15:53:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:53:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-irc
15:53:25 <azaroth> rrsagent, start meeting
15:53:25 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:53:33 <azaroth> zakim, start meeting
15:53:33 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth
15:53:37 <azaroth> fail
15:53:55 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
15:53:57 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:59 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:53:59 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:54:00 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:54:00 <trackbot> Date: 20 January 2016
15:54:26 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:54:27 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:54:33 <azaroth> Regrets+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:54:43 <azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson
15:55:06 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html
15:57:23 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:58:03 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:58:03 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:58:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:58:36 <azaroth> Regrets- Frederick_Hirsch
15:59:52 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:00:03 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:00:41 <chrisbirk> chrisbirk has joined #annotation
16:01:27 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
16:02:15 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
16:02:19 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0136.html
16:03:41 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:03:55 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
16:03:57 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:04:39 <azaroth> Scribenick: bjdmeest
16:04:41 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
16:05:29 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:05:41 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
16:05:53 <bjdmeest> azaroth: agenda will start with logistic issues, then about set of issues about lists, multiplicity, etc.
16:06:03 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:06:13 <bjdmeest> ... what's not on the agenda: iAnnotate, and WG meeting prior to that
16:06:15 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
16:06:19 <bjdmeest> ... second: the call time
16:06:46 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html
16:06:55 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:07:09 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:07:09 <Zakim> Present: Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, Jacob_Jett, shepazu, davis_salisbury, Paolo_Ciccarese, Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh,
16:07:10 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Minutes of previous call are approved http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-minutes.html
16:07:13 <Zakim> ... Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley
16:07:13 <Zakim> On IRC I see tbdinesh, Jacob, takeshi, bjdmeest, chrisbirk, tilgovi, fjh, RRSAgent, azaroth, ivan, shepazu, KevinMarks, stain, ben_thatmustbeme, oshepherd, bigbluehat, timeless,
16:07:13 <Zakim> ... tessierashpool_, nickstenn_, dwhly, csarven, nickstenn, Zakim, rhiaro, trackbot
16:07:19 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
16:07:31 <bjdmeest> azaroth: doug asks about HTML serialization
16:07:40 <bjdmeest> ... to be on the agenda
16:07:59 <bjdmeest> ... maybe that will be better kept for a later date? To have a big block of time for that?
16:08:06 <azaroth> Topic: I Annotate
16:08:48 <bjdmeest> dwhly: We are identifying a venue, which allows us to fix a date
16:08:57 <bjdmeest> ... I think we have a venue now
16:08:58 <tbdinesh> Present+ tb_dinesh
16:09:09 <bjdmeest> ... Microsoft venue at ter linden street
16:09:23 <bjdmeest> ... dates are 19 and 20th of May
16:09:31 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:09:34 <bjdmeest> ... F2F could thus be 17th and 18th
16:09:41 <bjdmeest> ... could happen at DFKI
16:09:55 <bjdmeest> ... probability is high that it will be there
16:10:00 <davis_salisbury> Present+ davis_salisbury
16:10:09 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
16:11:21 <bjdmeest> ... If you need support for funding, send me a private note
16:11:32 <ivan> q+
16:11:45 <bjdmeest> ... we generally try to support traveling
16:11:54 <bjdmeest> ... We typically have a hack event after the event
16:12:03 <bjdmeest> ... so this year, on Saturday after iAnnotate
16:12:15 <bjdmeest> ... we are looking for venue suggestions
16:12:22 <bjdmeest> ... for +- 40 people
16:12:26 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:12:31 <bjdmeest> ... suggestions are mostly welcome
16:13:11 <bjdmeest> ivan: Will Microsoft and/or DFKI give suggestions for hotels? Unter ter linden is in the city centre
16:13:39 <bjdmeest> dwhly: We will try to get some standard recommendations for the area
16:14:02 <bjdmeest> ivan: It would be good for the group to be in the same hotel or area
16:14:04 <azaroth> q?
16:14:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: How long would the meeting be before iAnnotate?
16:15:05 <jon> jon has joined #annotation
16:15:09 <fjh> q+
16:15:10 <bjdmeest> ivan: On Tuesday morning, there is a conflicting meeting at DFKI
16:15:20 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:15:21 <fjh> q-
16:15:24 <bjdmeest> ... Tuesday afternoon is possible, not full 2 days
16:15:35 <fjh> my question - will the room actually be ready in the afternoon?
16:15:36 <bjdmeest> azaroth: 1,5 day it is
16:15:48 <fjh> q+
16:15:50 <bjdmeest> ... we talked about at least a half a day of a more open session
16:16:07 <bjdmeest> ... the last half day, where non-WG members could participate
16:16:11 <bjdmeest> ... I am in favor
16:16:16 <ivan> q+
16:16:18 <bjdmeest> ... Should we start promoting that?
16:16:22 <azaroth> q?
16:16:24 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:16:44 <bjdmeest> fjh: Is it realistic that the afternoon meeting rooms will be ready?
16:16:51 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:16:56 <bjdmeest> ivan: Gary confirmed yes
16:17:37 <bjdmeest> ... DFKI is a little bit north of the city center, unter der linden is in the city center
16:18:14 <fjh> +1 to venue, 1.5 days
16:18:23 <fjh> +1 to guests from iAnnotate
16:18:36 <bjdmeest> ivan: I think the best way is we accept guests to the entire F2F meeting, they are guests, not decision making
16:18:46 <fjh> big thanks to Dan and Hypothes.is for arranging iAnnotate and working with Web Annotation WG to coordinate
16:18:54 <chrisbirk> +1
16:19:08 <bjdmeest> azaroth: other remarks? Thanks Dan and Hypothes.is for arranging!
16:19:11 <ivan> +1
16:19:22 <bjdmeest> ... [silence], no other remarks
16:19:40 <ivan> Topic: meeting times
16:19:42 <bjdmeest> Topic: Call Time
16:19:50 <jon_> jon_ has joined #annotation
16:19:53 <azaroth> Doodle: http://doodle.com/poll/m25yrdi3fmne6src
16:20:01 <bjdmeest> azaroth: frederic has an unresolvable conflict with this time
16:20:11 <bjdmeest> ... doodle is in the minutes
16:20:12 <fjh> contenders look like Tue 11am ET (no Doug), the current slot Wed 11am ET (no Frederick), and Fri at 11am ET (if need be for Doug)
16:20:32 <fjh> I could participate at current time alternate weeks
16:20:39 <TimCole> q+
16:20:50 <tbdinesh_> tbdinesh_ has joined #annotation
16:20:56 <azaroth> ack TimCole
16:21:02 <bjdmeest> ... so please fill out this poll the coming week
16:21:16 <fjh> q+
16:21:20 <bjdmeest> TimCole: is it a possibility to alternate timings bi-weekly?
16:21:30 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:21:33 <azaroth> q+
16:21:35 <bjdmeest> ... to accommodate for asian members
16:21:48 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:21:53 <bjdmeest> fjh: I have a conflict on alternate weeks, so synced, that would be a possibility
16:22:22 <bjdmeest> azaroth: would it be a big advantage to have alternate timing every other week? Or is the current time easy enough?
16:22:43 <bjdmeest> tbdinesh: it's ok for me
16:23:02 <bjdmeest> Takeshi: it's currently 1am, but for me, it's ok
16:23:36 <bjdmeest> azaroth: If we could find a better time for takeshi, that would be good, thanks for being here
16:23:55 <bjdmeest> ... let's check the doodle poll, if there's no obvious winner, we can discuss
16:24:15 <bjdmeest> ... alternate timings will not be easy, lot of miss calls
16:24:33 <bjdmeest> ... so please fill out the poll
16:24:48 <azaroth> q?
16:25:08 <azaroth> Topic: Testing
16:26:11 <chrisbirk> q+
16:26:44 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I propose to, instead of getting the discussion between Chris and Doug out of band, maybe you could discuss on the mailing list
16:26:53 <azaroth> ack chrisbirk
16:27:01 <bjdmeest> ... it would be good to have as many people in the discussion as possible
16:27:12 <bjdmeest> chrisbirk: mailing list or github issue?
16:27:39 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I think mailing list to begin with, and more granular things can go into github issues
16:27:56 <bjdmeest> ... general discussion in the mailing list
16:28:00 <azaroth> q?
16:29:06 <bjdmeest> azaroth: for next topics, we have lists-related issues, and HTML serialization
16:29:40 <bjdmeest> ... given timing, we could go into part of the list issues, and a bit of HTML serialization
16:29:53 <bjdmeest> ... to unblock other list issues
16:30:09 <azaroth> Topic: Multiple Selectors
16:30:31 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93
16:30:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: this is issue 93
16:30:43 <bjdmeest> ... came up at TPAC
16:31:25 <bjdmeest> ... this is indicative to the academic nature of some WG members
16:32:28 <bjdmeest> ... suggestion: instead of using compositions and lists of selectors, use subselectors
16:32:39 <ivan> q+
16:33:00 <shepazu> q+
16:33:03 <bjdmeest> ... advantage: it uses the structure of the JSON to convey order, instead of RDF:List
16:33:27 <fjh> q=
16:33:31 <fjh> q+
16:33:41 <bjdmeest> ... it makes choice also quite easy, as multiple selectors becomes: you can do this OR that
16:33:41 <azaroth> q?
16:33:44 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:33:57 <bjdmeest> ... currently, it doesn't make sense to do multiple selectors
16:34:10 <bjdmeest> ivan: so, this example merges two sub-issues?
16:34:40 <bjdmeest> ... the first one is a refinement selector, the other is a choice?
16:35:13 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the selector in the example is a list, you choose between the two, the first one has a refinement
16:35:15 <azaroth> q?
16:35:17 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:35:40 <Jacob> How do we indicate when one is expected to make a choice verses apply things one after the other?
16:35:56 <bjdmeest> shepazu: there is no way of having an ordered list in rdf?
16:36:27 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the traditional way of doing ordering in RDF is complex at the triple level, and can done in many ways in the JSON-LD level
16:36:44 <TimCole> q+
16:36:51 <bjdmeest> ... I believe the proposal is simpler both in JSON as in RDF perspective
16:37:05 <bjdmeest> shepazu: from a pure JSON position, I don't think there is ordering in JSON
16:37:14 <bjdmeest> ... So not only an issue for RDF
16:37:26 <bjdmeest> ... I see two solutions: nesting
16:37:44 <bjdmeest> ... but why 'subSelector' instead of just nesting extra 'selector's?
16:37:53 <bjdmeest> ... is that necessary to add a new type?
16:38:08 <bjdmeest> azaroth: It needs to be a different key, because it is a different predicate in RDF
16:38:26 <bjdmeest> ... the semantics would be very strange when we would reuse 'selector'
16:38:45 <bjdmeest> ... a different key makes it clearer that a second selector needs to be done
16:39:06 <bjdmeest> shepazu: are there cases where you want to do more than 2 things in a sequence?
16:39:21 <bjdmeest> ... azaroth, and then you can use 'subselector' again
16:39:37 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I suggest not using camecase
16:39:47 <fjh> q?
16:40:07 <bjdmeest> ... also, we could also use an attribute for ordering the selectors
16:40:25 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., this is the first one, this is the second one, this is the third one, do them in this order
16:40:41 <ivan> q+
16:40:45 <bjdmeest> azaroth: that makes it more difficult to reuse, but so is the current proposal
16:40:57 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:41:07 <bjdmeest> ... If you have a choice between selectors, I don't think it would cope with that
16:41:22 <bjdmeest> fjh: it seems to do the job for 80/20 cases
16:41:26 <bjdmeest> ... seems pretty good
16:41:44 <bjdmeest> ... about the states comment
16:41:49 <bjdmeest> ... isn't states orthogonal?
16:41:58 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/135
16:42:04 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the states issue is #35
16:42:34 <bjdmeest> ... it is orthogonal, but if we agree on #93, we need the same for #135
16:42:35 <azaroth> q?
16:42:37 <azaroth> ack TimCole
16:42:40 <bjdmeest> fjh: so the same pattern for both issues?
16:42:43 <bjdmeest> azaroth: yes
16:43:08 <bjdmeest> TimCole: this pattern of choice and sequence came out of the CG, because it could be reused for eg state
16:43:15 <bjdmeest> ... but also for the target of an annotation
16:43:31 <bjdmeest> ... two concerns: differentiate between array[choice] and array[sequence]
16:44:03 <fjh> s/isn't states/aren't states/
16:44:15 <bjdmeest> ... I think we are in danger of complicating the model as a whole, to accommodate for a 20% use case
16:44:27 <bjdmeest> ... we are getting further away from RDF
16:45:01 <bjdmeest> ... it's not really a property, you need some community knowledge to know that you need to apply the selector, even further with the subselector
16:45:08 <bjdmeest> ... I think it needs more discussion
16:45:23 <bjdmeest> ... more consistent with RDF, easier for JSON-LD
16:45:58 <bjdmeest> ... applying a selector to a resource creates a more specific resource, and then subselector creates an even more specific resource
16:46:25 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the desire to simplify the Choice and List constructs is the underlying desire here
16:46:37 <bjdmeest> ... @TimCole, could you draw up an alternative?
16:47:08 <azaroth> q?
16:47:12 <bjdmeest> TimCole: I'd like to suggest a couple weeks, where we could come with more examples in different serializations, and decide then
16:47:24 <bjdmeest> ... discussion highlights that there is still a lot of uncertainty here
16:47:40 <bjdmeest> ... happy to make some examples
16:47:50 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:47:54 <bjdmeest> azaroth: let's start as comments on the current issue
16:48:20 <bjdmeest> ivan: I find this proposed structure very intuitive
16:48:41 <bjdmeest> ... this structure is exact what an implementation would do
16:48:55 <fjh> +1 to ivan
16:49:02 <bjdmeest> ... apply selector to the resource, then apply next selector on subselection
16:49:09 <bjdmeest> ... it's much more intuitive than a list of any form
16:49:35 <azaroth> q?
16:49:37 <bjdmeest> ... For me, this is atm the most intuitive solution
16:49:55 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I was just thinking: are there other possible solutions?
16:49:59 <bjdmeest> ... nesting seems fine
16:50:08 <bjdmeest> ... other examples would be great though
16:50:21 <bjdmeest> ... I'd like to think about the problem more deeple
16:50:26 <bjdmeest> ... but the nesting solution seems intuitive
16:50:37 <bjdmeest> s/deeple/deeply/
16:50:39 <ivan> s/deeple/deeply/
16:51:01 <ivan> q+
16:51:06 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:51:21 <bjdmeest> ivan: let's suppose we choose this proposal
16:51:34 <bjdmeest> ... does that mean the whole current section about multiplicity goes away?
16:51:44 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I don't think it goes away, it gets reframed
16:51:55 <bjdmeest> ... we still have the question about multiple bodies and targets
16:52:10 <bjdmeest> ... choice of CG was to apply the same structure to both
16:52:23 <bjdmeest> ... complicating factor is the addition of annotation lists
16:52:29 <bjdmeest> ... which we need from several angles
16:52:35 <bjdmeest> ... protocol needs ordered list of annotations
16:53:05 <bjdmeest> ... there is a desire fetching a list of annotations
16:53:15 <bjdmeest> ... which should be discoverable
16:53:25 <bjdmeest> ... we have order in different levels
16:53:37 <bjdmeest> ... from my perspective, there is no single good answer
16:53:48 <bjdmeest> ... we need to come up with a solution for each of those levels
16:54:03 <bjdmeest> ... as consistent as possible, without making any of them arbitrarily complex
16:54:24 <bjdmeest> shepazu: it will be useful to talk about the cases where multiplicity will be used
16:54:48 <bjdmeest> ... my intuition is that there are different places with different needs
16:55:15 <bjdmeest> ... so the one structure to rule them all seems implausible
16:55:24 <bjdmeest> ... we shouldn't constrain the solution too much
16:55:34 <bjdmeest> ... to accommodate all possible level
16:55:53 <tilgovi> Four places we're talking about multilpicity: ordered lists, unordered lists, alternates, and refinements
16:55:58 <azaroth> q?
16:56:27 <bjdmeest> azaroth: timing-wise, let's push HTML serialization to the next call
16:56:52 <bjdmeest> ... to have the big picture: who would like to take responsibility for the different sections?
16:57:05 <bjdmeest> ... #93 handles multiplicity for selectors and states
16:57:14 <bjdmeest> ... #50 is about lists of annotations
16:57:24 <bjdmeest> ... multiple targets has also an issue, I think
16:57:41 <TimCole> that would be helpful
16:57:58 <bjdmeest> ... somewhere in the next couple of weeks, I will write up ???
16:58:06 <bjdmeest> ... depending on the comments of the github issues
16:58:12 <azaroth> s/???/the higher level view/
16:58:33 <bjdmeest> ivan: this whole multiplicity issue is for the model and vocab document, right?
16:58:40 <bjdmeest> ... let's remember we are in the finishing strech
16:58:50 <bjdmeest> ... we shouldn't spend too much time on this issue
16:59:04 <bjdmeest> azaroth: HTML serialization is for next week
16:59:19 <bjdmeest> ... proposal for other selectors is welcome
16:59:28 <bjdmeest> ... there are a lot of selector issues
16:59:39 <bjdmeest> ... we shoudn't discuss multiplicity alone
16:59:49 <fjh> regrets from me for next week (unfortunately)
16:59:51 <azaroth> q?
16:59:55 <bjdmeest> azaroth: so, adjourn?
17:00:00 <bjdmeest> ... adjourn!
17:00:14 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:00:23 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:00:23 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:00:23 <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,
17:00:26 <Zakim> ... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley
17:00:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:00:32 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:00:32 <RRSAgent> I see no action items