
15:10:47 <bigbluehat> ...I understand why you don't want to have to assign URIs to all the blank nodes in the annotation
15:11:04 <bigbluehat> ...in order to use the various parts of the annotation, don't you want a URI for the various parts?
15:11:12 <fjh> q+ to ask about status of my  email comments
15:11:15 <bigbluehat> ...should servers be required to flesh out identifiers of the predicates?
15:11:32 <bigbluehat> azaroth: personally, I agree. I would like to hear what other people think, however.
15:11:39 <bigbluehat> ...it seems like quite an implementation requirement
15:12:02 <shepazu> q_
15:12:08 <bigbluehat> ...in our Trianon work...that took quite a lot of work to create and reconstruct URIs for all the resources
15:12:50 <bigbluehat> TimCole: it's all about minting the URIs where they have to deal with targets and that kind of thing
15:13:00 <bigbluehat> ...in paragraph 5.2.1
15:13:16 <bigbluehat> ...the server MAY assign URIs for blank nodes within the annotation
15:13:22 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to see that changed to SHOULD
15:13:38 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:13:40 <Jacob> Can we just add an additional clause that says, "and SHOULD assign a URI to Specific Resources" (and possibly other typed nodes)?
15:13:40 <fjh> suggestion from TimCole is to change "the server MAY assign HTTP URIs to resources and blank nodes" to say SHOULD"
15:13:45 <bigbluehat> ...alternatively it could be left as MAY, but use SHOULD for blank nodes and resources that are the subject or objects within the annotation
15:13:48 <azaroth> q?
15:13:51 <bigbluehat> ...and MUST assign one to the annotation
15:13:51 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:13:51 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about status of my  email comments
15:13:55 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:14:17 <bigbluehat> fjh: in other words some blank nodes might not need one
15:14:31 <bigbluehat> TimCole: for instance if they're not necessary for reconstructing the annotation
15:14:51 <bigbluehat> azaroth: essentially following best practices...use blank nodes unless you can avoid it
15:15:01 <azaroth> s/use/don't use/
15:15:21 <bigbluehat> fjh: wouldn't you want a SHOULD for assigning URIs?
15:15:54 <bigbluehat> azaroth: you have to walk the nodes and assign URIs...to get non-blank nodes
15:15:58 <fjh> q?
15:16:04 <bigbluehat> ...a more concrete use case
15:16:08 <fjh> q+ to ask about status of my  email comments
15:16:18 <bigbluehat> ...if I want to propose an edit, I need a way to target the body
15:16:35 <bigbluehat> ...if it's a blank node or a literal, then there's no URI to refer to it by
15:16:41 <shepazu> q+
15:16:58 <bigbluehat> ...the propose to go from you MAY do it, to you SHOULD do it to handle use cases like this
15:17:04 <bigbluehat> TimCole: we used specific targets
15:17:09 <_Janina> _Janina has joined #annotation
15:17:20 <Jacob> How does this proposal affect the "textual body" use case? IIRC, having a blank node as the object of oa:hasBody was a central part of the solution for that use case.
15:17:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: use cases exist for re-using selectors...it's always this particular region
15:17:32 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:17:32 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about status of my  email comments
15:17:34 <fjh> additional comments to be incorporated in draft https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0167.html
15:18:18 <azaroth> q?
15:18:20 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:18:21 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I agree with all of your comments and will make them before we republish
15:18:34 <fjh> section 4.1  remove MUST NOT, proposal and rationale in email
15:18:40 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:18:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:19:11 <bigbluehat> shepazu: if it didn't have an identifier for the body, then I couldn't target it...isn't that what we're trying to fix with selectors?
15:19:11 <fjh> Present+ Doug_Shepazu
15:19:27 <bigbluehat> ...that we can point to things that don't have identifiers on the web?
15:19:31 <fjh> s/q_//
15:19:50 <PaoloCIccarese> q+
15:19:52 <bigbluehat> azaroth: we could come up with some sort of selector (LD Path or some such), but that's not easy
15:20:02 <bigbluehat> ...this issue was tackled in LDP
15:20:08 <bigbluehat> ...in the LD Patch specification
15:20:19 <bigbluehat> ...the requirement there was to change a property within a blank node in a graph
15:20:31 <bigbluehat> ...the amount of contortions that you have to go through to identify it in order to change it
15:20:37 <bigbluehat> ...is not trivial
15:20:49 <bigbluehat> ...iirc sparql update has immense problems dealing with this
15:20:57 <bigbluehat> ...you have to identify it by property values
15:21:11 <bigbluehat> ...so if you have multiple bodies...you can't do it by order, because there is no order in a graph
15:21:19 <azaroth> q?
15:21:25 <bigbluehat> ...so it's much much simpler to give it a URI
15:21:31 <fjh> q+ to propose publishing updated WD after edits
15:21:35 <bigbluehat> shepazu: all of this is assuming a semweb infrastructure
15:22:03 <bigbluehat> ...it seems a lot of people will want to use this stuff without the linked data stack requirement
15:22:09 <bigbluehat> ...without sparql without these other things
15:22:22 <bigbluehat> ...does this assume that you have to have all that?
15:22:34 <bigbluehat> azaroth: no, but what you're proposing would
15:22:54 <bigbluehat> shepazu: when you start talking about sparql and blank nodes....I thought this was more accessible...
15:23:00 <bigbluehat> ...for folks that weren't buying in to the whole semweb thing
15:23:15 <azaroth> q?
15:23:17 <azaroth> ack PaoloCIccarese
15:23:21 <bigbluehat> ...I just need to understand how much of a semweb stack requirement we have here
15:23:32 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: if I understand, we're not saying you have to
15:23:49 <bigbluehat> azaroth: at the moment, we're saying MAY. proposal is to change to SHOULD
15:23:51 <fjh> SHOULD means you should have a good reason not to
15:23:55 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: my question is the following...
15:24:11 <bigbluehat> ...I'm obviously using RDF and mint URIs for everything
15:24:22 <bigbluehat> ...typically, they're HTTP ...blah blah blah...where my server is, etc.
15:24:36 <bigbluehat> ...if I reuse identifiers from another system, I should expect those to be resolvable?
15:26:00 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: are expecting the URIs we mint to be resolvable?
15:26:02 <davis_salisbury> I I did
15:26:13 <davis_salisbury> Sorry, I hung up. Wanted to test if it was me.
15:26:34 <fjh> s/Sorry, I hung up. Wanted to test if it was me.//
15:26:42 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: let's assume I want to use the JSON with minting as few URIs as possible
15:26:55 <bigbluehat> ...now I need to make them resolvable?
15:26:56 <fjh> s/I I did//
15:26:57 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:26:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:26:59 <bigbluehat> azaroth: SHOULD
15:27:09 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: let's say, I set out to make them resolvable
15:27:38 <bigbluehat> ...now I have to link into another system that should stay up longer than I stay up
15:28:01 <Guest> Guest has joined #annotation
15:28:05 <bigbluehat> ...is that something we want to recommend? minting URIs for all the parts of an annotation? and expecting them to be reused "forever"?
15:28:17 <fjh> q?
15:28:26 <TimCole> q+
15:28:35 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the body of the annotation seems significant, so maybe that should be a SHOULD
15:28:42 <bigbluehat> ...a style? a selector? a scope?
15:28:48 <bigbluehat> ...perhaps even a specific resource?
15:28:50 <azaroth> q?
15:28:52 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:28:52 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to propose publishing updated WD after edits
15:28:54 <bigbluehat> ...all of those seem more edge case to me
15:29:11 <bigbluehat> fjh: I have a suggestion. maybe we should get implementer feedback
15:29:36 <bigbluehat> ...shepazu asked some questions, the over all concern being that it's deployable and adoptable without requiring understanding of semweb tech
15:29:44 <bigbluehat> ...I'm not sure we can resolve it with discussion
15:30:00 <azaroth> q?
15:30:04 <bigbluehat> ...maybe we should publish this as a WD with a note near the SHOULD asking for implementer feedback
15:30:17 <bigbluehat> ...is there a better way to get feedback?
