15:46:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:46:49 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-irc
15:46:55 <azaroth> zakim, start meeting
15:46:55 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth
15:47:12 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
15:47:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:47:16 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:47:16 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:47:17 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:47:17 <trackbot> Date: 13 January 2016
15:47:24 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:47:35 <azaroth> Chairs: Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch
15:48:41 <azaroth> Regrets+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:49:15 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
15:55:01 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:55:40 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:55:54 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:55:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:56:31 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:57:19 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:58:08 <fjh> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html
15:58:34 <azaroth> agenda?
15:58:39 <chrisbirk> chrisbirk has joined #annotation
15:58:44 <fjh> s;Agenda.*;Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html;
15:58:51 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:58:51 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:59:48 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
16:00:59 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
16:01:14 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
16:01:34 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
16:02:15 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
16:02:16 <fjh> i;Agenda;Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html
16:02:24 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:02:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:02:26 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:02:31 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:02:45 <TimCole> present+ Tim_Cole
16:03:17 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:03:36 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html;
16:04:26 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:04:34 <azaroth> Scribenick: bjdmeest
16:04:40 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:05:09 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:05:10 <bjdmeest> azaroth: agenda: planning 2016, and next 4 issues
16:05:18 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:06:18 <bjdmeest> shepazu: [talking about iAnnotate in Europe]
16:07:04 <bjdmeest> azaroth
16:07:18 <bjdmeest> azaroth: Social Web released some FPWD's
16:07:24 <bjdmeest> ... most interesting one is WebMention
16:07:32 <azaroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/webmention
16:07:42 <bjdmeest> ... it's a very simple notification network
16:07:49 <shepazu> q+
16:07:56 <bjdmeest> ... to send notifications between systems that annotations have been created or modified
16:08:03 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:08:03 <bjdmeest> ... which is one of our use cases
16:08:17 <bjdmeest> shepazu: it builds upon existing things and tools
16:08:43 <bjdmeest> ... advandatageous for us to reuse
16:08:56 <bjdmeest> s/advandatageous/advantageous/
16:08:57 <azaroth> Topic: Planning for 2016
16:09:20 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
16:09:41 <shepazu> Also, Social Web WG published Social Web Protocols https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-social-web-protocols-20160112/
16:09:53 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
16:10:11 <bjdmeest> azaroth: discussion started last week
16:10:16 <bjdmeest> ... about planning
16:10:20 <bjdmeest> ... oustanding issues:
16:10:35 <bjdmeest> ... 1. f2f timing, amount of f2f's, and their purposes
16:10:58 <bjdmeest> ... we need to be clear on what deliverables we will be working on, to what end state
16:11:20 <bjdmeest> ... proposed model doc to go to CR
16:11:31 <shepazu> q+
16:11:33 <bjdmeest> ... we should timebox, so we can make progress
16:11:39 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:11:46 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:12:39 <bjdmeest> shepazu: [talking about F2F] in discussions with Dan, we talked about a 1 day F2F
16:13:00 <fjh> q+
16:13:03 <bjdmeest> ... F2F are valuable and expensive, but I think we should have at least a 2 day F2F
16:13:04 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:13:12 <bjdmeest> fjh: makes sense
16:13:41 <bjdmeest> ... Implementations and test cases for Model should be lined up, to go to CR
16:14:04 <bjdmeest> ... should be important for F2F, depending on how many we can add to the room
16:14:35 <bjdmeest> shepazu: fact that we are co-allocated with iAnnotate, could help to open the room for half a day
16:14:47 <bjdmeest> ... could be useful for iAnnotate participants, and for us
16:14:52 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., last day of F2F
16:14:59 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:15:10 <bjdmeest> ... dedicated to an open session with the community
16:15:33 <bjdmeest> azaroth: timing of iAnnotate would be May
16:15:58 <fjh> we need to be clear that we'd like to get model to REC by end of charter, others possibly entering CR (or in old terms in LC)
16:15:59 <davis_salisbury> PresentPresnePresnt+ davis_salisbury
16:16:26 <fjh> Present+ davis_salisbury
16:16:28 <davis_salisbury> sorsorry, something is wrong with the client
16:16:32 <shepazu> q+
16:16:44 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:16:45 <fjh> s/PresentPresnePresnt+ davis_salisbury//
16:16:52 <fjh> s/sorsorry.*//
16:17:12 <bjdmeest> shepazu: testing is superimportant, and takes a lot of time
16:17:33 <ivan> q+
16:17:35 <bjdmeest> ... we need to find some specific topics to be addressed in person
16:17:40 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:17:43 <chrisbirk> q+
16:17:48 <bjdmeest> ... let's avoid too much testing at F2F
16:17:56 <azaroth> ack chrisbirk
16:17:58 <azaroth> q+ ivan
16:18:08 <bjdmeest> chrisbirk: [about testing plan]
16:18:19 <bjdmeest> ... maybe bring it to the group next week?
16:18:55 <bjdmeest> shepazu: we'll be facing a similar problem as WebPayments WG
16:19:04 <bjdmeest> ... am talking with that group's testing lead
16:19:13 <bjdmeest> ... maybe we can share infrastructure
16:19:42 <bjdmeest> azaroth: so a plan by next week?
16:19:46 <bjdmeest> chrisbirk: yes
16:20:03 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:20:26 <bjdmeest> ivan: one thing we have to do on the F2F: charter expires end of september
16:20:49 <bjdmeest> ... continuing without problems would involve thinking about rechartering by F2F
16:20:57 <bjdmeest> ... F2F would be a perfect place for that
16:21:13 <bjdmeest> azaroth: can we make an agenda wiki page? logistics, guests, etc..
16:21:31 <bjdmeest> ivan: doug's point is valid, that we have to plan for 2 days
16:21:50 <bjdmeest> ... will be in Berlin, probably before iAnnotate (Tuesday, Wednesday)
16:21:52 <azaroth> q?
16:22:19 <bjdmeest> azaroth: what should we work on up until then?
16:22:42 <bjdmeest> ... 1. Model: split up in vocabulary as well
16:22:49 <bjdmeest> ... 2. protocol, and 3. findText
16:23:00 <bjdmeest> ... Model and voc can go to CR, what about the others?
16:23:27 <bjdmeest> ...we need tests, testing framework and at least ??? implementations
16:23:29 <fjh> q+
16:23:33 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:23:35 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation
16:23:40 <azaroth> s/???/two independent/
16:23:58 <bjdmeest> fjh: findtext seems really important, and gets buy-in of implementers
16:24:10 <bjdmeest> ... what can we do, even without going to CR
16:24:18 <bjdmeest> ... about protocol: what happens if we don;t get it done?
16:24:25 <azaroth> q+ to +1 protocol
16:24:48 <bjdmeest> shepazu: there is interest in having something like findtext
16:24:52 <TimCole> q+
16:25:04 <bjdmeest> ... we can leverage that
16:25:17 <bjdmeest> ... second point: how?
16:25:47 <bjdmeest> ... form a process and chartering perspective: if browser vendors say 'yes we're interested' would be sufficient for us
16:25:58 <bjdmeest> ... as long as we keep iterating and improving the spec
16:26:12 <bjdmeest> ... maybe we can start some testing
16:26:13 <fjh> makes sense
16:26:20 <azaroth> q?
16:26:36 <bjdmeest> ... with browser vendors interest, this will be deemed viable work
16:26:42 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:26:42 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to +1 protocol
16:26:56 <bjdmeest> azaroth: protocol +1
16:27:20 <bjdmeest> ... in order to have interoperability, we need to be able to transfer annotations between systems
16:27:31 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., maintainer vs rendering system
16:27:37 <bjdmeest> .. only data model would not suffice
16:27:53 <bjdmeest> ... I think protocol is very easy to implement
16:28:01 <bjdmeest> ... basically it is just REST
16:28:13 <bjdmeest> ... also testing would be straightforward
16:28:15 <ivan> q+
16:28:16 <fjh> +1 to be able to transfer annotations
16:28:27 <azaroth> q?
16:28:33 <azaroth> ack TimCole
16:28:36 <bjdmeest> ... documentation will be close to done after implementation and testing
16:28:37 <fjh> q+
16:28:46 <bjdmeest> timcole: I agree protocol being important
16:29:01 <shepazu> q+
16:29:16 <bjdmeest> ... I am a little worried about (relates to findtext): we don't have a clear understanding about how an annotation will look like in html
16:29:34 <bjdmeest> ... don't know whether protocol will address that
16:29:51 <bjdmeest> ... do we need something explicit about html-centric rendering of annotations?
16:30:07 <bjdmeest> azaroth: it's been on our books for a while
16:30:13 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:30:53 <bjdmeest> ivan: speaking of protocol --> speaking of functionality level of protocol document, not about search?
16:31:02 <bjdmeest> azaroth: indeed, get update delete
16:31:08 <azaroth> q?
16:31:33 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:31:43 <bjdmeest> ivan: in the coming months, without clear idea about search, we cannot have a recommendation about search by september
16:32:09 <bjdmeest> fjh: concerned about complexity: LDP, paging, synchronizing...
16:32:26 <azaroth> q?
16:32:26 <bjdmeest> ... there are a lot of discussions that could take a lot of time
16:32:28 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:33:16 <bjdmeest> shepazu: how is the protocol is different than LDP, concerning annotations?
16:33:30 <fjh> need to scope work carefully to have CR deadline  this year - noting goals related to  synchronization, containers, paging, searching, profiling other work etc
16:34:41 <bjdmeest> ... also: I did not expect an annotation specific protocol, rather reusing an existing one, e.g., from social web wg
16:35:19 <bigbluehat> how close are we to LDP? are we that different outside of some "say these few other things"?
16:35:43 <bigbluehat> JSON-LD by default (not Turtle)...and some others :)
16:36:09 <bjdmeest> azaroth: we changed making turtle not required
16:36:19 <bjdmeest> ...we are more opinionated about the response than LDP
16:36:32 <bjdmeest> ... and more opinionated about what can be in a single container
16:36:36 <bjdmeest> .. these are profiles of LDP
16:36:44 <bjdmeest> ... not something new
16:37:17 <bjdmeest> shepazu: it's advantageous to us if we can reuse existing implementations
16:37:23 <bjdmeest> ... have we exhausted all options?
16:37:39 <bjdmeest> azaroth: if search is so important, then we don't have any options
16:37:49 <bigbluehat> you can use LDP "out of the box" for annotations, correct? we're just trying to lower the bar on implementation--via the default changes and narrowing the scope to annotations?
16:38:00 <fjh> syncronization across servers?
16:38:24 <bjdmeest> azaroth: issue around paging: pages in LDP are not ordered internally, you have to reorder within single page
16:38:33 <bjdmeest> ... there are several use cases where that is not possible
16:38:47 <bjdmeest> ... previous decision was using ordered collection from activity streams
16:39:02 <bjdmeest> shepazu: is there anything else we can reuse?
16:39:10 <bjdmeest> azaroth: correct
16:39:15 <azaroth> q?
16:39:25 <bjdmeest> ... that we cannot
16:40:05 <bjdmeest> azaroth: can we agree on a resolution on what we can take to CR?
16:40:23 <bjdmeest> shepazu: we are a long way atm
16:40:28 <ivan> q+
16:40:37 <fjh> +1 to doug, need to work out details of protocol scope, details etc
16:40:39 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:40:41 <tilgovi> +1 to doug
16:41:19 <bjdmeest> ivan: we have a plan, an idea about what can go, and we'll work along those lines
16:41:20 <azaroth> +1
16:41:28 <fjh> +1 to Ivan
16:41:54 <shepazu> Wiki page for F2F: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
16:42:34 <bjdmeest> Topic: issue 49
16:42:45 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
16:42:46 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
16:43:07 <bjdmeest> azaroth: issue is about how systems can notify each about existence and modifications of annotations
16:43:30 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: postpone, given WebMention's recent FPWD
16:43:36 <ivan> q+
16:43:39 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:43:43 <bjdmeest> ... we need to get reading and writing done before we can think about notification
16:44:13 <azaroth> q?
16:44:37 <ivan> q+
16:44:40 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:45:16 <shepazu> q+
16:45:26 <bjdmeest> ivan: choice is whether we do something about it now, or label it as issue that we tackle it in new charter
16:45:28 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:45:31 <shepazu> https://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/
16:45:55 <tilgovi> q+
16:46:11 <bjdmeest> shepazu: it's not on our charter, so shouldn't be taking on work
16:46:20 <bjdmeest> ... see no argument to do it
16:46:33 <bjdmeest> ... hopefully, we can rely on the work of webmention
16:46:36 <tilgovi> q-
16:46:47 <bjdmeest> ... although webmention might not fully comply to our needs
16:47:00 <bjdmeest> ... there are other kinds of notifications as well
16:47:55 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Defer discussion and work on notification, continue to work with Social Web WG to ensure requirements are met
16:47:59 <Jacob> +1
16:48:02 <ivan> +1
16:48:02 <azaroth> +1
16:48:05 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:48:05 <tilgovi> +1
16:48:25 <shepazu> q+
16:48:27 <tbdinesh> +1
16:48:31 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:48:54 <azaroth> s/Defer /Defer technical /
16:48:55 <tilgovi> de-prioritize?
16:49:23 <tbdinesh> +1 to doug
16:49:54 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Defer technical work on notification, continue to discuss requirements and work with Social Web WG to ensure those are met
16:50:06 <azaroth> +1
16:50:06 <shepazu> +1
16:50:11 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:50:13 <chrisbirk> +1
16:50:13 <tbdinesh> +1
16:50:18 <ivan> +1
16:50:24 <tilgovi> +1
16:50:30 <TimCole> +1
16:50:31 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Defer technical work on notification, continue to discuss requirements and work with Social Web WG to ensure those are met
16:50:35 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:50:35 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-irc#T16-50-35
16:50:35 <Jacob> +1
16:51:21 <bjdmeest> Topic: issue 59
16:51:24 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
16:51:29 <bjdmeest> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
16:52:04 <bjdmeest> azaroth: in model, we talk about normalized text (for the offset selector)
16:52:20 <bjdmeest> ... this issue is about how this works in the DOM
16:52:34 <bjdmeest> ... should that be a normative reference?
16:52:44 <bjdmeest> ... I have no objection to that
16:52:53 <bjdmeest> ... any objections?
16:53:21 <tilgovi> this is a PR for the spec language change: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/commit/bed9d0aeace6c27c32e7c8b6f04a7afc8766d5b7
16:53:33 <ivan> works for me...
16:53:42 <tilgovi> or, rather, that's a commit that could be merged
16:53:45 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:53:45 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-irc#T16-53-45
16:54:06 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:54:38 <shepazu> q+
16:54:39 <bjdmeest> ... we can merge that
16:55:19 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:55:31 <bjdmeest> shepazu: about HTML serialization: can we put that on the agenda for next week?
16:55:37 <bjdmeest> azaroth: yes
16:55:44 <bjdmeest> Topic: issue 21
16:55:55 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21
16:56:15 <bjdmeest> azaroth: about set of uris that would be listed in `via`: ordered or a set?
16:56:35 <bjdmeest> ... has implications for model
16:56:50 <bjdmeest> ... ivan suggested list makes sense (i.e., breadcrumbs)
16:56:57 <bjdmeest> ... makes it harder to use viana:via
16:57:11 <bjdmeest> ... as that is just a regular predicate, no list
16:57:40 <TimCole> slight preference for ordered list
16:57:48 <bjdmeest> ivan: I would say: go for ordered, if major issues, we deal with it
16:57:56 <ivan> rrasagent, pointer?
16:57:57 <bjdmeest> azaroth: agreed
16:58:04 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:58:04 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-irc#T16-58-04
16:58:12 <bjdmeest> ... anyone against ordered list?
16:58:42 <bjdmeest> ... so: we go for ordered, and if feedback, we can set it back
16:59:14 <bjdmeest> azaroth: [wrapping up]
16:59:29 <bjdmeest> ... for next week: HTML serialization and testing
17:02:36 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:02:51 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:02:51 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:02:51 <Zakim> 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,
17:02:54 <Zakim> ... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds
17:02:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:02:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:03:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:03:00 <RRSAgent> I see no action items