See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 05 August 2015
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 05 August 2015
<shepazu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0012.html
<fjh> topic agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0012.html
<fjh> ScribeNick: RayD
26 aug cancelled
<fjh> RESOLUTION: 26 August meeting cancelled
RESOLUTION: 26 August meeting cancelled
<fjh> String Matching and Searching draft is now available, http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-charmod-norm-20150721/
Ivan.string matching. doug looked at it
<fjh> Note that RangeFinder is joint deliverable with WebApps so we should plan of CfC for FPWD in both groups as well as heads up re timing
<fjh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0210.html
doug: think we should do a cfc, need to fix
algorithms
... case-sensitive matching recommended. described how to do unicode
casesensitivity
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 22 July approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes from 22 July approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/07/22-annotation-minutes.html
<bigbluehat> +1
there was a questionaire, not many responses, should we reopen?
<Kyrce> *shepazu, fjh no worries. But thanks, it is true that I get a lot of creative pronunciations!
re-open it, need to decide if there will be a meeting
(I won't be going)
Rob: september at the latest.
ivan: warning, airfares are increasing don't wait till last minute
<shepazu> now open until 12 September
rob: what number of people do we need?
<fjh> All, please complete questionaire
Ivan: more important, will we have the people we need
<fjh> please note that this is NOT registration for TPAC, you need to register for TPAC separately
doug no point in a meeting without at least 3 implementers
rob's going
paolo not going
<fjh> http://www.w3.org/2015/10/TPAC/
Don't know if Nick's going
doug: could be having a "testing" meeting
ivan: what about social web guys?
... cross pollination
fjh: is the deadline passed?
ivan: think we said we'd have a meeting
doug: they don't take kindly to cancellations
<bigbluehat> fjh: yep. I'll be there. buying tickets this week (hopefully)
fjh: think it will be productive, given the people who already said they'll be there
<bigbluehat> +1 for having dial-in
fjh: does dial in make sense?
rob: probably
doug: skype or IRC or webex makes more sense than dialin
<bigbluehat> the Q1 questionnaire is linked above
question about dates
<bigbluehat> what's the URL of the correct one?
<fjh> I will send out email reminder
<bigbluehat> got it. tnx
<fjh> Hypthes.is and JSON - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0194.html
bigbluehat: annotator doesn't think open
wordly, doesn't store enough
... hypothesis does better
... don't know where to put XPointer, maybe as a fragment id
... be good if could get examples, scenarios, maybe an annotation primer
rob: model documents should defend why a particular feature is there
<fjh> Thanks takeshi for noting the needed correction to the questionnaire
<bigbluehat> +1 to getting the JSON-LD context doc at a URL soon
<azaroth> +1 to both :)
tim (Not hearing tim clearly)
<fjh> s/tim.*/tim: need context doc soon
bigbluehat: thought experiment, native json,
like if wordpress started using json
... got valuable stuff but not ready for prime time. plan to reformulate
the json
... would be useful to keep track (on wiki) of the different annotation
formats used
<Jacob> maybe put the context document on next week's agenda?
<fjh> s/tim (Not hearing tim clearly)/tim: need context doc soon/
<ivan> www.w3.org/ns/anno.json
ivan; practice is to put it on w3c namespace
tim: if it changes is that a problem?
ivan: no
tim: useful if it was there, for work on validation
<TimCole> no, I don't expect to be at TPAC...
rob: should it have all the protocol related matters?
ivan: our choice
... does it have to include the ontology?
rob: will do a preliminary draft today
<ivan> anno.jsonld
<azaroth> http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld (yes?)
rob: another proposal.
... interested in the process by which we come to a decision
ivan: if you don't want to do anything with roles you can ignore it. Makes it more attractive.
<azaroth> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0036.html
paolo; like proposal
<azaroth> +1 to not requiring reference to annotation
don't need reference to annotation
<Jacob> +1 and +1 for employing Ray's solution
scribe: ugly in json
... approach requires some interpretation, but it's local, and you can
ignore it
<bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: (or anyone) do we have an example of the "stitched up" JSON? :)
tim: like proposal. concerned that those on
list but not on call will see this as unnecessary indirection
... need concrete examples.
<Jacob> Is it possible to discuss the pros and cons of Ray's approach compared to the use of hasScope that Lutz's annosys example uses? IIRC, it was another possible solution.
<Jacob> +1 for a wiki page cataloging the pros / cons of each approach
<bigbluehat> +1 to the wiki page
<tbdinesh> +1 for the wiki page
<bigbluehat> hard to know clearly what we're discussing without something to look at :)
<Kyrce> +1 to the wiki page
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
tim: tim will put up a page for this
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note framing complication
rob need to be careful not to embed body into role assignment
ivan before we do that wiki page (to compare things) need to be sure we have at least one
<azaroth> +1 to Ivan
scribe: example that has all the predicates correct, and both json and turtle
<Jacob> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
scribe: example in turtle can become complicated in json-ld
<azaroth> My explanation of why we don't need the link to the annotation: The introduction of the resource solves the open world issue. It can be used by multiple annotations that have the same resource with the same role.
doug -- not clear on all this and that's why want a wiki page, to help understand
<fjh> +1 to doug, we need clarification here.
paolo - not sure a wiki page is going to help explain.
ivan start with a clear proposal, with the predicates etc.
<azaroth> +1 to PaoloCiccarese
paolo - constraints from being based on sematic web concept. Not everyone cares about semantic web
<bigbluehat> +1
scribe: and we need to explain why we care?
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask if role == motivation
<Jacob> +1 to Paolo
rob is the role a motivation, or not. propose that it is.
tim concern about motivatedBy with multiple targets, can't do it
<fjh> s/tim concern/TimCole: concern/
scribe: what's appropriate for body might not be appropriate for target
<fjh> s/rob is/azaroth: is/
<Jacob> basically a role is a sub-class of motivation
rob ok with multiple predicates, but nervous about not using Motivation class.
paolo different functions. but ok with range the same
<fjh> All, please note questionnaire is corrected, so please take a look and answer it https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73180/annotation-tpac_2015/
scribe: might be confusing to some but has to be clear that range is the same
<fjh> no call 26 Aug, reminder
<azaroth> Proposed action on the group was to use a new predicate for the relationship between assignment resource and the role, but to use the Motivation class as the range to avoid duplicating all of the instances
doug - maybe better if people answered the tpac poll
<azaroth> And as per Ivan to create examples in both Turtle and JSON-LD to see how it looks
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon