14:20:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:20:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-irc
14:20:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:20:08 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:20:08 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:20:09 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:20:09 <trackbot> Date: 12 August 2015
14:26:55 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0084.html
14:27:04 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0084.html (webex)
14:44:46 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
14:45:29 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:46:32 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:46:42 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:47:01 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:47:38 <fjh> Regrets+ Davis_Salisbury
14:59:05 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
14:59:07 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:00:33 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:01:18 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:01:19 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:01:22 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
15:01:37 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
15:01:38 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:02:39 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:04:46 <tbdinesh> i cant hear  anyone
15:05:37 <fjh> ScribeNick: Jacob
15:05:50 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:06:00 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:06:36 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:06:38 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:06:42 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5 August approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/08/05-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:03 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 5 August approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/08/05-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:09 <fjh> Topic: Planning updates
15:07:11 <Jacob> fjh: need to think about the deliverables
15:07:17 <Jacob> do we have them?
15:07:17 <fjh> Deliverable review and status - Rangefinder, HTML Serialization,  Client API
15:07:36 <Jacob> ... plan for tpac
15:07:39 <fjh> TPAC planning
15:08:33 <TimCole> q+
15:08:37 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:08:42 <Jacob> ... need to register, answer questionnaire (will be very helpful), decide on workplan, ensure that enough people are present
15:09:15 <Jacob> TimCole: interested in connecting to tpac morning sessions if there are topics where additional participation is needed
15:09:30 <fjh> TPAC registration - required - https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35125/TPAC2015/
15:09:32 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:09:41 <fjh> WG questionnare https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73180/annotation-tpac_2015/
15:10:06 <Jacob> fjh: questionnaire is to help us determine who needs to call in, calling in will be difficult
15:10:10 <fjh> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73180/annotation-tpac_2015/results
15:10:45 <fjh> Topic: Protocol
15:10:46 <Jacob> ... client api, reminder that it needs to be figured out
15:11:00 <fjh> container clarification resolved? - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jul/0238.html
15:11:50 <Jacob> ... 1) container issue, 2) other issues, 3) [something, something]
15:12:29 <fjh> s/[something, something]/clarify web architecture issue as note in draft, 4) publish updated WD using lightweight publishing, 5) share with TAG/
15:12:51 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:12:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:13:02 <TimCole> q+
15:13:18 <Jacob> bigbluehat: rdf representation, encodings should not be labeled as non-rdf but other than that everything looks fine
15:13:22 <Jacob> ... shouldm
15:13:41 <_Janina> _Janina has joined #annotation
15:13:50 <Jacob> shouldn't matter if we call out non-rdf resources, essentially optional, client shouldn't make additional assumptions
15:14:04 <fjh> s/shouldm//
15:14:09 <fjh> s/shouldn't/... shouldn't/
15:14:14 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:14:38 <fjh> q?
15:14:45 <Jacob> TimCole: bringing up another protocol issue, but want to make sure there are no other container issues
15:15:08 <fjh> Group agrees to close container issue
15:15:13 <Jacob> ... looking at 4.1 of the model document, needs to move to the protocol document
15:15:35 <Jacob> azaroth: for derefencing things, 6th paragraph of 4.1 making protocol requirements in the model
15:15:47 <Jacob> TimCole: don't forget to move that to the protocol doc
15:16:12 <fjh> q+
15:16:24 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:17:00 <Jacob> fjh: need to put a note in the document to indicate what is being looked for
15:17:11 <fjh> s/looked for/looked for in review/
15:17:22 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:17:30 <Jacob> azaroth: note that we inherit additional requirements in the doc
15:17:41 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:17:57 <ivan> q+
15:18:10 <Jacob> fjh: to-edit based on Tim's suggestion, then update of working draft, then can share it
15:18:11 <fjh> ack ivan
15:18:35 <Jacob> ivan: does this mean that edit[?] view is off the table?
15:18:57 <fjh> s/edit[?] view/Eric's issue/
15:19:31 <ivan> s/Eric/Erik/
15:19:32 <Jacob> azaroth: may have complaints about json-ld with context but majority of Eric's issue has been shifted from us over to LDP
15:19:37 <fjh> no, we think we have simplified impact of his issue on our spec by framing it
15:20:08 <fjh> suggest we try to recast issue in specific edit terms rather than general terms.
15:20:26 <Jacob> ... can ping Erik to have him look at the working draft again (to verify that his issue has been sufficiently addressed)
15:20:32 <fjh> q?
15:20:52 <fjh> getting view from TAG is valuable, if only to get  buy-in
15:21:10 <Jacob> shepazu: still want to hear what TAG has to say about what we have earlier rather than later
15:21:42 <fjh> Topic: JSON-LD Context
15:21:46 <azaroth> q?
15:21:53 <fjh> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0050.html
15:21:53 <fjh> a) make change proposed by Tim https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0064.html
15:21:54 <fjh> b) by Ivan https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0075.html
15:22:00 <Jacob> azaroth: seems like a good idea, actions on Rob to ping Erik and get the edits done
15:22:25 <Jacob> ... moving onto the json-ld context, relationships were identifiers but not such that they resolve against the context
15:22:47 <Jacob> ... e.g., if one sends a ns'd query that works but just bookmarking doesn't
15:23:15 <Jacob> ... classes seem to be magic in the playground, so can get @type
15:23:34 <fjh> "motivation":   {"@type":"@vocab", "@id" : "oa:motivatedBy"}
15:23:38 <Jacob> ... Tim found a workaround '@type: @context' that does get @context
15:23:45 <TimCole> q+
15:23:58 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:24:22 <Jacob> TimCole: need to think about whether or not this makes it harder for communities to extend the list of motivations, might be easier for those who understand rdf
15:24:36 <Jacob> ... but harder for those who don't, but might not be able to help them anyway
15:25:08 <Jacob> ... can use @vocab to pick up vocab terms with @type
15:25:35 <Jacob> azaroth: won't work across communities, but not a solvable problem
15:26:06 <Jacob> TimCole: json-ld spec (sec. 6.5) talks about type coercion -- @id and @type are specially defined
15:26:59 <Jacob> ... when using @id then the subject is assumed to be an IRI whereas the subject of @type assumes a term that may appear in @context
15:27:56 <azaroth> q
15:27:57 <azaroth> q?
15:28:01 <azaroth> s/q//
15:28:03 <Jacob> Ivan: can forget about all of the namespacing with this solution (i.e., relying on the json-ld parser)
15:28:42 <Jacob> azaroth: Ivan's question about changing @type & @id to something without '@'
15:29:28 <TimCole> q+ to ask about whether url is best label
15:29:39 <Jacob> Ivan: it's hacking the json-ld but it works, if we add it to the context then we can use simpler strings for serializing, which is simpler
15:30:01 <azaroth> q+ to note @value
15:30:05 <Jacob> ... can use a good string for the id, e.g., changing @id to id: or url:
15:30:47 <shepazu> [I like this]
15:30:53 <bigbluehat> @id's will still show up throughout the document, yes? if we're not using (or not preferring) blank nodes for body, etc.
15:30:54 <Jacob> ... in practice, only place in our json-ld that '@' would be used is in the '@context' and even that can be subsumed[?] into the header
15:31:07 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:31:07 <Zakim> TimCole, you wanted to ask about whether url is best label
15:31:59 <azaroth> +1 to not url
15:32:05 <Jacob> TimCole: concern about 'url', times when blank nodes need to be referenced from other places in the graph, so don't want folks to think that 'url:' must be filled with a url rather than a blank node
15:32:08 <azaroth> +1 to id :)
15:32:33 <Jacob> Ivan: fine with using id, don't want to prevent people from using urns, etc.
15:32:36 <Jacob> +1 from me
15:32:39 <azaroth> q?
15:32:43 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:32:43 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note @value
15:33:32 <Jacob> azaroth: one other '@' not being used in the current context, but might want to sub a string for '@value'
15:34:03 <Jacob> ... not sure that we can get rid of '@value:string ; @type:string'
15:34:11 <Jacob> Ivan: is an edge case?
15:34:51 <azaroth> q?
15:34:55 <Jacob> azaroth: yes, should treat it as a string in [most cases?], just wanted to point out that it could come up
15:36:22 <Jacob> bigbluehat: only concern is name collision with ids from databases, in practice json dbs will already use id and type internally, don't mind '@' but some people are wierded out by it, is an edge case, seems fine either way
15:36:32 <Jacob> ... do we have many other types?
