15:20:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:20:53 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-irc
15:20:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:20:55 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
15:20:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:20:57 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:20:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:20:58 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
15:21:05 <ivan> Chair: Rob
15:22:17 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUErwiCNxRznq8Kish5tii-w-w9yBTRQpDzAD4QsNw6LCQ@mail.gmail.com
15:43:16 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:43:27 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
15:43:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:43:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:43:31 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:43:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:43:32 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
15:43:45 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:44:00 <azaroth> Regrets+ Jacob_Jett, Frederick_Hirsch, Amy_Guy
15:44:05 <azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson
15:45:02 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0377.html
15:46:22 <azaroth> zakim, agenda?
15:46:22 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:46:28 <azaroth> q?
15:49:42 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:50:22 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
15:50:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:50:26 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:50:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:50:27 <trackbot> Date: 02 December 2015
15:50:36 <fjh> Regrets+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:50:55 <trackbot> Sorry, ivan, I don't understand 'trackbot started the telcon three times:-) I did it, then Rob did it, and now Frederick did it:-)'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
15:51:45 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0377.html
15:52:25 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
15:52:25 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson
15:52:27 <Zakim> On IRC I see fjh, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, kevinmarks, shepazu_, dwhly, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, nickstenn, timeless, tessierashpool_, rhiaro, oshepherd, stain,
15:52:27 <Zakim> ... trackbot
15:52:29 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:52:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:52:31 <azaroth> ahha :)
15:52:36 <azaroth> s/ahha :)//
15:57:21 <ivan> present+ Ivan
15:59:04 <chrisbirk> chrisbirk has joined #annotation
15:59:49 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
16:00:03 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:00:33 <shepazu_> present+ shepazu
16:01:07 <t-cole3> t-cole3 has joined #annotation
16:01:26 <kevinmarks> kevinmarks has joined #annotation
16:01:27 <t-cole3> Present+ Tim_Cole
16:01:44 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
16:01:58 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
16:03:27 <kevinmarks2> kevinmarks2 has joined #annotation
16:04:02 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:04:29 <ivan> scribenick: chrisbirk
16:04:41 <azaroth> azaroth: Put irc handle, and what they said
16:04:50 <azaroth> ... And if they continue to talk, like this
16:05:03 <azaroth> Topic: Announcements
16:05:07 <nickstenn> Present+ Nick_Stenning
16:05:15 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:06:01 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from Nov 18 approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html
16:06:06 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:06:10 <chrisbirk> RESOLUTION: Minutes from Nov 18 approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html
16:06:23 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
16:06:27 <chrisbirk> Topic: Announcements
16:06:50 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:08:28 <chrisbirk> bigbluehat: objectives are to get everyone in the room talking about annotation standards using the W3C working group
16:08:57 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
16:09:23 <chrisbirk> azaroth: we will be off the hook for collections, paging, etc based on the Social Web group's decision
16:10:41 <chrisbirk> shepazu: there was some question as to whether collections would be split out or if part of the main spec
16:10:53 <chrisbirk> ... they decided not to split it out
16:11:15 <chrisbirk> ... meaning split out into a stand alone spec
16:12:56 <chrisbirk> Topic: Github Issues
16:13:03 <azaroth> issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/97
16:13:03 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-26 - Https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/97.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/issues/26/edit>.
16:14:28 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:14:37 <azaroth> vocab: http://w3c.openannotation.org/add_vocab/vocab/wd/
16:14:37 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:14:41 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:14:41 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, shepazu, Tim_Cole, Chris_Birk, Jacob_Jett, TB_Dinesh, Nick_Stenning, davis_salisbury, Ben_De_Meester, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:14:44 <Zakim> On IRC I see PaoloCiccarese, tilgovi, davis_salisbury, bjdmeest, kevinmarks2, t-cole3, tbdinesh, Jacob, chrisbirk, fjh, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, shepazu, dwhly,
16:14:44 <Zakim> ... ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, nickstenn, timeless, tessierashpool_, rhiaro, oshepherd, stain, trackbot
16:15:07 <chrisbirk> azaroth: that link follows the typical styling for ontology documentation
16:15:07 <t-cole3> q+
16:15:23 <chrisbirk> ... the issue is whether or not we want to continue with this or the existing single doc
16:15:24 <azaroth> ack t-cole3
16:15:49 <chrisbirk> t-cole3: I'm in favor of the split approach, but can comment on how the cross referencing may happen
16:15:59 <chrisbirk> ... does it get tedious to do that?
16:16:28 <chrisbirk> azaroth: if the json-ld is in the core, we don't have to do references to every single term
16:16:56 <chrisbirk> ... the vocab doc is responsible for determining the json-ld keys
16:17:04 <chrisbirk> ... the model doc is just "this is what it looks like"
16:17:28 <nickstenn> q+
16:17:39 <azaroth> ack t-cole
16:17:59 <chrisbirk> t-cole3: this should be good for developers, but rdf parsers will have to be a bit more careful
16:18:18 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:18:56 <chrisbirk> nickstenn: is the intent that the model doc would be detailed enough that I could conform without being a big fan of rdf
16:19:01 <chrisbirk> azaroth: yep
16:19:50 <azaroth> q?
16:20:04 <shepazu> q+
16:20:19 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:20:30 <chrisbirk> shepazu: is there a revised model spec?
16:20:57 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Accept #97 and split -model into both -model and -vocab
16:21:00 <chrisbirk> bigbluehat: there's nothing new at the moment, but can expect a fresher copy soon
16:21:02 <ivan> +1
16:21:13 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:21:14 <shepazu> +1
16:21:16 <chrisbirk> +1
16:21:16 <azaroth> +1
16:21:17 <nickstenn> +1, enthusiastically
16:21:18 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:21:18 <Jacob> +1
16:21:25 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:21:25 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-irc#T16-21-25
16:21:27 <t-cole3> +1
16:21:50 <chrisbirk> RESOLUTION: Accept #97 and split -model into both -model and -vocab
16:23:09 <davis_salisbury> Agree, thanks editors!
16:23:20 <ivan> q+
16:23:22 <azaroth> Github: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/8
16:23:26 <ivan> ack shepazu
16:23:28 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:24:46 <chrisbirk> azaroth: if we edit WD in branches the editors may overwrite each other
16:25:04 <chrisbirk> ... for things that haven't been accepted yet, we may have to go back and change later
16:25:17 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:25:30 <chrisbirk> ... github.io only reflects the gh-pages branch
16:26:49 <chrisbirk> ivan: let's take this offline, but would be good for everyone to see the evolution
16:28:07 <chrisbirk> azaroth: additional clarification at TPAC was this would be a method of filtering display.  Not a permissions system
16:28:26 <chrisbirk> ... the proposal is to adopt schema.org's audience pattern
16:28:42 <t-cole3> q+
16:28:54 <ivan> q+
16:29:01 <azaroth> ack t-cole
16:29:18 <chrisbirk> t-cole3: do we really need to have our own property for this?
16:29:27 <chrisbirk> ... given schema.org already has it
16:29:32 <Jacob> This issue looks like a more metadata type of issue. Since we're likely to just extend using something like DC or Schema, is there any advantage to it living in the model doc rather than a cookbook doc?
16:30:12 <chrisbirk> azaroth: for model there will be an example for how it should appear
16:30:34 <chrisbirk> ... and for the vocab doc we will have a context mapping and reference to the external ontologies of schema.org
16:30:43 <chrisbirk> ... so we wouldn't reinvent, we would just reference
16:30:44 <azaroth> q?
16:30:46 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:30:49 <shepazu> q+
16:31:30 <chrisbirk> azaroth: schema.org already has an 'audience' term
16:32:06 <shepazu> http://schema.org/Audience
16:32:13 <chrisbirk> ivan: in looking at the educational domain for epub, the fact that you have a book with many annotations, but that can also refer to many audiences has been considered essential by that domain
16:32:29 <azaroth> q?
16:32:31 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:33:50 <chrisbirk> azaroth: there is a cross-domain enough problem that we want to make sure to clarify for annotations
16:34:04 <shepazu> http://schema.org/PeopleAudience
16:35:23 <Jacob> Yes, this property could be used to establish viewing restrictions
16:35:31 <davis_salisbury> I think the "age control" is in the github issue?
16:35:44 <t-cole3> q+
16:35:46 <davis_salisbury> q+
16:35:53 <chrisbirk> shepazu: does this have anything to do with groups?
16:36:18 <chrisbirk> ... does this have anything to do with the intention of who the anno is intended for?
16:37:06 <chrisbirk> ... which is separate from access control
16:37:33 <chrisbirk> bigbluehat: the distinction from access control is the hardest part of presenting this
16:37:49 <Jacob> Audience and access control are intertwined...
16:38:18 <chrisbirk> ... doesn't limit my access, but does specify who they're intended for
16:38:48 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:39:17 <azaroth> ack t-cole
16:39:31 <PaoloCiccarese> q-
16:39:35 <chrisbirk> t-cole3: I do think that we need to separate group and access control from audience
16:39:49 <shepazu> q+
16:39:54 <chrisbirk> ... by using schema audience here, we're only getting a handful of audience types
16:40:33 <chrisbirk> ... new audience types would only be valid within your application
16:40:53 <azaroth> ack davis_salisbury
16:41:04 <kevinmarks> kevinmarks has joined #annotation
16:41:16 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:41:19 <davis_salisbury> I unmuted my physical phone
16:41:34 <tbdinesh> for re-narration we have the diversity in literacy audience types
16:41:41 <davis_salisbury> Can someone unmute me in zakim?
16:42:23 <chrisbirk> davis_salisbury: for open peer review, the idea of audience is key
16:42:48 <nickstenn> q+
16:42:49 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:42:49 <chrisbirk> ... need to make clear what is in the model and what needs to be handled by the people creating systems around a journal
16:42:52 <kevinmarks> kevinmarks has joined #annotation
16:43:38 <chrisbirk> azaroth: we need an issue to describe how this interacts with groups
16:43:46 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:43:56 <tilgovi> +1 to Rob... 'groups' is an exceptionally overloaded term
16:44:41 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:44:44 <chrisbirk> PaoloCiccarese: the other groups can see what you're saying, but you can filter out only what applies to your group.  This is different than access control.  Taking this to the issue log
16:44:47 <tilgovi> +1 to Paolo
16:45:01 <davis_salisbury> +1 tp Paolo
16:45:43 <tbdinesh> +1 to paolo
16:45:50 <chrisbirk> nickstenn: the decision to include in the model should be based on whether we think others will implement in other ways.  Maybe should just reference shema.org
16:46:00 <ivan> q+
16:46:45 <chrisbirk> azaroth: other communities will probably implement in other ways and this should probably go into the model
16:47:11 <chrisbirk> ivan: we should make the usage of the schema.org terms easier to understand to users
16:47:27 <chrisbirk> ... what we give is a more explicit way to use
16:47:44 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Accept #8, include audience in the model and vocab
16:47:57 <azaroth> +1
16:48:02 <ivan> +1
16:48:04 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:48:07 <t-cole3> +1
16:48:17 <shepazu> +1 (I think)
16:48:21 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:48:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-irc#T16-48-21
16:48:28 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:48:46 <chrisbirk> RESOLUTION: Accept #8, include audience in the model and vocab
16:48:51 <shepazu> (I think there should be a single model for groups and audience)
16:48:55 <azaroth> github: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/18
16:50:21 <azaroth> q?
16:50:23 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:50:26 <ivan> ack iva
16:51:11 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: accept #18, use StillImage and relate to other ontologies in -vocab
16:51:14 <azaroth> +1
16:51:20 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:51:21 <Jacob> +1
16:51:31 <t-cole3> 0
16:51:57 <ivan> 0 (do not really undersatnd the implipactions)
16:51:57 <shepazu> 0
16:52:04 <chrisbirk> I'm not sure I understand the implications
16:52:15 <PaoloCiccarese> 0
16:53:04 <ivan> +1 to keep things unchanged if it already works...
16:53:14 <chrisbirk> 0
16:54:04 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:54:04 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-irc#T16-54-04
16:54:04 <chrisbirk> RESOLUTION: accept #18, use StillImage and relate to other ontologies in -vocab
16:54:24 <azaroth> Github: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/19
16:55:35 <chrisbirk> azaroth: proposal from july is to use the allow header to specify a PUT or DELETE when a user can edit the annotation
16:55:59 <azaroth> q?
16:56:28 <nickstenn> q+
16:56:48 <tilgovi> +1 to keeping ACLs out of the model
16:56:58 <ivan> +1 as well
16:57:04 <ivan> q+
16:57:28 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:57:59 <chrisbirk> nickstenn: does that preclude having a more fine-grained implementation of permissions?
16:58:04 <chrisbirk> azaroth: it shouldn't.
16:58:14 <chrisbirk> azaroth: the server can still reject
16:58:17 <azaroth> Also +1 to keeping ACLs out of the model :)
16:58:20 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:59:26 <nickstenn> q+
16:59:27 <chrisbirk> ivan: is this something we have to put into the recommendation?  There are many implementations of this.
16:59:38 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
17:00:21 <chrisbirk> nickstenn: if we aren't precise about what ACL look like for the protocol, then implementations won't be interoperable
17:00:33 <nickstenn> s/ACL/access control/
17:01:32 <bengo> bengo has joined #annotation
17:01:34 <chrisbirk> ivan: we may not have the expertise necessary for this
17:01:39 <tilgovi> +1 ivan
17:01:48 <chrisbirk> nickstenn: I agree, but think we should consult externally on what we should recommend
17:02:02 <chrisbirk> ... I am not proposing inventing authentication protocol
17:02:15 <chrisbirk> ... but would be worth exploring how other systems would interoperate
17:02:31 <Jacob> Perhaps an outside consultation is the next step for this issue?
17:02:39 <chrisbirk> ivan: we should not close this issue yet.  Should find the people with right expertise and get opinion
17:02:40 <Jacob> +1 to ivan
17:03:07 <azaroth> +1
17:03:44 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
17:03:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-irc#T17-03-44
17:04:55 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:04:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:05:02 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:05:02 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:05:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, shepazu, Tim_Cole, Chris_Birk, Jacob_Jett, TB_Dinesh, Nick_Stenning, davis_salisbury, Ben_De_Meester, Paolo_Ciccarese,
17:05:05 <Zakim> ... Randall_Leeds
17:05:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:05:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:05:11 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:05:11 <RRSAgent> I see no action items