15:30:25 <bigbluehat> azaroth: getting implementer feedback would be valuable
15:30:36 <bigbluehat> ...about the actual cost of minting URIs
15:30:51 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:31:04 <bigbluehat> fjh: the SHOULD sounds like what we want...unless the cost is too high for implementers
15:31:17 <bigbluehat> fjh: let's publish another WD and then go from there
15:31:47 <bigbluehat> fjh: and then get more feedback and the TAG discussion could follow that as well
15:32:08 <bigbluehat> TimCole: if you think it makes sense, given PaoloCIccarese comments, it may the SHOULD only covers bodies and targets
15:32:18 <bigbluehat> ...obviously, the servers need to be able to mint URIs
15:32:23 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Publish updated WD of Web Annotation Protocol incorporating changes proposed by fjh in email and Tim Cole
15:32:25 <bigbluehat> ...it can be a bit of work
15:32:32 <azaroth> +1
15:32:34 <bigbluehat> ...but if we narrow it to bodies and targets perhaps its more acceptable
15:32:35 <Jacob> +1
15:32:51 <TimCole> +1
15:33:04 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Publish updated WD of Web Annotation Protocol incorporating changes proposed by fjh in email and Tim Cole
15:33:13 <bigbluehat> fjh: I can help azaroth with the publication process if that would help
15:33:18 <fjh> Topic: Data Model Issues
15:33:25 <fjh> motivatedBy/multiple Bodies
15:33:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the issue of multiple bodies, where the bodies have different roles
15:33:43 <bigbluehat> ...quite some discussion on the list without any real consensus
15:33:56 <bigbluehat> ...on the correct or appropriate result
15:34:24 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the concern was, for example, in the case where you have multiple bodies
15:34:27 <bigbluehat> ...one body is a comment
15:34:43 <bigbluehat> ...another body is an edit--a specific change to make to the document
15:34:50 <bigbluehat> ...the comment is some explanation for the edit
15:34:59 <bigbluehat> ...it's important for the client to know which body is which
15:35:10 <bigbluehat> ...the use of motivation can't do that in its current form
15:35:18 <bigbluehat> ...there was lots of discussion about how to implement it
15:35:24 <bigbluehat> ...one proposal:
15:35:33 <bigbluehat> ...to add relationships between the two
15:35:52 <bigbluehat> ...or to have information directly about the bodies--"I am a replacement" or "I am a comment"
15:36:13 <bigbluehat> ...or to have a motivation about a specific resource, so that the body resource can be used in different roles in different annotations
15:36:13 <Jacob> Why not have a separate annotations solution?
15:36:37 <PaoloCIccarese> q+
15:36:42 <Jacob> annotations about other annotations
15:36:44 <azaroth> ack PaoloCIccarese
15:36:44 <bigbluehat> ...or not to have bodies at all, but to have only one body and use separate annotations
15:36:51 <TimCole> +q
15:37:07 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: given the use cases,...I go back to firefox bookmarks....
15:37:22 <bigbluehat> ...if you have a bookmark that says, this is the URL I am annotation, this is the description, and these are the tags
15:37:27 <fjh> why motivations cannot be on bodies https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0152.html
15:37:30 <shepazu_> shepazu_ has joined #annotation
15:37:38 <bigbluehat> ...now my original goal of "describe the resource" is not achieved any more
15:37:48 <bigbluehat> ...the meaning is no longer conveyed
15:37:50 <azaroth> q?
15:37:52 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:38:10 <bigbluehat> TimCole: so, I'm seeing this as a granularity issue
15:38:12 <shepazu> q+
15:38:15 <bigbluehat> ...sometime I want to talk about the group
15:38:21 <bigbluehat> ...sometimes I want to talk about them individually
15:38:35 <bigbluehat> ...having each one as a separate annotation, makes talking about them individually, easy
15:38:45 <bigbluehat> ...however, I don't have a way in the protocol at least, for fetching them in one unit
15:38:53 <Jacob> this could be a use case for collections of annotations?
15:39:00 <bigbluehat> ...from the standpoint of the client, the easiest thing would be to send one graph to the server that contains both my edit and my comment
15:39:09 <fjh> original model proposal https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0112.html
15:39:12 <bigbluehat> ...what would the server do with it?
15:39:18 <RayD> q+
15:39:31 <bigbluehat> ...if I have resources that have direct containers that can contain annotations
15:39:42 <bigbluehat> ...do I have a way to have the client retrieve a graph with multiple annotations?
15:39:56 <bigbluehat> ...and at the same time allow one to retrieve individual annotations?
15:40:06 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yes....but you'd need to have one container for each of those sets of annotations
15:40:09 <fjh> TimCole proposal - allow containers to be used for publishing and retrieval sets of annotations (?)
15:40:15 <bigbluehat> ...it'd be a lot of containers, essentially
15:40:17 <shepazu> trackbot, make minutes
15:40:17 <trackbot> Sorry, shepazu, I don't understand 'trackbot, make minutes'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
15:40:24 <azaroth> q?
15:40:25 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:40:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:40:25 <bigbluehat> ...the client would need to create the container to then push the annotations to
15:40:38 <bigbluehat> TimCole: what if the graph contains more than one annotation...do we allow that?
15:40:55 <bigbluehat> ...and if it is allowed...there are LDP examples that match this for assets and liabilities...