15:36:56 <Jacob> ... if we map 'type' to '@type', it carries through
15:37:23 <bigbluehat> {"@id": "http://example.org/...uuid...", "_id": "...uuid..."}
15:37:24 <Jacob> azaroth: yes, should see what happens, but it is an edge case
15:37:57 <ivan> q+
15:38:03 <azaroth> And that it enables annotation.id in javascript, rather than requiring annotation['@id']
15:38:16 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:38:24 <Jacob> bigbluehat: collision scenario might be with the couch db example [above in the transcript], might not be resolvable
15:38:57 <bigbluehat> in CouchDB, MongoDB, Vue.js, etc, it's not a problem as they use "_id" so...no issues there.
15:39:21 <azaroth> q?
15:39:23 <bigbluehat> but others may lay claim to "id" and "type"...but...who knows...
15:39:29 <Jacob> ivan: found a nice trick for getting rid of '@' but, can come back and choose symbols different from 'type' and 'id' if we find that there are collisions with dbs
15:40:09 <PaoloCiccarese> I might be wrong but both mongo and elastic use _id
15:40:12 <PaoloCiccarese> not id
15:40:31 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Use id and type in the annotation context in place of @id and @type to make the serialization more friendly to javascript developers
15:40:50 <Jacob> fjh: will also capture the previous agreement as well
15:41:28 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:41:34 <Jacob> azaroth: further note, if json-ld serializer sees '@id' and '@type' it won't be wrong
15:41:36 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:41:36 <fjh> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:41:46 <Jacob>  RESOLUTION: Use id and type in the annotation context in place of @id and @type to make the serialization more friendly to javascript developers
15:42:15 <bigbluehat> +1 to PaoloCiccarese's concern
15:42:22 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: if reading json-ld by hand without using a parser, would need to map all of these variances
15:43:26 <Jacob> ivan: yes, that's technically right, but in practice, is it best to describe all of our documents with all of the heaviest [something], understand that its an issue, but is it a major issue
15:44:06 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: think we might have to mention the issue
15:44:09 <azaroth> s/heaviest [something]/examples using id and type/
15:45:04 <Jacob> ... if the client is a strict javascript client, doesn't use json-ld libraries, uses framing, so it doesn't do much parsing, the problem is
15:45:31 <Jacob> ... if it gets annos from another client, it will need to internally translate it to conform with the no '@id', etc.
15:45:41 <azaroth> q+
15:45:43 <TimCole> q+
15:46:00 <Jacob> ... not sure if hiding it is the right thing to do, will become undocumented
15:46:17 <azaroth> q+ to suggest noting in the context appendix
15:46:24 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:46:24 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to suggest noting in the context appendix
15:46:24 <Jacob> ... if everyone agrees then isn't an issue but someone might use it in the future and the parser may be unaware
15:47:10 <Jacob> azaroth: suggest that we might (because agree with Paolo), remove the context from the appendix and reference it so that we don't have to change the model doc if we find bugs in the context
15:47:13 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:47:17 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:47:29 <Jacob> ... so it will be documented but only in a place where people who care about context can see it
15:48:02 <Jacob> TimCole: suggest that applications SHOULD use 'id' and 'type' so that it is less of a problem
15:48:18 <azaroth> q?
15:48:25 <Jacob> azaroth: will make an issue in github that the change should be made to the model
15:48:55 <Jacob> Topic: Data Model
15:48:57 <fjh> Multiple body
15:48:58 <fjh> solution :  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0048.html (Tim, Paolo)
15:48:58 <fjh> and https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0062.html (Tim)
15:49:19 <Jacob> azaroth: solution for roles, have a set of little objects linking resources to roles
15:50:11 <Jacob> ... upshot is, all of the bodies need to have at least a blank node id if they are to have a role, makes the change very contained
15:50:11 <TimCole> q+
15:50:15 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:50:56 <fjh> wiki link from Tim -  https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Expressing_Role_in_Multi-Body_Annotations
15:51:00 <Jacob> TimCole: in working through the issues, one thing is if you have a text body, then you must move to embedded content
15:51:41 <shepazu> q+
15:51:43 <Jacob> ...right now we have a 'SHOULD' to add a dctype to the embedded content, might want to move to 'MAY' so that it won't be so verbose
15:52:15 <azaroth> +1 to using role to describe tags
15:52:53 <Jacob> ... alternately we've been using tag / semantic tag to link the roles to tag bodies, could replicate this pattern for other bodies
15:53:04 <PaoloCiccarese> +1 to the semantic tags
15:53:05 <azaroth> q+ to +1 roles and remove tags
15:53:18 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:53:24 <Jacob> ... or do we want to remove the tag / semantic tag typing in favor of having roles?
15:53:31 <Jacob> ... need to consider these things
15:53:32 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:53:55 <azaroth> and -1 to reducing SHOULD to MAY
15:54:12 <Jacob> shepazu: the syntax is even obtuse than other syntax that felt that other people would find hard to use
15:54:43 <Jacob> ... hardcoding in a semantic web thing, no one will understand this (unless they are a semantic web person)
15:55:03 <azaroth> q?
15:55:14 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:55:14 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to +1 roles and remove tags
15:55:14 <Jacob> ... increasingly disturbed by the hoops that must be jumped through to accomplish this, wanted to make things simpler but things are only getting more complex
15:56:40 <Jacob> azaroth: either way, if its a specific resource with a role or a specific role, +1 to using roles to express this rather than separate types and -1 to reducing should to may
15:56:43 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:57:16 <Jacob> PaoloCiccarese: agree on using roles
15:57:39 <Jacob> ...looks like there is a constant pressure between json method and json-ld method
15:57:54 <Jacob> ... the json people would just use comment rather than role
15:58:13 <Jacob> ... wondering if we can have a json format, distinct from json-ld
15:58:33 <shepazu> q+
15:58:42 <ivan> q+
15:58:42 <Jacob> ... can we have a process for moving from json-ld to json so that the developer doesn't have to deal with it
15:58:49 <azaroth> q+ to -1 two json serializations
15:59:05 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:59:10 <Jacob> ... constraints, etc. are not a natural part of json, so it makes json implementations more difficult
15:59:56 <fjh> Paolo thanks for intelligent question based on end-user communities
16:00:02 <Jacob> ... downside, would need a complex bit to do this walk between them
16:00:47 <Jacob> shepazu: thought that we should have a data model that describes the parts of the annotation and separate serializations
16:00:54 <fjh> q?
16:01:29 <Jacob> ... but would make the data model something that non-semweb folks something that they can easily adopt
16:01:58 <Jacob> ... also believe we need an html serialization, which will look different from either of the json serializations
16:02:02 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:02:11 <fjh> question regarding serialization round-tripping as requirement - no data loss...
16:02:50 <bigbluehat> +1 to fjh's concern
16:02:53 <Jacob> ivan: we need to explore this issue, not sure about best forward, would need to give a very precise description of a processor,
16:03:01 <fjh> dare I say, direction sounds like InfoSet ?
16:03:13 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:03:16 <azaroth> For reference, the JSON-LD mapping: http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/
16:03:23 <fjh> s/InfoSet/XML InfoSet/
16:03:23 <PaoloCiccarese> q-
16:03:23 <bigbluehat> along with an ever widening list of serializations for "comment", "highlight", etc...
16:03:27 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:03:39 <azaroth> q?
16:03:41 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:03:41 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to -1 two json serializations
16:03:47 <Jacob> ... worried about the complications that will be required, worried that the complication of the processor will be significant but we should try
16:04:12 <Jacob> azaroth: having non-interoperable json serializations balkanizes the community
16:04:29 <bigbluehat> can we invite James Snell to fill us in on Social's work with this same issue?
16:04:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: ^^
16:04:39 <Jacob> ...out of time, agenda item for next week, continue discussion on mailing list
16:05:07 <bigbluehat> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-core/index.html
16:05:22 <Jacob> ... social web group ran into a similar problem of semweb vs web developer communities
16:05:24 <bigbluehat> +1 to list first
16:05:42 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:05:52 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:52 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:06:02 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:06:02 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:06:02 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:06:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:06:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/08/12-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:06:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:06:11 <RRSAgent> I see no action items