15:01:27 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:01:27 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc
15:01:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:01:31 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:01:31 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:01:32 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:01:32 <trackbot> Date: 12 February 2016
15:02:01 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUFkyudjVp2=yo_rf7fY48Q5PDg5gH74dG1qpiSy-E4oeg@mail.gmail.com
15:02:19 <ivan> Chair: Rob
15:02:36 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:02:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-minutes.html ivan
15:03:57 <ivan> Regrets+ Tim_Cole
15:19:00 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:19:52 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
15:19:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:19:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:19:56 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:19:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:19:57 <trackbot> Date: 12 February 2016
15:20:43 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Feb/0039.html
15:20:53 <azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson
15:21:19 <azaroth> Regrets+ Tim_Cole
15:21:37 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:22:40 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe selection, Agenda Review, Announcements?
15:48:01 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:51:11 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:57:54 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:58:58 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:59:20 <Talat> Talat has joined #annotation
16:01:21 <nickstenn> Present+ Nick_Stenning
16:01:45 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
16:02:00 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:02:20 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:02:37 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:03:21 <azaroth> scribenick: bjdmeest
16:03:30 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:03:51 <fjh> Regrets+ Benjamin_Young
16:03:57 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:03:57 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:04:12 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:04:54 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
16:05:07 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:05:35 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
16:05:35 <fjh> Regrets+  Tim_Cole
16:05:51 <bjdmeest> azaroth: [discussing today's agenda]
16:06:16 <bjdmeest> dwhly: [about iAnnotate] all systems go
16:06:32 <bjdmeest> ... registration is up right now
16:06:34 <dwhly> http://iannotate.org/2016/
16:06:48 <bjdmeest> ivan: and it works :)
16:07:50 <dwhly> :)
16:08:05 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
16:08:35 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
16:08:56 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/143
16:09:17 <bjdmeest> azaroth: raised by Ivan, discussed briefly last time
16:09:26 <bjdmeest> ... short proposal:
16:09:44 <bjdmeest> ... issue is that timestate only allows recording a single point in time
16:10:31 <bjdmeest> ... representation for an annotation needs an interval
16:11:05 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., web archive etc. uses ranges, so seems easy to support
16:11:27 <shepazu> q+
16:11:28 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: sourceDateStart and sourceDateEnd, or sourceDate if single point in time
16:11:43 <fjh> q?
16:11:46 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:12:00 <bjdmeest> ... using W3CDTF with fallback to xsd:dateTime, both are valid
16:12:29 <bjdmeest> shepazu: how did they do it in media fragments?
16:12:35 <bjdmeest> azaroth: this is unrelated
16:12:51 <bjdmeest> ... this is about real-world datetime, about change
16:13:11 <bjdmeest> shepazu: this has nothing to do with range in a webpage, but a valid datetime?
16:13:15 <bjdmeest> azaroth: yes
16:13:19 <nickstenn> What's the proposed behaviour if sourceDateStart/sourceDateEnd are provided at the same time as sourceDate?
16:13:33 <bjdmeest> ivan: I am fine with this proposal
16:13:37 <ivan> q+
16:13:49 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:13:57 <bjdmeest> azaroth: other comments?
16:14:19 <bjdmeest> ivan: [about writing it down in the spec]: what about all three attributes are in the document, etc.
16:14:30 <bjdmeest> ... these are specifics, when writing it down
16:14:36 <fjh> q?
16:14:39 <fjh> q+
16:14:43 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:14:50 <bjdmeest> fjh: is there an action?
16:15:12 <bjdmeest> ivan: editor will have to include this
16:15:21 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I'm fine to do it
16:15:46 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in #143 to add sourceDateStart / sourceDateEnd to TimeState
16:15:49 <azaroth> +1
16:15:52 <ivan> +1
16:15:55 <bjdmeest> +1
16:16:04 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:16:47 <nickstenn> q+
16:16:51 <fjh> +1
16:16:52 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:16:53 <shepazu> +0
16:16:55 <tbdinesh> +1
16:17:42 <bjdmeest> nickstenn: xsd:datetime already supports range, was that a concious decision not using that?
