15:15:40 RRSAgent has joined #annotation 15:15:40 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-irc 15:15:42 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:15:42 Zakim has joined #annotation 15:15:44 Zakim, this will be 2666 15:15:45 Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference 15:15:45 Date: 16 December 2015 15:15:46 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:16:12 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUFSsQphrhZc=HYCNfsDXJ1ifJRDLpU2C+uU-wCXNJuNLg@mail.gmail.com 15:16:14 Chair: Rob 15:50:22 azaroth has joined #annotation 15:51:52 azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Dec/0083.html 15:51:55 fjh has joined #annotation 15:53:12 Not yet 15:53:18 s/Not Yet// 15:53:20 trackbot, start telecon 15:53:22 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:53:24 Zakim, this will be 2666 15:53:24 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 15:53:25 Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference 15:53:25 Date: 16 December 2015 15:53:45 Present+ Ivan 15:54:02 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Dec/0083.html 15:54:10 fjh has changed the topic to: annotation agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Dec/0083.html 15:54:33 Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sandersion 15:54:47 Present- Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sandersion 15:54:53 Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson 15:55:10 Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson 15:59:36 fjh has joined #annotation 16:00:11 TimCole has joined #annotation 16:01:06 Jacob has joined #annotation 16:02:13 Present+ Tim_Cole 16:02:58 Present+ Benjamin_Young 16:03:12 Present+ Jacob_Jett 16:03:53 I can 16:04:20 s/I can// 16:04:20 ScribeNick: Jacob 16:04:38 present+ shepazu 16:05:05 azaroth: Looking at four issues from github, allotting approx. 15 minutes each 16:05:09 davis_salisbury has joined #annotation 16:05:22 ...48 and 49 might require more time, they are complex 16:05:24 Present+ davis_salisbury 16:05:31 PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation 16:06:02 ... if we can't come to a consensus then we'll defer decisions on them to a later date 16:06:12 ... any other topics? any announcements? 16:06:50 ivan: for those who don't already know, benjamin has left as an official participant and is now participating as an invited expert 16:07:25 tbdinesh has joined #annotation 16:07:33 https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/PubStatus 16:07:43 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are approved 16:07:44 http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-annotation-minutes.html 16:08:07 RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are approved 16:08:29 Model update: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/web-annotation-model/wd/ 16:08:37 http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/ 16:09:18 http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/ 16:09:29 http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/ 16:09:32 q+ 16:09:35 azaroth: when we're happy with the fork from splitting model and vocab then we'll [lost exactly what the then effect is...] 16:09:37 ack shepazu 16:09:59 doug: would be good to have a consistent way to discover the current editors draft 16:10:18 q+ 16:10:24 ack fjh 16:10:29 ...didn't advertise the splitting anywhere, need to figure out a consistent way to do this 16:10:54 fjh: update the public links with the 3 editors drafts? 16:10:57 ivan: yes 16:11:11 fjh: will do it 16:11:33 Topic: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21 16:11:38 RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2015/12/09-annotation-minutes.html 16:11:51 q+ 16:12:06 azaroth: issue 1: what was annotations previous uri when copied from somewhere else 16:12:23 ack shepazu 16:12:30 ... related what is it's offline identity, e.g., dereferencable uri.uuid 16:13:05 doug: collapsing annotaitons from multiple sources seems to be a separate issue from off-line identity 16:13:24 azaroth: proposal is to use "via" for both of those 16:13:52 q+ 16:14:05 doug: what if the annotation is simultaneously published in multiple places, doesn't seem to fulfill the requirement 16:14:29 q+ 16:14:32 azaroth: content of via is the original uri / identity of the annotation 16:14:40 doug: where is that value coming from 16:14:43 looks like this: {"id": "http://example.com/anno", "via": ["http://shepazu.example/anno", "urn:uuid:1234"]} 16:15:23 azaroth: from the client or from wherever the federating server got the id from (see bigbluehat's example) 16:15:24 id would === the HTTP URL you got it from 16:15:45 doug: why does it have two different values? 16:16:29 ... see where id is identical to the http url...where does the id come from? 16:17:35 ... using hypothes.is for example, you publish an annotation simultaneously to three servers (hypothes.is, w3c, [and another one], what is the id? 16:17:44 "web resources can have multiple URI's" -- TimBL 16:18:14 azaroth: three different ids based on the servers, and one id in via provided by the hypothes.is client 16:18:21 I have updated the publication status page to include Web Annotation Vocabulary document, and update editors draft URL for the Model, https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/PubStatus 16:18:40 q? 16:18:46 ... server puts the client id into via and mints a unique id for the annotation for storage[?] 16:19:03 ack PaoloCiccarese 16:19:11 ... necessary because we cannot have multiple values for id 16:20:16 PaoloCiccarese: so coming from a different angle, I have my app doesn't generate an id (not very likely) but the server will assign one 16:20:41 ... so can use web services to stitch back together later, 16:21:26 ... external servers will mint their own uuids and store the uuid generated by my app (assuming it mints one) in via 16:22:16 ... because via can have more than one value, may lose the canonical id because new ids are minted each time the annotation is reserialized 16:22:28 bengo has joined #annotation 16:22:29 q+ to mention ordering 16:23:03 ... cannot tell which annotation is the original one through via, so doesn't help distinguish the original publisher from subsequent services republishing the anno 16:24:02 the canonical one could be {"id": "urn:uuid:1234", "via":["http://example.com/anno"]}...but then `id` may not be dereferenceable 16:24:06 ... highlighting an edgecase that might break the via solution, but the intent is to record the original id from the original publisher through the via property 16:24:11 and we'd have to require `via` 16:24:45 doug: seems like this reverses the expectation that the canonical id of the annotation is in id and the local id is in via 16:24:58 ack TimCole 16:25:08 PaoloCiccarese: if you publish the anno through a server, the server will mint a new id 16:25:42 TimCole: in favor of this proposal, id is the dereferencable uri in the linked data world and not the canonical id in the classical sense that we understand them 16:26:00 +1 to Tim 16:26:07 ... the question of one or more ids in via is an important decision moving forward with the proposal 16:26:26 q? 16:26:37 ... suggest only using one in via and republications have their own provenance, i.e., become new annotations 16:26:40 from http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#node-identifiers "dereferencing the identifier [id] should result in a representation of that node" 16:26:55 ...so... {"id": "urn:uuid:1234"} is out 16:27:05 ack shepazu 16:27:05 shepazu, you wanted to mention ordering 16:27:32 ... need to develop an approach to resolving how we move down the chains to understand if you're looking at the same annotation or different versions of an annotaiton 16:27:36 let's move forward with what's proposed and make proposals to change it as needed 16:27:56 doug: suggest we discuss this further (vie mailing list / github) [defer decision to later] 16:27:57 ship it; file issues against it 16:28:27 we got +1's on the issue from a wide range of folks already 16:28:40 azaroth: benjamin suggests shipping it, and collect issues 16:28:56 shepazu: provide your counter info via GitHub or mailing lists--so we have things to reference in the calls 16:28:57 it would help 16:28:58 greatly 16:29:19 doug: not comfortable with this methodology because the issues collected don't usually get resolved 16:29:41 my fear is that the issues don't get collected in anything but call minutes 16:29:52 s/doug/shepazu 16:29:58 azaroth: is via better than nothing? 16:30:14 q+ 16:30:18 ack ivan 16:30:19 via provides a list of known identifiers for use in deduplication, future dereferencing, etc. 16:30:25 shepazu: don't think that it is, think it confuses the issue brought up at tpac rather than solving it 16:30:32 so. it does, in fact, do what it was designed to do...could it do more...certainly 16:31:13 ivan: would like to have a clear proposal, what is the alternative 16:31:14 +1 to written alternative 16:32:17 azaroth: no resolution for now, shepazu writing an alternative by around 5-january-2016 16:32:20 Topic: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/30 16:32:38 ACTION on shepazu to write up alternative to via in github issue 16:32:38 Error finding 'on'. You can review and register nicknames at . 16:32:43 ACTION shepazu to write up alternative to via in github issue 16:32:43 Created ACTION-31 - Write up alternative to via in github issue [on Doug Schepers - due 2015-12-23]. 16:33:02 shepazu: can you write up your issue in an email? 16:33:47 ... next issue - define a json-ld profile for the json-ld serialization of annos 16:34:04 agenda+ implementers of Annotation Model? 16:34:21 ... following tpac, the suggestion is that we can simply use the uri of the context as the uri of the profile if we just want one serialization of the model 16:34:40 -> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iana-considerations link to the profile definition for JSON-LD 16:34:56 q+ 16:34:58 ... proposal is that the uri of context is the uri of the profile and that we register and thereafter it provides the media type for annos 16:35:02 q+ 16:35:03 q+ 16:35:10 ack TimCole 16:35:30 TimCole: what if an implementor wants to augment the context with additional json-ld keys 16:35:37 ... does this get in their way? 16:35:55 ... if so, is the hazard of multiple context enough that this is really necessary? 16:36:23 azaroth: if someone wants to define additional keys for additional semantics we can allow that or we could disallow it 16:36:37 ... doesn't effect the decision for the profile uri 16:36:57 TimCole: if someone adds another context can they still claim that profile? 16:37:00 q? 16:37:02 ack shepazu 16:37:11 azaroth: yes, nothing formal, just a convention 16:37:34 shepazu: how do different profiles of the data relate to different mimetypes? 16:37:42 ack ivan 16:37:51 http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#iana-considerations 16:38:12 ivan: see the iana-considerations link; for the json-ld media type 16:38:31 +1 to Ivan 16:39:01 ... includes allowances for multiple profiles, so in answer to TimCole, we cannot actually restrict anyone from attaching additional profiles 16:39:11 q? 16:39:15 thanks Ivan for clear explanation 16:39:30 ... proposal is to add a uri for our profile which is our own context, folding annotations into the json-ld mimetype 16:39:58 shepazu: not clear from the issue that generic json-ld will be used as the mimetype 16:40:21 ivan: allowed to do it if we want, not sure we want to, but it is a separate issue 16:41:10 shepazu: does this mean that if someone wanted to merge activity streams and annos or app specific data and annos, does this proposal effect that? 16:41:41 ivan: can accommodate / merge as necessary by including additional profiles 16:41:59 ... server can return a media type "json-ld 16:42:12 ... and as many profiles as necessary 16:42:38 shepazu: will raise the mediatype issue on the model (as it is separate from this proposal) 16:42:45 PROPOSAL: Accept context URI as profile URI for json-ld 16:42:48 +1 16:42:50 +1 16:42:51 +1 16:42:53 +1 16:42:57 +0 16:43:00 rrsagent, pointer? 