15:47:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:47:57 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-annotation-irc
15:48:02 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
15:48:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:48:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:48:07 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:48:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:48:08 <trackbot> Date: 19 February 2016
15:48:15 <azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson
15:48:23 <azaroth> Regrets+ Randall_Leeds
15:48:34 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:48:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe selection, agenda review, announcements?
15:59:00 <mete_pinar> mete_pinar has joined #annotation
15:59:30 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Feb/0120.html
15:59:45 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_whaley
15:59:57 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:00:06 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
16:01:23 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
16:01:35 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:02:43 <ivan> present+ ivan
16:03:10 <nickstenn> Present+ Nick_Stenning
16:03:42 <azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch
16:04:28 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:04:34 <uskudarli> present+ Suzan_Uskudarli
16:04:56 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:05:09 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:05:19 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:05:32 <azaroth> scribenick: bigbluehat
16:06:38 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:07:31 <ivan> Regrets+ Randall, TimCole
16:07:34 <bigbluehat> azaroth: are there any other issues for the agend?
16:07:39 <bigbluehat> s/agend/agenda
16:07:48 <bigbluehat> fjh: it might be good to review outstanding issues before we start
16:08:03 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any announcements? face-to-face? etc?
16:08:53 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:08:59 <bigbluehat> dwhly: things are in place for the venue for the f2f, and were working on finishing off other remaining details
16:09:17 <fjh> s/before we start/at the end of the call, to see what is left to resolve and where we are/
16:09:26 <bigbluehat> ...we're working on getting hotel accommodation info also
16:09:33 <bigbluehat> ...we'd love for folks to register for I Annotate soon
16:09:44 <azaroth> TOPIC: Minutes Approval
16:09:47 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:09:50 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-minutes.html
16:10:04 <fjh> add me as chair if possible
16:10:14 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:10:30 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
16:10:35 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-minutes.html
16:10:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: Outstanding Issue Review
16:10:58 <tbdinesh> persent+ tb_dinesh
16:11:15 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
16:11:52 <tbdinesh> present+ tb_dinesh
16:11:52 <fjh> +1 to doing the review of issue status first
16:12:07 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if you follow that link you will see all the non-editor-action or postponed issues
16:12:13 <bigbluehat> ...there are only 10 of them
16:12:22 <bigbluehat> ...the range selector is splitting out #93
16:12:23 <fjh> so, after one more call we should have completed the model issues?
16:12:32 <bigbluehat> ...from the bottom up
16:13:04 <bigbluehat> ...#19 - agreement was to publish a new set of drafts and get feedback from the chair of the Security group
16:13:12 <bigbluehat> ...so it's blocked until we get a new set of drafts out
16:13:22 <fjh> W3C Security Interest Group - https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/IG
16:13:25 <bigbluehat> ...#80 - JSON-LD frame is partly done
16:13:45 <bigbluehat> ...there's a frame for annotations, but not for the lists of annotations
16:13:58 <bigbluehat> ...#93 - multiple selectors. we're discussing later today
16:14:09 <fjh> q+
16:14:13 <bigbluehat> ...if you have a group of selectors, is there a simpler way to do it than we currently have
16:14:44 <bigbluehat> ...#95 - XPath Selector - new selector, can we use that on any media type? or just ones that say they support it?
16:15:29 <bigbluehat> fjh: what I'm trying to understand is what work is left or which ones are basically completed.
16:15:38 <bigbluehat> ...it sounds like most or basically completed and just need some remaining discussion
16:15:54 <bigbluehat> azaroth: #102 - AS comparison - we need to make sure we're still lined up with their spec
16:16:15 <bigbluehat> fjh: I thought we were deferring #110
16:16:22 <bigbluehat> ivan: #110's on today's agenda
16:16:39 <bigbluehat> azaroth: #135 is the same as #93. if we solve #93, we solve #135
16:16:53 <bigbluehat> ...#147 isn't a CR related issue
16:17:09 <bigbluehat> ...#150 0-1 or 0-n string bodies is on todays agend
16:17:19 <bigbluehat> s/agend/agenda
16:17:22 <fjh> so we might resolve all the open model issues today, unless there are some that aren’t on the list
16:17:31 <bigbluehat> ...#153 which tilgovi just added splits out Range from #95
16:17:44 <bigbluehat> fjh: there was an issue that was closed which folks wanted back open
16:17:48 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it's the language one
16:17:57 <bigbluehat> ...#149
16:18:02 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149
16:18:13 <bigbluehat> ...it's not about the body of the annotation, but about the meta data
16:18:32 <bigbluehat> ...if you wanted to associate a label with the body, and want to state what language the label is in, then where do you put that?
16:18:39 <bigbluehat> fjh: do we need an open issue for that?
16:18:43 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I think it's out of scope
16:19:20 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aeditor_action
16:19:27 <bigbluehat> azaroth: now this list
16:19:35 <bigbluehat> ...these are editor-action
16:19:46 <bigbluehat> ...they're waiting on the editors to complete these
16:19:53 <bigbluehat> ...I have most of today blocked out for the rest of them
16:20:11 <bigbluehat> ...in terms of actual changes to the document--the pending ones are done (committed) the others are next
16:20:13 <fjh> q?
16:20:16 <fjh> q-
16:20:39 <bigbluehat> ...the discussion the last couple weeks was to have this all wrapped up by the middle of march
16:20:50 <bigbluehat> ...for getting all of our open issues resolved
16:21:10 <bigbluehat> ...that would put us in good stead for implementations, testing, etc.
16:21:11 <azaroth> q?
16:21:12 <bigbluehat> ...to get through CR
16:21:19 <fjh> Walking through the issues was helpful, thank you.
16:21:36 <bigbluehat> azaroth: one very brief thing I want to raise about extension
16:21:51 <bigbluehat> ...for example, if adding a new namespace to a serialization is important
16:21:58 <bigbluehat> ...such as the label of the language of the body
16:22:06 <bigbluehat> ...then it might be required to add a second context
16:22:13 <bigbluehat> ...we say it must be a string and it must be the annotation context
16:22:20 <bigbluehat> ...so extension at the annotation level is not possible
16:22:39 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/150: 0-1 or 0-n string bodies
16:23:17 <bigbluehat> issue #79 there wasn't any consensus around the # of string which could be used
16:23:24 <bigbluehat> ...so at the moment it says 0-1
16:23:32 <bigbluehat> ...so the question is should it be changed to 0-n
16:23:58 <bigbluehat> azaroth: i believe the body text property is only there to make the annotations as simple as possible
16:24:01 <fjh> eg: bigbluehat: +1  etc
16:24:19 <bigbluehat> ...so as soon as you get away from that, then the appropriate way to do it is with body resources
16:24:30 <bigbluehat> ...you'd use a resource per body
16:24:41 <nickstenn> q+
16:24:47 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:25:03 <bigbluehat> ivan: I don't know why an array of string is not allowed when you can have an array of bodies
16:25:23 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to keep it brief as it's not a major issue
16:25:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it came from the CSV group
16:25:36 <bigbluehat> ...they wanted a completely fast structure
16:25:44 <bigbluehat> ...as soon as you introduce an array, it's not flat
16:26:01 <bigbluehat> ivan: right. they don't want a complex object, when a string would serve the purpose
16:26:14 <azaroth> q?
16:26:15 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:26:26 <bigbluehat> azaroth: your interpretation is they want strings. my interpretation is they want a single string.
16:26:46 <bigbluehat> nickstenn: it's a lot simpler to write a implementation that assumes if it sees this field it's a string
16:26:55 <bigbluehat> ...you'd either have an implementation that is full RDF like
16:27:02 <bigbluehat> ...or much simpler that assumes it's a string
16:27:08 <ivan> q+
16:27:15 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:27:20 <bigbluehat> ...by allowing it for an array of strings, then the implementation become more complex.
16:27:33 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: while I understand ivan's point, why would I use multiple strings?
16:28:04 <bigbluehat> ...so I'm not really sure. it's weird to have the 1 constraint, it does make the implementations simpler.
16:28:06 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:28:19 <bigbluehat> ...I'm almost neutral as I'll never probably use this.
16:28:39 <bigbluehat> ivan: I would like to make a proposal and drive this to a close
16:28:53 <bigbluehat> ...but I would caution that we're opening up something with nickstenn's comment
16:29:11 <bigbluehat> ...about the implementation testing and obligations of clients
16:29:30 <bigbluehat> ...there is already the need to test for a single body vs. multiple bodies
16:29:35 <bigbluehat> ...this is similar, just for textual bodies
16:29:35 <nickstenn> for me the crucial point is that the proposed resolution doesn't make anything impossible
16:29:55 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I think that ivan's comment is a nice framing
16:29:56 <nickstenn> if you want multiple textual bodies, you use multiple bodies
16:30:15 <bigbluehat> ...the baseline requirement is that you support this minimum requirement--and not the regular body structure
16:30:27 <bigbluehat> ...if you support the regular body structure, then you don't really need the simple bodyText property
16:30:41 <bigbluehat> ivan: we implemented bodyText for the users
16:30:46 <nickstenn> q+
16:30:56 <bigbluehat> ...my understanding was that a conformant implementation has to do both.
16:31:11 <bigbluehat> ...we need to have a discussion about what is a conformant implementation
16:31:15 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:31:18 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I'll take an issue to raise the conformance issue
16:31:51 <bigbluehat> nickstenn: we did discuss, but I think drop the idea of conformance levels
16:32:00 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:32:17 <bigbluehat> ...if the only conforming implementation is one that does all the things, then we're limiting the likelihood of implementations
16:32:37 <fjh> +1
16:32:46 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Use the current 0-1 strings for bodyText, and disallow arrays of strings
16:32:55 <bigbluehat> ...realistically, as client-side in the browser, implementing a full RDF stack, supporting multiple body types is not realistic for an initial implementation
16:33:01 <tbdinesh> +1
16:33:03 <takeshi> +1
16:33:03 <nickstenn> +1
16:33:04 <fjh> +1
16:33:05 <azaroth> +1
16:33:06 <ivan> -1
16:33:12 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:33:14 <davis_salisbury> +0
16:33:16 <bigbluehat> +0
16:33:21 <bjdmeest> +0
16:33:40 <ivan> for the records: my -1 is not an objection
16:34:02 <bigbluehat> scribenick: dwhly
16:34:50 <dwhly> RESOLUTION: Use the current 0-1 strings for bodyText, and disallow arrays of strings
16:34:51 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:34:51 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-annotation-irc#T16-34-51
16:35:02 <azaroth> TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93:  Multiple Selectors
16:35:29 <dwhly> azaroth: 135 was exactly same issue
16:35:42 <dwhly> ... there's a lot of discussion on this one
16:36:19 <dwhly> ... selectors should be able to be chained, for instance fragment + xpath selectors
16:36:37 <dwhly> ... there are implementations, hypothesis, queensland, etc.  this is not a new thing
16:37:02 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-173398909
16:37:18 <dwhly> ... there are three use cases
16:37:33 <dwhly> ... 1) refine fragment selector w/ text selector
16:37:53 <dwhly> ... 2) two alternative selectors
16:38:00 <dwhly> ... 3) mixing the two
16:38:37 <dwhly> ... there was discussion around whether it was valuable or not
16:39:23 <dwhly> ivan: initially there was a proposal by rob
16:39:46 <dwhly> ... within a selector you can have subselectors and so on, which encode the series of things you want to do
16:39:59 <dwhly> ... sounded straightforward, but there was annother proposal
16:40:07 <dwhly> ... to encode the same information by hugo
16:40:14 <dwhly> ... don't know how to characterize it
16:40:30 <dwhly> ... was coined as the "inverse model", started w/ selectors, ended w/ resource
16:40:39 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-173962602
16:40:44 <dwhly> ... origins in functional programming
16:40:52 <dwhly> ... debate ensued, matter of taste
16:40:56 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-174291171
16:41:26 <dwhly> ... jacob supplied some examples, i formatted them, seemed unrealistic
16:41:47 <dwhly> ... debate ended by discussion around practicality, intuitive
16:41:52 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/93#issuecomment-175080258
16:42:03 <dwhly> ... one thing may tip the balance, related to discussion we may have today
16:42:22 <dwhly> ... based on my desire to have selectors expressed as a fragment identifier
16:42:32 <dwhly> ... for usages that require a URL
16:42:54 <dwhly> ... that can be done simply w/ proposal of rob, impossible w/ hugos
16:42:58 <azaroth> q?
16:43:03 <dwhly> ... balance tips in favor of original proposal
16:43:19 <dwhly> ... about 3 weeks ago the discussion died out
16:43:29 <dwhly> ... we need to decide between rob's original or hugos
16:44:04 <dwhly> azaroth: the distinction is that the original to take broadest first and refine, hugos is to start /w most specific and broaden
16:44:15 <dwhly> ivan: becomes more complex w/ more specific examples
16:44:37 <azaroth> q?
16:44:37 <dwhly> azaroth: the comment from ivan, formatted made it much easier to see
16:44:47 <dwhly> ... what do people think?
16:45:34 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:45:40 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:46:13 <dwhly> PaoloCiccarese: question ... [missed it]
16:46:52 <dwhly> ... in the case that i do a text quote
16:47:01 <dwhly> ... and now I want to have references in the document
16:47:10 <dwhly> ... that could be a ref to the position or the occurrence
16:47:18 <dwhly> ... where would we expect that information to go
16:47:33 <dwhly> ... the 2nd proposal is combining position and text quote
16:47:44 <dwhly> ... and they are supposed to be alternative
16:47:55 <dwhly> ... doesn't stop me from using them in combination
16:48:05 <dwhly> ... use case 1 in combination
16:48:10 <nickstenn> q+
16:48:11 <dwhly> ... use case 2 is one or the other
16:48:16 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:48:20 <dwhly> ... use case 3 is a combo
16:48:46 <dwhly> nickstenn: are we trying to combine the algorithm into the data model
16:49:01 <shepazu> q+
16:49:12 <dwhly> ... when hypothesis fails to use a selector, that we can check such as a text selector
16:49:35 <dwhly> ... that selector doesn't become discarded, may become the start point for a fuzzy search
16:49:57 <dwhly> ... any hierarchy is perhaps too much.
16:50:12 <dwhly> PaoloCiccarese: when are two selector really alternatives
16:50:16 <ivan> q+
16:50:26 <azaroth> q+
16:50:30 <dwhly> ... i might still have two completely different selectors
16:50:44 <dwhly> ... for exactly thes same reason that nick said
16:50:55 <dwhly> ... if i have a number even if its fuzzy its still what it is
16:51:06 <dwhly> ... doesn't imply i can't still look at them and make sense
16:51:32 <dwhly> ... in between the two approaches, i like this one
16:51:35 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:51:52 <dwhly> shepazu: i'm sympathetic to nick
16:52:10 <dwhly> ... on one hand we need to balance notion of interoperability w/ innovation tricky in standards
16:52:21 <dwhly> ... don't think there's a prob  data model having an order
16:52:37 <dwhly> ... but perhaps it shouldn't dictate
16:53:00 <dwhly> ... it's a set of data and the UA treats it as appropriate
16:53:04 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:53:07 <nickstenn> does anyone have a concrete example of where more selector structure is necessary?
16:53:11 <dwhly> ... don't think we should dictate what the UA does
16:53:25 <dwhly> ivan: i'm completely lost by this line of argument
16:53:33 <dwhly> ... we have selectors which are refinements
16:53:38 <nickstenn> q+
16:53:39 <dwhly> ... not an algorithm
16:53:48 <dwhly> ... not a choice between xml or html
16:54:11 <dwhly> ... simply a refinement of selectors
16:54:11 <azaroth> q?
16:54:24 <dwhly> shepazu: when you're making a list you're doing for a reason
16:54:49 <dwhly> ivan: there yes, we can say if its a list or a set, but that's not what we're talking about... it's a series of refinements
16:54:57 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:55:01 <dwhly> ... i select something w/ a selector and then subselect
16:55:04 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:55:30 <dwhly> azaroth: so i'm sympathic w/ nick, it is an algorithm a simple one
16:55:40 <dwhly> ... we have already accepted the use case for this
16:55:53 <dwhly> ... the issue is whether we stick with what we have or make it simpler
16:56:16 <dwhly> ... i have listed to doug's argument about innovation
16:56:28 <dwhly> ... doesn't say you have to implement the algorithm.
16:56:37 <dwhly> ... if you can interpret differently, do so
16:56:45 <dwhly> ... new selectors are ok too
16:56:52 <dwhly> ... no impact on innovation
16:57:07 <shepazu> (I think we're saying mostly the same thing on that point, actually)
16:57:07 <azaroth> q?
16:57:09 <azaroth> ack nickstenn
16:57:27 <dwhly> nickstenn: you'll be shocked to know that i vote for the simplest thing
16:57:53 <dwhly> ... i'm not sure i understand the use case, annotations have targets, selectors identify them
16:58:00 <dwhly> ... what do subselectors do?
16:58:19 <dwhly> azaroth: let me quickly try to illustrate, epub is a zip file
16:58:28 <dwhly> ... has a URI, html docusments
16:58:53 <dwhly> ... in order to accurately select ... need to say, here is a URI, then an HTML file, then a selector
16:59:18 <dwhly> so, either we have an epub specific selector, or we have more generic general purpose ones
16:59:24 <nickstenn> or you have two selectors next to one another?
17:00:04 <shepazu> q+
17:00:05 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
17:00:17 <azaroth> nickstenn: Needs more discussion
17:00:20 <azaroth> ivan: Yes
17:00:23 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
17:00:41 <azaroth> PaoloCiccarese: Okay with subselector, I see the epub use case.  Wondering how it compares to scope
17:00:53 <azaroth> ... Was using that to say this image in this html document
17:00:58 <azaroth> ... slightly different but similar
17:00:59 <azaroth> q?
17:01:01 <azaroth> ack shepazu
17:01:17 <fjh> q+
17:01:45 <azaroth> shepazu: Saying contradictory things. This is how we selected this thing in the document. Describing an algorithm that you first do one thing, then the next.
17:02:13 <azaroth> ... If not prescribing UA behavior, that's fine. If describing the order in which the selections were made, okay. But need to be clear what restrictions we're putting on UAs
17:02:27 <azaroth> ... sounds increasingly like a set of instructions
17:02:44 <azaroth> ... UA that makes the selection and the one that interprets it
17:02:57 <fjh> why is it bad to define a method for selection refinement that is easy to express, like a unix pipe
17:03:10 <fjh> what is the summary of the concern with the proposal?
17:03:19 <azaroth> ... restriction on the one that makes it
17:03:23 <azaroth> q?
17:03:39 <azaroth> ack fjh
17:04:18 <azaroth> fjh: Don't understand the concern, as to whether its wrong to include at all, or whether there's a more generic way
17:04:59 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
17:05:03 <fjh> if we express the concern clearly it may resolve easily
17:05:11 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:05:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:05:15 <azaroth> fjh++
17:18:12 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:18:12 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:18:12 <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,
17:18:15 <Zakim> ... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley, Susan, Uskudarli, !, Nick_Stenning, Suzan_Uskudarli
17:18:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:18:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/02/19-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:18:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:18:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items