14:53:24 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:53:24 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-irc
14:53:28 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
14:53:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:53:30 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:53:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:53:32 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:53:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:53:34 <trackbot> Date: 15 April 2016
14:53:44 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:53:53 <azaroth> Chairs: Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson
14:54:01 <azaroth> Regrets+ Nick_Stenning
15:00:49 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:00:57 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:00:58 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:01:04 <TimCole> Regrets+ Ivan_Herman
15:01:15 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:01:50 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:02:24 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
15:02:56 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:03:03 <tilgovi> Me
15:03:14 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:04:01 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:04:46 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
15:05:06 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements
15:05:42 <TimCole> azaroth: Agenda will cover open issues, including privacy review, selector media table, ...
15:05:45 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #annotation
15:06:15 <TimCole> ... other topics?
15:06:28 <TimCole> ... hearing none, any announcements?
15:06:39 <azaroth> TOPIC: Minutes Approval
15:06:44 <tbdinesh> present+ tb_dinesh
15:06:51 <TimCole> ... hearing none, move on to minutes review
15:06:53 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:09 <TimCole> azaroth: any objections to  minutes?
15:07:18 <azaroth> TOPIC: Open Issues
15:07:19 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:07:20 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:40 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:07:48 <azaroth> PING review: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/204
15:07:57 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
15:08:09 <TimCole> azaroth: Issue #204, results of Privacy review.
15:08:37 <TimCole> ... summary - two most important comments, 1) request to recommend https
15:09:03 <Kyrce> Present+ Kyrce_Swenson
15:09:03 <TimCole> ... 2) there should be some way to opt out of being annotated
15:09:16 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:09:20 <TimCole> ... similar to how robots.txt requests crawlers not to crawl
15:09:26 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:09:32 <dwhly> +q
15:09:39 <TimCole> ... reality is there is no way to preclude annotating, but you can request
15:10:05 <TimCole> ... Privacy also asked about being able to delete, etc., but this is supported.
15:10:06 <azaroth> ack dwhly
15:10:29 <TimCole> dwhly: okay with https, but lots to say about 2nd suggestion
15:10:49 <TimCole> ... we have been doing research, outreach, interviews, with people across the spectrum
15:11:10 <TimCole> ... of project, users, blog posters, etc.
15:11:42 <TimCole> ... there is a diversity of opinion, but some consensus that there should be some way page owners can signal would-be annotators
15:11:45 <shepazu> q+
15:12:07 <TimCole> ... would be interested in the opinion of the WG whether they thought this was within their remit
15:12:20 <TimCole> ... there are a wide variety of things that might be signaled
15:12:49 <shepazu> (privately/locally annotated vs published)
15:12:50 <TimCole> ... proxied or not, annotated or not, annotated only if annotations are moderated, etc. - long list
15:13:22 <TimCole> ... mechanism not clear yet, but first question is should a signaling mechanism be considered.
15:13:44 <bigbluehat> "annotation service" == "publisher" ?
15:14:04 <TimCole> ... would require some negotiation, but annotators would need to be able to override if in public interest
15:14:18 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:14:22 <tbdinesh> ffirst. how to we identify a page owner?  (so as to signal)
15:14:33 <TimCole> ... these are some thoughts within hypothes.is, interested in knowing what others in the WG think.
15:14:34 <tbdinesh> s/ffirst/first
15:14:37 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:15:48 <TimCole> azaroth: Could you (Dan) write-up a summary of data gathering so far and post to WG list serv?
15:15:52 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:16:00 <TimCole> dwhly: yes, could be a couple of weeks
15:16:15 <azaroth> q+
15:16:30 <TimCole> shepazu: a big problem on the Web, there should be a place for standards here
15:16:51 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:16:55 <TimCole> ... there are useful things beyond if you want to be annotated or not
15:17:02 <ShaneM> Regrets for today - sorry!
15:17:06 <TimCole> ... e.g., do I have my own annotation server?
15:17:28 <TimCole> ... so there are degrees beyond do I wanted to be annotated at all?
15:17:46 <TimCole> ... what are the other useful end points (annotation repositories)
15:18:08 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:18:10 <TimCole> ... maybe only be able to annotate to curated sites?
15:18:33 <dwhly> q+
15:18:33 <TimCole> paoloCiccarese: sounds cool, but what's the goal?
15:18:34 <fjh_> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:18:40 <fjh_> +1 to paolo
15:18:40 <azaroth> q?
15:18:44 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:18:47 <TimCole> ... are we just trying to put guidelines?
15:18:57 <TimCole> shepazu: yes, guidelines
15:19:02 <bigbluehat> can we untangle the terms and vectors we're discussing?
15:19:05 <TimCole> ... a way to express intent
15:19:44 <TimCole> paoloCiccarese: 2 examples - Canadian site that allows people to make comments. Don't like but how can you block?
15:19:49 <bigbluehat> do-not-blog-about-me.txt
15:20:21 <TimCole> ... history is that blogs ultimately will do what they want.
15:21:17 <TimCole> shepazu: distinction between can you annotate and can you publish annotations to a site and should annotations be displayed in the context of my page
15:21:20 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:21:31 <tilgovi> q+
15:22:02 <TimCole> azaroth: to Doug's point about where to annotate - there is a way to say in the model that this is my preferred annotation service
15:22:29 <TimCole> ... also agree is provide a way for content publishers to express preferences, can't enforce in this kind of distributed system
15:22:36 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:22:50 <TimCole> ... we might want to have an initial list of what content providers would like to be able to say
15:22:52 <shepazu> q+ to clarify signally in protocol
15:22:56 <tilgovi> q-
15:22:58 <azaroth> ack dwhly
15:23:10 <TimCole> ... then we can work through these and decide what's reasonable for first draft
15:23:36 <TimCole> dwhly: robots.txt is not entirely a good analog for what we do.
15:23:50 <TimCole> ... robots.txt is respected by some but not others
15:23:59 <TimCole> ... that will happen here as well
15:24:21 <azaroth> +1 to Dan. If the big systems respect it, then the damage is limited. Robots.txt limits bandwidth damage, this would limit social damage
15:24:27 <tilgovi> q+
15:24:32 <TimCole> ... but would be good to provide a standard way to express preferences and formalizes an ontology of these preferences
15:24:45 <azaroth> q?
15:24:51 <TimCole> ... this is social signaling basically
15:25:01 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:25:03 <TimCole> ... which is a benefit
15:25:22 <TimCole> paoloCiccarese: what are the connections to legal issues
15:25:31 <TimCole> ... does any of this fall into legal space?
15:25:48 <azaroth> q?
15:25:53 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:25:53 <Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to clarify signally in protocol
15:26:13 <TimCole> ... shepazu: W3C doesn't do a lot around legal, but there are intersections
15:26:45 <TimCole> shepazu: there are legal precedents, lots that happens in legal space around W3C standards
15:27:06 <azaroth> q?
15:27:22 <TimCole> ... I would hope that the markets would coalesce around our ontology and avoid the need to turn everthing into legal
15:27:49 <TimCole> paoloCiccarese: so this assumes that we know that what we propose would not contradict legal.
15:27:55 <tbdinesh> q+ pages dont have an owner who can be identified by a community
15:28:03 <bigbluehat> does proxy + overlaid annotation == publication (for instance)
15:28:17 <tbdinesh> q+ to mention pages dont have an owner who can be identified by a community
15:28:21 <dwhly> q+
15:28:22 <TimCole> shepazu: what we have now happens in HTTP headers, but maybe we also need to think about putting something in the HTML
15:29:00 <azaroth> ack tilgovi
15:29:17 <TimCole> ... and the right reference for what we have currently is in protocol not model
15:29:41 <dwhly> +1 for collaboration!
15:29:44 <TimCole> tillgovi: are these issues also being dealt with elsewhere
15:29:51 <azaroth> q+ to suggest Social Web WG
15:29:56 <TimCole> ... some of what we're talking about is not just about annotation
15:30:27 <TimCole> ... e.g., annotation doesn't require displaying as overlay, and content can be talked about beyond the scope of annotation
15:30:29 <azaroth> ack dwhly
15:31:09 <TimCole> dwhly: in discussing with a variety of folks about signaling
15:31:17 <TimCole> ... where it might be
15:31:46 <TimCole> ... an immediate concern is that I may not have access to all of these mechanisms (headers, etc.)
15:31:57 <TimCole> ... could it be signaled at the bottom of the blog?
15:32:19 <azaroth> q?
15:32:23 <azaroth> ack tbdinesh
15:32:23 <Zakim> tbdinesh, you wanted to mention pages dont have an owner who can be identified by a community
15:32:23 <TimCole> ... concern might be that someone could spam the intention of the page owner.
15:32:50 <TimCole> tbdinesh: page owner could lots of different kinds of agents
15:32:59 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:32:59 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to suggest Social Web WG
15:33:10 <TimCole> ... our model doesn't really say how the page owner is identified
15:33:25 <bigbluehat> +1 to azaroth re: social web
15:33:28 <TimCole> azaroth: this falls into the remit also of the Social Web WG
15:33:36 <TimCole> ... would be good to work with them
15:33:45 <shepazu> +1 to working on this outside Web Annotation WG
15:33:49 <bigbluehat> note their charter expires this year also...
15:34:27 <TimCole> ... re Dan's and Dinesh's questions - if we have a way for blog authors to signal intent, I would hope that platforms would allow for that
15:34:34 <shepazu> bigbluehat, yes, might be something outside either WG
15:34:40 <azaroth> q?
15:34:42 <TimCole> ... the author then is the person that controls that particular preference
15:34:45 <bigbluehat> new WG most likely
15:35:06 <TimCole> q+
15:35:29 <TimCole> tbdinesh: we are getting into question of ownership of pages on the Web
15:35:43 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:35:45 <TimCole> ... we are asking the page owner to identify themselves some how
15:35:50 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
15:36:12 <azaroth> TimCole: In terms of next steps, don't want to get derailed, but do want to respond to the feedback. What modifications do we make to the specs?
15:36:26 <azaroth> ... What would satisfy the issue raised, and what could we leave for additional work?
15:36:33 <azaroth> scribenick: TimCole
15:36:38 <shepazu> q+
15:36:39 <dwhly> I don't think the page owner needs to identify their real-name, they just need to state a preference in some agreed upon location.
15:36:57 <TimCole> azaroth: any objections to recommending Https?
15:37:00 <bigbluehat> not to recommending. objection to *requiring*
15:37:13 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Recommend HTTPS in the protocol doc
15:37:16 <TimCole> +1
15:37:17 <azaroth> +1
15:37:23 <tbdinesh> +1
15:37:25 <shepazu> +1
15:37:25 <takeshi> +1
15:37:25 <dwhly> +1
15:37:27 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:37:27 <bjdmeest> +1
15:37:28 <bigbluehat> +1
15:37:37 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Recommend HTTPS in the protocol doc
15:38:16 <TimCole> azaroth: for signaling, if we can come up with list, hopefully based on interviewing Dan has been doing
15:38:27 <shepazu> q-
15:38:30 <TimCole> ... and then once we have that list come up with a mechanism
15:38:40 <TimCole> ... goal would be have list by F2F
15:39:07 <shepazu> q+
15:39:07 <TimCole> dwhly: yes, we can summarize before then what we've heard
15:39:21 <TimCole> ... and then have a discussion at f2f
15:39:23 <tbdinesh> dwhly: to state a preference on *a* page requires a lot of thought. easier as post-event-signalling. maybe an abuse signalling?
15:39:39 <TimCole> azaroth: will take action to talk to social Web WG to see if they have thoughts
15:39:59 <TimCole> ... to see if can come up with around social publishing rather than just annotating
15:40:08 <TimCole> ... it's about making it public.
15:40:10 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:40:40 <TimCole> shepazu: agree with sentiment that this is a larger problem, here's what we can do now.
15:42:24 <tbdinesh> dwhly: also a blog is generated (owned) by an institute generally but an owner owns the content in a way of a/their blog post
15:44:40 <azaroth> q?
15:45:40 <TimCole> azaroth: any further next steps on this one?
15:45:50 <TimCole> ... hearing none, we move on
15:46:44 <TimCole> ... we should add a privacy consideration section
15:46:53 <mete_pinar1> mete_pinar1 has joined #annotation
15:47:02 <TimCole> ... rest of the privacy feedback looks like editorial. Any contrary thoughts?
15:47:30 <azaroth> Media Table: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/medias.html
15:48:18 <TimCole> TimCole: this is mostly informational people should review this and see if they agree and if adequate for helping with testing
15:49:11 <TimCole> azaroth: actions here are for the WG to review and post comments to the issue #203
15:49:12 <azaroth> github link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/203
15:49:50 <TimCole> ... for next week let's try to call it done unless objections are raised between now and then
15:50:12 <TimCole> ... any other thoughts about #203?
15:51:04 <TimCole> ... to clarify, with regard to conformance we don't want to say that an implementation must support all selector types
15:51:26 <TimCole> ... this table is a way of saying what we think an implementation supporting a media type should support.
15:51:55 <TimCole> Topic: Issues 200 and 199
15:52:15 <azaroth> github link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/200
15:52:22 <shepazu> 200 = Should oa:start / oa:end be xsd:nonNegativeInteger or xsd:integer ?
15:52:30 <TimCole> azaroth: should be may explicit where integer values should not be negative (right now just says any integer)?
15:52:39 <TimCole> ... a question of specificity
15:52:41 <shepazu>  Deref of namespace should go to vocab? #199
15:53:14 <TimCole> ... any thoughts or objections on #200
15:53:25 <TimCole> +1 for specifying non-negative
15:54:01 <TimCole> ... stian suggested putting type into the json-ld context, but this can sometimes make a mess in the json instance
15:54:34 <TimCole> ... stian and azaroth will test and offer closure, subject to review of the WG
15:54:57 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab
15:54:59 <azaroth> +1
15:55:01 <TimCole> +1
15:55:07 <tilgovi> +1
15:55:10 <bjdmeest> +1
15:55:37 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:55:41 <shepazu> +1
15:55:47 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab
15:56:07 <azaroth> Github Link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/199
15:56:29 <TimCole> azaroth: #199 is about what should happen when you dereference the namespace
15:56:53 <TimCole> ... when you dereference a namespace you typically get documentation about the vocabulary
15:57:27 <TimCole> ... there are multiple options, a landing page with link to human documentation and machine-readable, you could get turtle, etc.
15:57:47 <TimCole> ... we will discuss next week and see if we can close/resolve
15:58:53 <TimCole> ... azaroth will try to make concrete proposal
16:00:08 <TimCole> shepazu: Shane will help put together the framework for general json-ld testing and will work with shepazu
16:00:46 <TimCole> ... hopefully will be able talk about next week.
16:01:39 <azaroth> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:01:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-minutes.html azaroth
16:02:06 <TimCole> rrsagent, make log public
16:57:37 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #annotation
17:20:03 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
17:44:32 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation
18:11:35 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
22:23:42 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #annotation