16:43:00 See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-irc#T16-43-00 16:43:05 +1 16:43:09 +1 16:43:26 +1 16:43:34 RESOLUTION: Accept context URI as profile URI for json-ld 16:44:04 azaroth: next issue - #48 - support for search 16:44:07 TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/48 16:44:38 ... one aspect regarding protocol is whether or how to search a collection of annos for ones that match the client's desired annos 16:45:07 ... e.g., a hypothes.is server or some other web server, how to find the annos that target some desired target? 16:45:25 ... discussed this at the april f2f but haven't returned to it since then 16:46:00 ... aren't many examples of search for annos, in particular no query languages that would make it both easy and convenient to build a search service 16:46:15 ... one that I'm aware of is a cultural heritage domain one 16:46:45 ... uri based, anything can be fed to the server and the response is similar to activity stream's ordered collections 16:46:49 q+ 16:46:54 ack ivan 16:47:02 ... is that a reasonable starting place or should we defer search to a later stage? 16:47:43 ivan: added a longer response in the issue list; bottom line is that query can be reproduced but is more inspiration than carried over one-to-one 16:47:54 ... a good starting report but will require some work 16:48:46 ... not convinced that we should pursue this right now, concerned that too many people are doing the same thing, getting to many similar but slightly different approaches, reinventing wheels others are working on 16:49:04 +1 to Ivan, again :) 16:49:08 ... should be clear that we aren't defining the one canonical search for anno servers 16:49:30 ... be clear that the search we define is one possible formalism and that others can be developed 16:49:32 is Ivan suggesting we defer to v.next, while offering advice? 16:50:07 ... yes or no to the issue is whether or not we can be inspired by the search document rather than adopt it 16:50:23 ... can someone make a short version of what that search facility means for us 16:50:35 ... if we don't have someone to that then we should defer 16:50:48 azaroth: volunteering to be one of the editors on that document 16:50:49 q+ 16:51:00 ... to make a strawman for what search means for anno servers 16:51:22 ... at a minimum say not how to do the search but provide existing pagination as an example 16:51:49 ack TimCole 16:51:50 ... will produce this by around 15-january-2016 16:52:15 TimCole: concerned that having this in the first round of specs will draw a certain amount of controversy to the spec 16:52:24 q+ 16:52:30 ... does doing this put the protocol more at risk for objection? 16:52:31 ACTION azaroth to write straw proposal for search, based on IIIF 16:52:31 Created ACTION-32 - Write straw proposal for search, based on iiif [on Robert Sanderson - due 2015-12-23]. 16:52:40 ... or does not having it create more of a hazard? 16:52:57 ack ivan 16:53:04 azaroth: don't think it puts the core protocol at risk, we can do search as a separate doc and take through the process separately 16:53:38 ivan: yes, can do things with sparql, but that is the sledgehammer, so should not claim anywhere that it is the definitive query language 16:54:04 +1 to develop as separate document to maintain flexibility 16:54:06 ... in favor of having it as a separate document, allowing us to either publish as part of the spec or as a note 16:54:37 azaroth: real risk isn't around the spec process but the time it takes away from other topics 16:54:49 ivan: will need tests, requiring more time commitments 16:55:02 q? 16:55:23 TimCole: having it at least as note sounds like a good strategy, allows us to point people at a doc that supplements the protocol as people need it to 16:56:38 Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese 16:56:48 PROPOSAL: The WG will consider a separate document defining a non-exclusive search interface to be published at least as a Note and potentially part of Protocol 16:56:55 +1 16:56:58 +1 16:56:59 +1 16:56:59 +1 16:57:02 +1 16:57:30 rrsagent, pointer? 16:57:30 See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-irc#T16-57-30 16:57:39 +1 16:57:50 RESOLUTION: The WG will consider a separate document defining a non-exclusive search interface to be published at least as a Note and potentially part of Protocol 16:58:47 azaroth: will defer notification, no call next week (or the week after) because of the holidays, next call on 6-january-2016 16:58:51 happy holidays 16:58:54 :) 16:59:05 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:59:05 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-minutes.html ivan 16:59:42 Regrets+ Chris, Ben 16:59:49 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:59:49 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-minutes.html ivan 16:59:54 trackbot, end telcon 16:59:54 Zakim, list attendees 16:59:54 As of this point the attendees have been Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sandersion, Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, Jacob_Jett, shepazu, davis_salisbury, Paolo_Ciccarese 17:00:02 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:00:02 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/16-annotation-minutes.html trackbot 17:00:03 RRSAgent, bye 17:00:03 I see no action items