16:18:28 <bjdmeest> azaroth: last time we also discussed #+-141, so we could also support only dates if no time is known
16:18:29 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:18:37 <davis_salisbury> Present+ davis_salisbury
16:18:46 <bjdmeest> ... using xsd:datetime, you cannot do 'range between this day and this day' without including the time
16:18:48 <ivan> rq+
16:19:01 <ivan> q+
16:19:06 <bjdmeest> ... so that's why two dates instead of datetime range
16:19:23 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:19:32 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime dateTime specification
16:19:52 <bjdmeest> ivan: xsd:datetime does not cover duration, that's a different datatype
16:20:03 <bjdmeest> ... in xsd:schema
16:20:25 <bjdmeest> ... so datetime is not a duration
16:21:03 <bjdmeest> ... duration is a different datatype, as far as I can see
16:21:08 <bjdmeest> ... and these are disjoint
16:21:36 <bjdmeest> azaroth: we could have sourceDuration with a single duration datatype
16:21:49 <azaroth> q?
16:21:50 <bjdmeest> ivan: I would not want that unreadable syntax
16:21:53 <nickstenn> +1
16:22:22 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in #143 to add sourceDateStart / sourceDateEnd to TimeState
16:22:26 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:22:26 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc#T16-22-26
16:22:38 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/148
16:23:25 <bjdmeest> azaroth: (wasn't a github issue yet, I made one)
16:23:40 <bjdmeest> ... whether it was possible and/or desirable to validate the fragment selectors
16:23:58 <bjdmeest> ... e.g. a fragment claiming it is a media fragment, but doesn't conform to the media fragments spec
16:24:03 <bjdmeest> ... should we be able to check that?
16:24:15 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: this is an implementation concern
16:24:41 <bjdmeest> ... a validation suite can be constructed around it, but we as WG don't concern ourselves as specifying that
16:25:11 <davis_salisbury> +1 tp letting it go
16:25:20 <fjh> close it
16:25:24 <ivan> +1 to kill it
16:25:28 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close #148, not in scope of WG work
16:25:29 <nickstenn> the important thing is the construction rule: `source + "#" + fragment`
16:25:30 <PaoloCiccarese> +1 to not tackle
16:26:02 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Close #148, not in scope of WG work
16:26:07 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149
16:26:08 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:26:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc#T16-26-08
16:26:56 <bjdmeest> azaroth: [from europeana] about language tags in rdf, and how that works
16:27:30 <bjdmeest> ... [see example] valid RDF and valid JSON-LD, but very confusing
16:27:40 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149#issuecomment-181462980
16:27:51 <bjdmeest> ... discussion about language tag was an early one
16:28:02 <bjdmeest> ... two reasons for using dc:language instead of @en
16:28:29 <bjdmeest> ... (1) datatype + language tag cannot happen simultaneously in RDF
16:29:06 <bjdmeest> ... we do allow them, but then we get type and @type, value and @value, and language and @language
16:29:13 <bjdmeest> ... changes of this going wrong is high
16:29:18 <bjdmeest> ... we should not do that
16:29:37 <bjdmeest> ... al their use cases are covered (language choices, explicit language)
16:29:52 <bjdmeest> ... I think we can close this, no new requirements are proposed
16:30:04 <bjdmeest> ... there are good reasons for our current way of working
16:30:09 <bjdmeest> ... questions, comments?
16:30:42 <bjdmeest> [crickets]
16:30:44 <nickstenn> the point of the shorthand was to make minimal conforming implementations simpler...
16:31:31 <bjdmeest> azaroth: having language on the resource instead of the literal makes it easier for human understanding
16:31:40 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close #149, no change needed
16:31:45 <fjh> +1
16:31:46 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:31:46 <nickstenn> +1
16:31:48 <ivan> +1
16:31:49 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:31:51 <azaroth> +1
16:32:02 <bjdmeest> +1
16:32:21 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Close #149, no change needed
16:32:26 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:32:26 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc#T16-32-26
16:32:52 <azaroth> TOPIC: Annotation Lists https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/50
16:33:05 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:33:36 <bjdmeest> azaorth: issue: how we manage ordered groups of things
16:33:52 <bjdmeest> ... if it were pure JSON, it would possibly be a non-issue, just an array
16:34:05 <bjdmeest> ... but we also want to be compatible with RDF via JSON-LD
16:34:26 <bjdmeest> ... ignoring ordering from a spec perspective, there are several times when this issue becomes relevant
16:34:40 <bjdmeest> ... easiest one: how to have a list of annotations, or a group of annotations
16:34:48 <bjdmeest> ... requirement from the protocol perspective
16:35:19 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., search matched list of annotations, annotations in this container, harvesting lists of annotations, list of annotations to upload, etc.
16:35:36 <bjdmeest> ... IDPF and DPUBIG have a real requirement for this
16:35:52 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:35:59 <bjdmeest> ... some additional constraints/requirements, i.e., lists have properties
16:36:17 <bjdmeest> ... e.g. DVD extra's equivalent as set of annotations
16:36:35 <bjdmeest> ... so some metadata (label/price/...)
16:36:49 <bjdmeest> ... not just a JSON array, but also some extra data
16:36:56 <bjdmeest> ivan: thus this is not only a JSON-LD issue
16:37:30 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:37:30 <bjdmeest> azaroth: we need to think about the modelling in RDF for the resource that is a set
16:37:48 <bjdmeest> PaoloCiccarese: other use case: teaching
16:38:08 <bjdmeest> ... when teaching, we have a set of annotations to publish for students with extra metadata
16:38:16 <bjdmeest> ... it's seen as a collection, not a single annotation
16:38:29 <bjdmeest> ... there many use cases in teaching and science as well
16:38:31 <shepazu> q+
16:38:33 <davis_salisbury> +1 to Paolo
16:38:34 <Talat> Talat has joined #annotation
16:38:43 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:38:51 <azaroth> (+1 to Paolo too!)
16:39:02 <bjdmeest> shepazu: what is the relation between collection and ordered collection?
16:39:54 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the order of collections has be requested, e.g., for list of annotations that are on a particular web page, ordered by relevance to the user (e.g., social network)
16:40:05 <bjdmeest> ... would make response more useful (good stuff first)
16:40:21 <bjdmeest> shepazu: why JSON vs JSON-LD issue?
16:40:37 <bjdmeest> azaroth: in JSON-LD, an array is used for 2 different purposes
16:40:58 <bjdmeest> ... both look the same in JSON-LD, but are different in RDF
16:41:11 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., unordered collection [2, 4, 9049, 1]
16:41:27 <bjdmeest> ... or ordered collection, which is an RDF list, e.g., [1,2,3,4]
16:41:54 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: we only do ordered collections, we don't do unordered collections at all
16:42:24 <bjdmeest> ... there are modelling reasons why you might want to have a set of unordered items, the serialization will always be in order
16:42:26 <ivan> q+
16:42:36 <bjdmeest> ... the order just might not be static
16:43:14 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:43:25 <bjdmeest> ... you have systems that always return annotations in order, moving to another system that doesn't have order could give bad results for the user
16:43:51 <bjdmeest> ivan: essentially: we do like JSON, i.e., always a list (implies ordering)
16:44:01 <bjdmeest> ... and that's where we stop
16:44:12 <bjdmeest> ... I am very sympathetic to this approach
16:44:34 <bjdmeest> ... but that also means that all the sections about multiplicity constructs go down the drain in the model spec?
16:45:00 <bjdmeest> ... in the case of the protocol, it is clear, but what do we do with other places that talk about something like a collection?>
16:45:30 <bjdmeest> azaroth: referring to #92: is this choice consistent for multiplicity?
16:45:36 <bjdmeest> ... same for #145
16:46:01 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: we drop composite (Because we only do ordered)
16:46:13 <bjdmeest> ... choice is a subclass of list of things
16:46:25 <bjdmeest> ... and use orderedcollection of activityStreams
16:46:53 <bjdmeest> ... we do need to keep the discussion about language, i.e., choice about displaying language
16:47:06 <bjdmeest> ... to keep them working
16:47:26 <bjdmeest> ivan: we decide by principle, to keep only an ordered list
16:47:31 <azaroth> +1
16:47:38 <bjdmeest> ... underlying principle is that this is the approach we take in both documents
16:48:06 <bjdmeest> ... if there are specific cases, we open extra issues for these issues, and discuss this subclassing further there
16:48:41 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:48:46 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:48:48 <bjdmeest> ... proposal: close all issues, and say we use ordered always, and new issue is opened for discussing the rewriting of the multiplicity sections
16:49:07 <bjdmeest> PaoloCiccarese: I'm ok with accepting only ordered list
16:49:23 <bjdmeest> ... as implementer: am I supposed to keep that order?
16:49:34 <bjdmeest> ... in use cases where I don't care about order
16:49:44 <bjdmeest> ... is it mandatory it keep order across transformations?
16:50:06 <bjdmeest> ivan: answer is: you have to keep order, to keep the same RDF
16:50:34 <bjdmeest> ... so can I add a proposal?
16:50:41 <bjdmeest> azaroth: sure
16:51:38 <ivan> Proposed RESOLUTION: we close issues #50, #92, #145 with the principle that, whenever we can, we use ordered list only. Exceptions should be subjects of specific issues.
16:51:48 <azaroth> +1
16:51:50 <bjdmeest> +1
16:51:52 <davis_salisbury> +1
16:51:54 <ivan> +1
16:52:14 <bjdmeest> azaroth: we aim for compatibility for RDF via JSON-LD
16:52:16 <tbdinesh> +1
16:52:24 <bjdmeest> ivan: for the end-user, this is the simplest thing
16:52:34 <bjdmeest> azaroth: and also for the end-user developer
16:53:16 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:53:51 <nickstenn> +0
16:53:55 <shepazu> +0
16:54:02 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:54:02 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc#T16-54-02
16:54:02 <fjh> +0
16:54:14 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: we close issues #50, #92, #145 with the principle that, whenever we can, we use ordered list only. Exceptions should be subjects of specific issues.
16:54:47 <bjdmeest> azaroth: AOB?
16:55:46 <ivan> q+
16:55:49 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:55:55 <bjdmeest> azaroth: some broad topics: testing and html serialization
16:56:13 <bjdmeest> ivan: how far are we to have a virtual last call?
16:56:51 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atelco+
16:57:17 <bjdmeest> azaroth: amount of open issues has decreased a lot
16:58:06 <bjdmeest> azaroth: by the end of march, we could have a last call for issues internally
16:58:30 <bjdmeest> ivan: so another month and a half?
16:58:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: certainly before the end of march
16:58:57 <bjdmeest> ivan: because we have 4 open issues, some are relatively minor
16:59:28 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., selector to the wide world is discussed a lot, with restricted influence
16:59:43 <bjdmeest> ... multiple states and selectors are dependent of todays resolution
17:00:03 <bjdmeest> ... I'd like us to publish it by the end of march
17:00:16 <bjdmeest> azaroth: good
17:00:26 <bjdmeest> ... adjourn
17:00:34 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:34 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:05:56 <uskudarli> uskudarli has left #annotation
17:50:27 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation
17:50:32 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation
17:54:13 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:24:45 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
22:20:56 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation