14:50:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:50:04 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-irc
14:50:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:50:27 <trackbot> trackbot has joined #annotation
14:50:45 <azaroth> rrsagent, start meeting
14:50:45 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:50:52 <azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
14:50:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:50:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:50:56 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:50:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:50:57 <trackbot> Date: 06 May 2016
14:51:10 <azaroth> Chair: Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson
14:51:17 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:52:03 <azaroth> Regrets+ Frederick_Hirsch, Ben_De_Meester, Paolo_Ciccarese
14:52:13 <rebecaruiz> rebecaruiz has joined #annotation
14:52:51 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:53:20 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0020.html
14:57:14 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
14:57:46 <rebecaruiz> Present+
14:57:47 <shepazu> present+ ShaneM
14:57:48 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
14:58:03 <rebecaruiz> I'm trying to join Webex.
14:58:10 <shepazu> present- ShaneM
14:58:35 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
14:59:14 <rebecaruiz> Present+ rebecaruiz
14:59:17 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:01:52 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:02:30 <azaroth> rebecaruiz: There's a password, which you probably don't know
15:02:42 <azaroth> I'll private message it to you
15:03:07 <rebecaruiz> @azaroth thank you
15:03:51 <dwhly> present+ Dan_Whaley
15:04:44 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
15:05:15 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
15:05:48 <TimCole> Topic: Agenda review
15:06:53 <TimCole> azaroth: review Berlin F2F agenda, Annotations and DOIs (dwhly), update on privacy review, outstanding issues, testing
15:07:23 <TimCole> ... anything else?
15:07:39 <TimCole> ... welcome Rebecca!
15:08:00 <TimCole> rebecaruiz: I'm here to listent to learn more about annotations
15:08:11 <TimCole> ... my company provides services to publishers
15:08:17 <TimCole> ... in Spain
15:08:30 <TimCole> ... focused on academic publishing especially
15:08:53 <TimCole> ... background in semantics, editing, etc.
15:09:13 <ivan> q+
15:09:18 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:09:29 <TimCole> ivan: FYI, had short chat with ???
15:09:37 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:09:47 <ivan> s/???/Richard Ishida/
15:10:08 <TimCole> ... internationalization had some comments which they will add to our Github soon
15:10:42 <mete_pinar> mete_pinar has joined #annotation
15:10:47 <TimCole> ... additionally ??? one of their members lives close to Berlin, would be good if he can join F2F for that part of the agenda
15:11:02 <ivan> s/???/Felix Sasaki/
15:11:07 <TimCole> ... invited them to participate
15:11:28 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html
15:11:29 <TimCole> ... made clear that we are trying to get to CR as soon after F2F as possible
15:11:33 <ivan> +1
15:11:40 <TimCole> +1
15:11:42 <azaroth> +1
15:11:58 <tbdinesh> +1
15:12:00 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html
15:12:00 <ShaneM> +1
15:12:11 <azaroth> TOPIC: F2F Agenda
15:12:16 <rebecaruiz> +1
15:12:24 <azaroth> Link: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
15:12:46 <TimCole> azaroth: we made changes based on last week's discussion.
15:13:26 <TimCole> ... Tuesday afternoon we will focus on issues (fewer observers Tuesday afternoon), also high priority for CR
15:13:34 <TimCole> ... Wednesday am testing
15:13:55 <TimCole> ... Wednesday pm discuss Notes and any other work we plan to get done
15:14:05 <TimCole> ... does that seem better?
15:14:12 <azaroth> q?
15:14:57 <azaroth> TOPIC: Annotations and DOIs
15:15:08 <TimCole> dwhly: early discussion
15:15:47 <TimCole> ... basic summary for a long time now people have been asking hypothes.is if they can get a DOI for an annotation
15:16:01 <TimCole> ... scholars want to be able to cite annotations
15:16:24 <TimCole> ... DOIs signal annotation is a scholarly object, and a signal that annotation will be persistent
15:16:47 <TimCole> ... hypothes.is has talked to CrossRef
15:16:57 <TimCole> ... they were receptive
15:17:20 <TimCole> ... but they noted that there is no current category of DOI that is a good match for annotations
15:17:35 <TimCole> ... so they anticipate needing to add a new category
15:18:25 <TimCole> ... getting a DOI might imply that an annotation is locked down (not editable), so who is allowed to request a DOI for an annotation
15:18:41 <TimCole> ... might up the priority of annotation versioning
15:18:49 <shepazu> q+
15:19:09 <azaroth> q+ re versioning and canonical
15:19:16 <TimCole> ... wanted to highlight that this dicussion is underway, comments?
15:19:22 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:19:26 <TimCole> ... promise to keep this commuinity informed.
15:19:53 <TimCole> shepazu: Is there an expectation that other documents with DOIs don't change
15:20:20 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
15:20:20 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, rebecaruiz, shepazu, Tim_Cole, TB_Dinesh, Dan_Whaley, ShaneM
15:20:22 <Zakim> On IRC I see mete_pinar, tilgovi, tbdinesh, TimCole, rebecaruiz, trackbot, Zakim, RRSAgent, azaroth, uskudarli, KevinMarks_, ivan, ben_thatmustbeme, shepazu, ShaneM, bigbluehat,
15:20:22 <Zakim> ... csarven, oshepherd, stain, aaronpk, rhiaro, nickstenn, timeless, Loqi, dwhly, tessierashpool_
15:20:38 <TimCole> dwhly: my guess is that there is some committment by the publisher, but not certain how committment might be different for different categories
15:20:44 <azaroth> q?
15:20:55 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:20:55 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss versioning and canonical
15:21:05 <TimCole> ivan: it is a social expectation
15:21:37 <TimCole> azaroth: the intent is that the content identified by the DOI is stable in terms of the intellectual content
15:21:59 <TimCole> ... typo fixes are common, but not to the sense of the content
15:22:23 <TimCole> ... note, that urls that the DOIs resolve to change frequently
15:22:58 <TimCole> shepazu: wants to make sure we don't get over-rigorous about changes allowed, but probably beyond scope of this group
15:23:23 <TimCole> azaroth: wanted to talk about cannonical
15:23:53 <TimCole> ... we allude to the canonical URI for an annotation
15:23:58 <azaroth> Link: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#other-identities
15:24:06 <TimCole> ... see Section 3.6.6 of the model
15:24:30 <TimCole> ... would a DOI be appropriate as an annotation's canonical URI?
15:24:31 <ivan> q+
15:24:37 <TimCole> ... or is there something else?
15:24:59 <bigbluehat> `via`?
15:25:05 <TimCole> dwhly: We would probably not use the DOI as our canonical URI
15:25:24 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:25:32 <TimCole> azaroth: which means we have nowhere in the model to talk about the DOI of an annotation
15:25:45 <TimCole> ivan: and to be precise the DOI itself is not a URI
15:25:49 <azaroth> Resolver is: http://dx.doi.org/...
15:26:02 <TimCole> ... there is a way to make it a doi by prepending the resolver
15:26:06 <shepazu> this can just be an extension to the model
15:26:21 <TimCole> ... so DOI probably could not be the canonical URI
15:26:56 <shepazu> q+
15:27:02 <TimCole> azaroth: so question for discussion on the list, Do we need to provide a way to talk about 'other' identifiers in our model?
15:27:10 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:27:37 <TimCole> ivan: would like to try first to see if we can use DOI with resolver as canonical URI
15:27:53 <TimCole> shepazu: this seems like an extensibility (community) use case
15:28:16 <TimCole> ... even if not part of the model, scholarly community could develop their own extension
15:28:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: Brief update regarding Privacy Horizontal Review
15:28:58 <TimCole> azaroth: let's discuss more on the list - its importance, whether it is just a community extension, etc.
15:29:10 <azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/204
15:29:24 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
15:29:56 <azaroth> TimCole: Chairs and staff contacts joined the privacy interest group call, and talked about their thoughts on the model and protocol.
15:30:46 <azaroth> ... Talked about plans to move to CR swiftly. Biggest topic, as expected, was the question about publishers could signal a preference for how or whether their resources are publicly annotated
15:31:02 <azaroth> ... Can they say please don't annotate this, or please don't publish the annotations along with the rendering of the resource
15:31:38 <azaroth> ... PING agreed that it's a broad issue with implications beyond this WG, but suggested that after we get work on CR done, we could come back and have a broader discussion
15:31:44 <azaroth> ... a rain check to talk about this in the summer
15:31:53 <azaroth> ... otherwise very positive about the specs :)
15:31:54 <ivan> q+
15:31:59 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:32:00 <TimCole> ack iv
15:32:08 <azaroth> ivan: We're cross-checking from a process point of view
15:32:32 <azaroth> ... they made some formal comments, we agreed with some (and are in editors' hands) so from a CR point of view, we're okay
15:32:51 <azaroth> ... privacy review happened, we followed what they wanted, and agreed that the third comment is a larger discussion
15:33:16 <azaroth> TimCole: Agreed on HTTPS, and talked about a note or some way for the WG to weigh in on preferences
15:33:30 <azaroth> ivan: An agreement that the outcome of that doesn't change the functionality of the specifications themselves
15:33:36 <azaroth> TimCole: That should be added to the issue
15:33:45 <azaroth> ivan: Yes, need to make it clear that's our understanding
15:34:14 <azaroth> rebecaruiz: Should make it clear in the issue
15:34:48 <shepazu> q+
15:35:09 <azaroth> TimCole: We didn't think it was in scope for this group to enforce the preferences, but it would be good to signal them, such as via robots.txt
15:35:25 <azaroth> ... the mechanism wouldn't be in the model, but a separate discussion with more participants
15:35:53 <TimCole> ack shep
15:36:21 <azaroth> shepazu: I think that there's nothing for the model to do in this version, not that there's nothing that /could/ be specified
15:36:50 <azaroth> ... Could use meta tags. Model could have a signal that page the annotation was made on doesn't want the annotation to appear. Just that we shouldn't do it in this version
15:37:10 <TimCole> q?
15:37:12 <azaroth> TimCole: Yes, correct
15:37:28 <azaroth> ... Sense that we need to talk with others with similar issues, particularly Social Web WG
15:37:44 <azaroth> scribenick: TimCole
15:37:46 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
15:38:04 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
15:38:45 <TimCole> azaroth: 3 issues
15:39:23 <TimCole> ... 191, 206, 205/207
15:39:43 <TimCole> ... starting with 206
15:39:45 <azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206
15:39:55 <ivan> Addison's advice-> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206#issuecomment-217146564
15:40:00 <TimCole> ivan: internationalization has weighed in on this issue
15:40:35 <ivan> "It is usually best to define offset in terms of Unicode code points."
15:40:38 <TimCole> azaroth: the advice is to define offset in terms of unicode code point
15:41:00 <TimCole> ... seems like we should add an example based on this advice in the spec
15:41:19 <azaroth> q?
15:41:53 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  We will clarify that character position is based on Unicode code points, per recommendation from i18n group
15:41:59 <ivan> +1
15:42:00 <azaroth> +1
15:42:04 <TimCole> +1
15:42:39 <ShaneM> +1
15:42:41 <tbdinesh> +1
15:43:14 <bigbluehat> +1
15:43:31 <rebecaruiz> +1
15:43:36 <TimCole> RESOLUTION:  We will clarify that character position is based on Unicode code points, per recommendation from i18n group
15:43:39 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:43:39 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-irc#T15-43-39
15:44:21 <azaroth> Link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/191
15:44:26 <TimCole> azaroth: let's see if we can dispense with 191
15:44:39 <TimCole> ... there is a bug in the current WD that led to confusion
15:44:47 <TimCole> ... there are 2 ways of saying values
15:45:05 <TimCole> ... there's oa:text and there's rdf:value
15:45:17 <TimCole> ... can we simplify and have only 1 way
15:45:21 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/191#issuecomment-202470464
15:45:52 <TimCole> ... change would be that we would always use rdfs:value (value would be the json key)
15:46:16 <TimCole> ... would finish the replacement of content-in-rdf draft
15:46:50 <TimCole> ...  allows urls that de-reference to text
15:47:11 <azaroth> q?
15:47:12 <bigbluehat> I like this change :)
15:47:16 <ivan> q+
15:47:17 <tbdinesh> +1
15:47:18 <TimCole> ... become editor_action to replace text with value and simplifies model spec
15:48:08 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove oa:text and replace with rdfs:value, json key of 'value' ; rename bodyText with bodyValue
15:48:14 <azaroth> +1
15:48:14 <TimCole> ... note bodyText becomes bodyValue
15:48:16 <ivan> +1
15:48:17 <bigbluehat> +1
15:48:17 <TimCole> +1
15:48:19 <tbdinesh> +1
15:48:35 <azaroth> s/with bodyValue/to bodyValue/
15:49:06 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Remove oa:text and replace with rdfs:value, json key of 'value' ; rename bodyText to bodyValue
15:49:12 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:49:12 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:49:12 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-irc#T15-49-12-1
15:49:45 <TimCole> ivan: note, that this issue started for a slightly differnt reason
15:50:17 <TimCole> ... so SVG example should not have content type
15:50:36 <TimCole> azaroth: yes, will fix example
15:51:00 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Remove format from SvgSelector (and CssSelector, CssStyle) ... each selector/stype MUST have one format only
15:51:06 <TimCole> +1
15:51:08 <azaroth> +1
15:51:30 <ivan> +1
15:52:00 <azaroth> link: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#svg-selector
15:52:21 <rebecaruiz> +1
15:52:30 <bigbluehat> +1
15:52:44 <tbdinesh> +1
15:52:51 <TimCole> azaroth: this example is over specified... so proposals are to simplify
15:53:04 <TimCole> RESOLUTION:  Remove format from SvgSelector (and CssSelector, CssStyle) ... each selector/stype MUST have one format only
15:53:08 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove Content type from embedded Selectors, States, etc. If the resource has a value, then it's embedded. If it has a URI, it's to be dereferenced.
15:53:12 <azaroth> +1
15:53:13 <ivan> +1
15:53:17 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:53:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-irc#T15-53-17
15:53:21 <TimCole> +1
15:53:34 <tbdinesh> +1
15:53:41 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Remove Content type from embedded Selectors, States, etc. If the resource has a value, then it's embedded. If it has a URI, it's to be dereferenced.
15:53:47 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:53:47 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-irc#T15-53-47
15:54:15 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
15:54:18 <azaroth> TOPIC: Testing
15:54:31 <azaroth> TimCole: Please look at URLs in the agenda
15:54:37 <azaroth> ... in order to prepare for Berlin
15:54:46 <azaroth> ... Have made a lot of progress
15:54:50 <ShaneM> https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/tree/master/annotation-model
15:55:07 <azaroth> ShaneM: This URL is the pointer to the documentation about what we're doing. It's changing often as we refine things
15:55:13 <azaroth> ... comments, issues etc are all welcome
15:55:26 <azaroth> TimCole: Thanks, good to have in the minutes and please double check it
15:55:51 <shepazu> +1
15:56:05 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
15:56:29 <TimCole> azaroth: the notion of a warning versus an error, can this be accommodated in the test framework
15:56:30 <shepazu> q+
15:57:00 <TimCole> ShaneM: at this point the framework just understands pass / fail, but we can annotate assertions
15:57:21 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:57:24 <TimCole> ... so testers can better understand warnings and the like
15:58:21 <TimCole> shepazu: discussion wasn't public, should have been
15:58:47 <bigbluehat> shepazu: please do! my time dried up...
15:58:54 <TimCole> ... since no one else has committed to extracting features, shepazu volunteers
15:59:09 <bigbluehat> shepazu: are you just extracting MUSTs? or also crafting the JSON Schema bits?
16:00:26 <TimCole> azaroth: should we have one issue to which all can add assertions?
16:01:01 <TimCole> ShaneM: would be best in a format from which we can generate stub test files
16:01:13 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:01:23 <TimCole> shepazu: will put CSV in gitHub
16:02:15 <bigbluehat> TimCole: yep
16:02:17 <bigbluehat> that
16:02:51 <TimCole> TimCole: as part of testing we will generate lots of little schemas
16:03:12 <TimCole> ... we may at some point want to bring these together into a single schema, but not yet.
16:03:12 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:12 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:03:36 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:03:36 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:36 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, rebecaruiz, ShaneM, shepazu, Tim_Cole, TB_Dinesh, Dan_Whaley
16:03:44 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/06-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:45 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:45 <RRSAgent> I see no action items