15:41:08 <bigbluehat> ...there's still a resource that you can use to get both the assets and liabilities
15:41:15 <bigbluehat> ...but you can also ask for those two things individually
15:41:32 <bigbluehat> ...but I thought the LDP model made it pretty straightforward
15:41:33 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:41:36 <bigbluehat> ...but maybe I'm wrong
15:42:02 <bigbluehat> shepazu: I think that the current characterization didn't capture what I felt was important in the issue
15:42:13 <bigbluehat> ...how the two annotations relate feels like a detail to me
15:42:31 <bigbluehat> ...the real issue is how do we have an annotation that has parts with different roles that a client might treat differently
15:42:42 <bigbluehat> ...the other bits, like does this comment relate to this edit body
15:43:00 <bigbluehat> ...honestly, i'm not really motivated...that doesn't really concern me
15:43:23 <bigbluehat> ...that's not the bit I think is the important bit
15:43:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I apologies if I characterized this as about relating the two bodies
15:44:40 <Jacob> Not sure how this will ever be interoperable? Isn't it a really complex implementation to dig into an annotationa and then do something different with every body?
15:44:41 <PaoloCIccarese> q+
15:45:02 <azaroth> { @type : Annotation , hasComment: { chars : this is great now } , hasEdit { chars : patch } }
15:45:34 <rhiaro_> rhiaro_ has joined #annotation
15:45:54 <bigbluehat> shepazu: to me an annotation is not just this thing that says...it's the frame, it's the target, and the body
15:46:01 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it really can't be all of those things
15:46:12 <bigbluehat> ...say you're targeting a web page, and the web page is the annotation?
15:46:26 <bigbluehat> shepazu: no, I'm saying it's the bit that points to where the target is and that says what the body is
15:46:45 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yep, and the same body can be pointed to just like the target
15:46:55 <fjh> is this an optimization?
15:46:56 <bigbluehat> shepazu: so...this is where we differ...maybe it's something I don't understand
15:47:10 <bigbluehat> ...to me, the JSON is the bit that talks about the target
15:47:25 <bigbluehat> ...the URL to the youtube video may be in that body...
15:47:31 <bigbluehat> ...let's say I have an image...
15:47:46 <bigbluehat> ...let's say people are making comments on facebook
15:47:54 <bigbluehat> ...people are making comments with a bunch of replies, etc
15:48:01 <bigbluehat> ...somebody tosses in a meme
15:48:07 <bigbluehat> ...and others might reuse that meme
15:48:26 <bigbluehat> ...it's common to reuse a meme to say it's relevant to the current conversation
15:48:36 <bigbluehat> ...someone else may do the same...but to me that's a different annotation
15:48:45 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the meme example is a great usecase
15:49:03 <bigbluehat> ...the background comes from the semantic web decisions...the linked data...rdf model....
15:49:10 <bigbluehat> ...which is, that anyone can make an assertion about any resource
15:49:21 <bigbluehat> ...and that it's not limited by the scope of the document in which you're making that assertion
15:49:33 <bigbluehat> ...example: "that annotation body over there is in French"
15:49:37 <bigbluehat> ...or "that image is a jpeg"
15:49:52 <bigbluehat> ...it's not only true within the annotation or graph...it's a global assertion
15:50:12 <bigbluehat> ...if the role of the image in one annotation is a property of that image
15:50:26 <bigbluehat> ....then it would have to always be true....and therefore is an invalid assertion because it's not global
15:50:43 <bigbluehat> shepazu: that claim doesn't make sense to me
15:51:00 <bigbluehat> ...I could point to some image somewhere else
15:51:12 <bigbluehat> ...or I could upload the file...include the image as the body within the annotation
15:51:33 <bigbluehat> ...inline or by reference
15:51:47 <bigbluehat> ...but if I make that assertion
15:51:58 <bigbluehat> ...i'm not making that assertion about anything else but what i'm asserting
15:52:08 <bigbluehat> ...it doesn't mean that someone else can't say something different about it
15:52:24 <bigbluehat> ...maybe i'm suggestion someone else change their meme to use this one--making an edit
15:52:32 <bigbluehat> ...I don't understand what this global assertion is
15:52:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it's the rdf model...the global open world model
15:52:47 <bigbluehat> shepazu: that doesn't answer the question for me
15:52:56 <bigbluehat> fjh: it's not part of the annotation model, right?
15:53:11 <fjh> q+
15:53:11 <bigbluehat> azaroth: by using rdf, we inherit all of those requirements
15:53:23 <bigbluehat> ...if we said it wasn't an rdf-based model, we wouldn't have these requirements
15:53:27 <azaroth> q?
15:53:30 <azaroth> ack RayD
15:53:52 <bigbluehat> RayD: one of the approaches got missed
15:54:00 <bigbluehat> ...instead of multiple bodies submitted as annotations
15:54:06 <bigbluehat> ...they are actually annotations of a base annotation
15:54:15 <bigbluehat> ...it seems to me that would address the problem
15:54:26 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yep. we discussed multiple annotations individually
15:54:29 <fjh> it looks like we need to clarify the relationship of the high level user-view of annotation architecture with the implications of the underlying linked data model
15:54:30 <azaroth> q?
15:54:32 <azaroth> ack PaoloCIccarese
15:54:33 <bigbluehat> ..but we did miss the nested hierarchy option
15:54:45 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: this is not addressing what shepazu was saying...but something i'd though before
15:55:10 <bigbluehat> ...adding new levels is going to be just confusing
15:55:15 <bigbluehat> ...sometimes we'll have it...sometimes we won't
15:55:25 <bigbluehat> ...ideally, adding relationships that are better qualified
15:55:39 <azaroth> q?
15:55:42 <bigbluehat> ...having someway to tag the bodies seems like the simplest to implement
15:55:52 <bigbluehat> ...frankly having hierarchies....is going to be hard to implement
15:55:55 <azaroth> q+ to disagree with arbitrary subprops of hasBody
15:56:07 <bigbluehat> ...detecting when things are or are not hierarchies and then dealing with the variations...
15:56:20 <bigbluehat> ...all of these are possible, but i hope we can avoid implementation pain
15:56:27 <bigbluehat> shepazu: what's the hierarchy option
15:56:45 <bigbluehat> PaoloCIccarese: basically, you have one annotation, and it references several other annotations that clarify the parent
15:56:53 <bigbluehat> ...firefox bookmark example
15:57:05 <bigbluehat> ...one annotation that is the bookmark, another for the tags, the other for the description
15:57:11 <fjh> q?
15:57:14 <azaroth> q- (time)
15:57:17 <bigbluehat> ...the tag and description annotations annotate the bookmark annotation
15:57:17 <azaroth> q-
15:57:28 <bigbluehat> ...if I'm an implementor, then I have to understand the chain of annotations
15:57:36 <bigbluehat> ...and that it's trying to say more complicated things
15:57:50 <RayD> q+
15:57:58 <bigbluehat> ...we'll have to distinguish them, and the code will have to distinguish them, etc.
15:58:07 <bigbluehat> ...I like the idea of the relationships, etc.
15:58:09 <fjh> zakim, close queue
15:58:09 <Zakim> ok, fjh, the speaker queue is closed
15:58:15 <bigbluehat> ...but now we have a proliferation of relationships
15:58:17 <fjh> q?
15:58:21 <bigbluehat> ...and we'll need to understand those as well
15:58:26 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:58:28 <chrisbirk> does hasComment allow multiple comment bodies?
15:58:29 <bigbluehat> ...it could be a rabbit hole...but it still feels simpler
15:58:39 <shepazu> q?
15:58:53 <bigbluehat> fjh: main thing is are we having a call next week?
15:58:56 <RayD> Q-
15:58:59 <bigbluehat> ...azaroth and I can't chair
15:59:07 <bigbluehat> ...should we wait to announce on the list?
15:59:21 <fjh> regrets for next week from Frederick and Rob
15:59:22 <bigbluehat> shepazu: straw poll: should we do a call next week?
15:59:38 <bigbluehat> -1 skip without the chairs in the house
15:59:42 <Jacob> -1, especially since we'll likely need to continue this discussion
16:00:12 <Matt_Haas> -1
16:00:24 <chrisbirk> -1
16:00:43 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION no call next week.
16:01:02 <bigbluehat> azaroth: thanks everyone for the call.
16:01:08 <bigbluehat> ...i'll make the changes to the WD
16:01:13 <bigbluehat> fjh: thank you bigbluehat for scribing
16:01:27 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:01:27 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:03:48 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:04:24 <fjh> s/RESOLUTION/RESOLUTION:/
16:04:44 <fjh> s/thank you/we should also publish the WD; thank you/
16:04:47 <fjh> rrsagent,generate minutes
16:04:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:08:14 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:43:11 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:33:41 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:52:45 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
18:56:56 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
19:24:38 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation