12:03:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
12:03:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc
12:03:23 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
12:03:27 <fsasaki> fsasaki has joined #annotation
12:04:00 <ivan> Meeting: Annotation WG F2F, First day
12:04:05 <ivan> Chairs: Rob, Tim
12:05:20 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
12:06:35 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
12:07:35 <fsasaki> present+ felix_sasaki
12:08:12 <azaroth> Regrets+ Frederich_Hirsch, Rafael_Troncy
12:08:15 <azaroth> scribenick: dwhly
12:10:56 <nickstenn> present+ Dan_Whaley
12:11:01 <nickstenn> present+ Nick_Stenning
12:11:07 <nickstenn> present+ Lena_Gunn
12:11:46 <ivan> Present+ Ivan_Herman
12:12:20 <ivan> Present+ Tim_Cole
12:12:21 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
12:12:35 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
12:12:47 <ivan> Present+ Doug_Schepers
12:13:16 <dwhly> TimCole: Discussion of agenda
12:13:28 <dwhly> ... 3 parts
12:13:48 <dwhly> ... Testing
12:13:50 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
12:14:00 <dwhly> ... Identifying and Encouraging Implementations
12:14:04 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
12:14:15 <dwhly> ... Misc
12:14:51 <dwhly> Ivan: We should also talk about preserving our F2F slot at TPAC
12:15:33 <dwhly> TimCole: Our goal is to very shortly be able to go to candidate recommendation.
12:16:14 <azaroth> TOPIC: Charter
12:16:51 <dwhly> Nick: Short overview would be helpful.
12:17:11 <dwhly> TimCole: We have a draft data model.  We have a protocol draft.
12:17:33 <dwhly> ... #5 and #6 are the things we don't have yet.
12:17:42 <shevski> shevski has joined #annotation
12:18:12 <dwhly> Ivan: Some of the selectors are aimed at robustness.  Not a zero.
12:18:55 <dwhly> TimCole: Q: are these important enough that we should renew the charter.  Sense is no from mailing list.
12:19:14 <dwhly> ... CG may form and become active and continue these discussions.
12:19:21 <dwhly> ... or other WGs may step in.
12:21:35 <dwhly> ... Good signs that we may see uptake on the model.
12:21:47 <dwhly> ... Primary serialization is JSON-LD
12:22:21 <dwhly> ... Discussion of RDFa, script tags, etc.  Might be worth documenting those.
12:22:37 <dwhly> ... Should also recognize DPIG and IDPF interest.
12:23:18 <dwhly> ... Important to find ways to make it easy as possible for folks to make use.
12:23:44 <dwhly> Shepazu: Controls for stating annotating preferences to reduce harrassment might be worth discussing.
12:24:35 <dwhly> ... it might be nice to state to folks at I Annotate and elsewhere to say we've discussed.
12:25:21 <dwhly> Nick: Should we renew the charter or let it expire?
12:25:36 <dwhly> Ivan: Terminology: extend not renew.
12:25:46 <dwhly> ... Extension is easy to do.
12:26:30 <dwhly> TimCole: A year from now it's hard to renew. Extension can be used to finish work.
12:27:23 <dwhly> Ivan: For a CR we have to have all tech issues close, respond to reviews.
12:27:42 <dwhly> ... I18N, privacy. never got a reply from any others.
12:27:52 <dwhly> So we have to close the issues and document.
12:28:03 <dwhly> ... So we have to close the issues and document.
12:28:14 <dwhly> ... Not required to have all test cases done.
12:29:05 <dwhly> ... We have to define what the exit criteria are.
12:29:16 <dwhly> ... Mainly passing tests, etc.
12:30:09 <dwhly> ... If we can close all the open issues tomorrow. Then it is more an administrative task to finish.
12:31:19 <dwhly> ... Hopefully all of us will be involved in testing.
12:32:36 <dwhly> ... Will use oppy at I Annotate to discuss progress.
12:33:15 <dwhly> ... That we have a stable document and need implementors.
12:33:57 <dwhly> Ivan: CR takes as long as it takes.  If we can exit CR, then the rest is administrative.
12:34:20 <dwhly> ... If we're in CR and have implementations then extension should be no prob.
12:34:28 <dwhly> Shepazu: Extensions usually 6 months.
12:34:36 <azaroth> Github Issues:  https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Apostpone+-label%3Aeditor_action+sort%3Acreated-asc (from top to bottom)
12:34:40 <dwhly> TOPIC: Issues.
12:37:17 <dwhly> Azaroth: First, mapping bw activity streams and data model
12:37:27 <dwhly> ... similar to basic uses of annotation
12:37:46 <dwhly> ... should be clear if you're an AS client what it would look like in annotation space
12:38:06 <dwhly> ... They're about to enter CR
12:38:20 <dwhly> ... They have no open issues, need to define exit criteria.
12:38:29 <dwhly> Shepazu: Will have some implementations.
12:38:52 <dwhly> ... Doesn't look like there are renewed interests.
12:38:57 <dwhly> Ivan: Raises an issue.
12:39:06 <dwhly> ... Will they stop at CR and never go to rec?
12:39:12 <dwhly> Shepazu: I can ask.
12:39:22 <dwhly> ... If they don't get two implementations, then no.
12:40:04 <dwhly> BigBlueHat: Apache streams is implementing, and they use Activity Streams
12:40:29 <dwhly> Shepazu: Are we requiring things from AS?
12:40:35 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
12:40:39 <dwhly> ... Do we have dependency on it?
12:41:27 <dwhly> ... the solution would be to ask if theyre going to exit CR, what timeframe. if they don't know, then we should extract those elements from our spec.
12:41:40 <dwhly> Ivan: We should mark them at risk.
12:41:49 <dwhly> ... What would the consequences be?
12:42:02 <dwhly> Azaroth: Annotation collections.
12:42:24 <dwhly> ... Choice is just an RDF list.
12:42:32 <dwhly> ... Oh, you're right it's a subclass.
12:43:37 <dwhly> Ivan: Could we have a version of the doc in a separate branch, we can hot swap when there's an issue.
12:44:05 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
12:44:20 <dwhly> TimCole: Dependencies are a couple things in the vocab.
12:44:25 <dwhly> ... And the generator.
12:44:38 <dwhly> Ivan: Can I just add in the editors section?
12:44:50 <dwhly> TimCole: +1s all around (by vote).
12:45:43 <dwhly> ... HTML Serialization-- we'll discuss tomorrow.  (All Agree).
12:46:15 <dwhly> Azaroth: #199
12:46:40 <dwhly> ... When you derefernced the namespace, what should you get.  We all agree HTML, but not exactly what.
12:47:02 <dwhly> ... How about an interstitial page that switches to the specific form (Turtle, RDFa, etc)
12:47:25 <dwhly> Ivan: If it's easy to generate an RDFa page, then great.
12:48:11 <dwhly> Shepazu: Not a fan of content negotiation, but we could have multiple files pre-created.
12:48:20 <dwhly> ... index.json, index.turtle
12:49:03 <dwhly> Ivan: More info is better.
12:49:20 <dwhly> ... Another Q, should it be http, https
12:49:29 <dwhly> TimCole: Concerned about one thing.
12:49:45 <dwhly> ... re: JSON-LD. Is that a context doc or something else?
12:49:57 <dwhly> Azaroth: It would have its own context.
12:50:19 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
12:50:19 <dwhly> TimCole: Is that a point of confusion
12:50:46 <dwhly> ... I know it's practice in other groups, like Schema.org, etc.
12:51:14 <dwhly> Azaroth: Only way you'd get JSON document is by dereferncing the context document.
12:51:37 <dwhly> TimCole: When you have translators and you have a namespace in your JSON document.
12:52:36 <dwhly> ... now, https?
12:53:00 <dwhly> Ivan: https is still under discussion. move at W3C to https all the things.
12:53:21 <dwhly> ... separate discussion whether the namespace documents should be https
12:53:23 <shepazu> q+
12:53:40 <dwhly> ... URL is a formal identifier.
12:53:45 <dwhly> ... Not totally clear.
12:53:56 <dwhly> ... We may decide we don't care and do it in https
12:54:28 <dwhly> Azaroth: Other area of concern would be the context document.
12:54:53 <dwhly> Ivan: All JSON files should have the CORS flag set.
12:55:31 <dwhly> Shepazu: It's the security model of the web.
12:55:46 <dwhly> ... how long will https be around
12:56:02 <dwhly> ... we don't know if in 15 years what we'll be doing.
12:56:39 <dwhly> ... TBL acquiesced to using schemeless URLs
12:56:52 <dwhly> ... should we consider the same.
12:57:22 <dwhly> Ivan: Worry that RDF tools might fail on that.
12:57:51 <dwhly> ... They can handle https today
12:59:02 <dwhly> BigBlueHat: Stick w/ http
12:59:18 <dwhly> Nick: A thing w/o a scheme is not a URI
12:59:51 <dwhly> ... why not just use https
13:00:17 <dwhly> TimCole: In 10 years we're probably going to be on version 2
13:00:36 <dwhly> Ivan: we can say https
13:00:41 <dwhly> ... W3 is pushing for it.
13:01:06 <dwhly> ... The only downside is whether existing annotation providers will have a problem
13:01:34 <dwhly> Azaroth: If you're inputting the context document, if it lives at https
13:01:56 <dwhly> Ivan: I propose we use https. Call it out and get feedback.
13:02:29 <dwhly> TimCole: Proposed: https and an interstitial document. Are we confident enough to close this now?
13:02:47 <dwhly> Ivan: Lets pass and consider it closed.
13:03:41 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Use intersitial HTML document, with RDFa of the vocab if possible
13:03:47 <ivan> +1
13:03:47 <azaroth> +1
13:03:50 <bjdmeest> +1
13:04:06 <takeshi> +1
13:04:16 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
13:04:28 <TimCole> present+ Tim_Cole
13:04:36 <TimCole> +1
13:04:37 <nickstenn> +1
13:04:37 <tbdinesh> +1
13:04:38 <shepazu> +1
13:04:49 <bigbluehat> +1
13:05:08 <takeshi> present+ Takeshi_Kanai
13:05:09 <dwhly> RESOLUTION: Use intersitial HTML document, with RDFa of the vocab if possible
13:05:12 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Use https for the namespace and context documents, not http
13:05:16 <azaroth> +1
13:05:17 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
13:05:17 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
13:05:17 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T13-05-17-1
13:05:23 <TimCole> +1
13:05:24 <bigbluehat> +1
13:05:27 <ivan> +1
13:05:30 <tbdinesh> +1
13:05:41 <bjdmeest> +1
13:05:44 <takeshi> +1
13:06:02 <dwhly> RESOLUTION: Use https for the namespace and context documents, not http
13:06:03 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
13:06:03 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T13-06-03
13:06:25 <dwhly> TOPIC: Issue #205
13:07:22 <dwhly> Azaroth: Background: At TPAC there was some discussion around list in the use of selectors.
13:07:38 <dwhly> ... Since then you can define one selector by another selector.
13:08:02 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205
13:08:13 <dwhly> ... Question that remains, meaning of multiple selectors multiple states .
13:08:25 <dwhly> Ivan: Close to issue #207
13:08:53 <dwhly> ... And that one is slightly better in the sense that they're specific use cases coming from Paolo.
13:09:09 <dwhly> Ivan: At the moment we can't cover what he wants.
13:09:15 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
13:09:20 <dwhly> TimCole: We don't have composit, order and choice
13:09:41 <dwhly> Ivan: Doesn't say what it means.
13:09:44 <dwhly> ... We have a bug
13:10:18 <dwhly> TimCole: Say I'm annotating script of a play, want to annotate the dialog, not the bits in between.
13:10:34 <dwhly> ... Three pieces want to annotate as a single target.
13:10:49 <dwhly> ... Why did we take composite out.
13:10:59 <dwhly> Azaroth: Because list will work for it.
13:11:07 <dwhly> ... Composite didn't have any order.
13:11:13 <dwhly> ... We didn't put list back.
13:11:31 <dwhly> ... Use of collection instead of Annotation collection.
13:11:52 <dwhly> TimCole: Do we need to distinguish between Annotation Collection and the thing we use for Composite.
13:12:01 <dwhly> ... Would there be confusion.
13:12:19 <dwhly> Ivan: We need a way of expressing if I have several targets, what does it mean?
13:12:27 <dwhly> ... Choice, Composite, etc.
13:12:46 <dwhly> ... We could add another term AND, OR, etc.
13:13:27 <dwhly> TimCole: It's a question of being explicit
13:13:33 <dwhly> ... if I have a target array.
13:14:08 <dwhly> ... body applies to each element of the target equally. or everything in the array is an OR, or an AND.
13:14:49 <shevski> shevski has joined #annotation
13:15:15 <dwhly> Ivan: Separately, all together or "Pick one of those"
13:15:41 <dwhly> azaroth: translations.
13:16:09 <dwhly> ... one of the requests for choice is for preferences of publishers.
13:16:38 <dwhly> Azaroth: Need extra node to have order of list.
13:17:17 <dwhly> Ivan: Worried about doing something that's way more complicated.
13:17:38 <dwhly> ... need to have consistency.
13:18:21 <dwhly> ... For me saying that the target could be an array, AND, OR, etc.
13:20:03 <dwhly> Ivan: What I hear is we need choice, conjunction, etc.
13:20:21 <dwhly> ... We may have a default case, but lets forget about that for now.
13:20:48 <dwhly> ... We need a conjunction, disjunction, choice, ordered list.
13:22:26 <dwhly> TimCole: One reason we want to this, b/c 80 need "here's a set of targets" don't care about order.
13:22:54 <dwhly> Ivan: Issue: We did not define it, but discovered we needed to.
13:23:21 <dwhly> ... For implementors its an extra step.
13:24:09 <dwhly> Nick: The default is a distraction, what matters is the underlying complexity.
13:24:57 <dwhly> Azaroth: If its just an array, then its mini-triples.
13:27:19 <dwhly> Shepazu: Single structure best
13:27:31 <dwhly> BigBlueHat: Fiddly, but better.
13:28:50 <dwhly> Nick: Meaning of an array is well defined in JSON-LD
13:29:17 <dwhly> Azaroth: You can't have same key multiple times
13:29:25 <dwhly> ... you need an array.
13:30:26 <dwhly> tbdisnesh: are we trying not to have a predicate anywhere?
13:32:43 <shepazu> q+
13:33:35 <dwhly> TimCole: My concern right now is we do not have a type for composite.
13:33:55 <dwhly> Azaroth: I agree.
13:35:05 <dwhly> Shepazu: Number of multi-target annotations is probably pretty high.
13:35:13 <dwhly> Ivan: Agree.
13:35:52 <dwhly> TimCole: For people that don't need this, not having to put in list is better.
13:36:07 <dwhly> Ivan: Lets write out the choices.
13:37:52 <dwhly> Azaroth: Choices:
13:39:29 <dwhly> ... [DISCUSSION ON SKETCH PAD]
13:43:34 <TimCole> 1. "target": "uri"  2. "target": ["uri"]  3. "target": ["uri1", "uri2"]  4. "target": {"type": "____",            "items": ["uri1", "uri2"] }  5. "target": [....]    "combineTarget": "____"  6. "target": {"@list": [....] }
13:47:03 <dwhly> Ivan: We did say that #1 is a must
13:48:28 <shepazu> q+
13:48:29 <dwhly> NickStenn: A field can be a target, those targets can be resources, either as URIs or embedded.  Item #1 #2 #3, either with URIs or embedded
13:48:54 <dwhly> ... the question is what resource types will be in our spec that will allow for ordering that are not provided for by JSON-LD
13:49:03 <dwhly> Ivan: What we have is #1-3
13:49:30 <dwhly> ... Currently we are not covering ordering, and we don't have a clear statement about what #3 means.
13:49:55 <dwhly> ... We don't have use cases where they are combined either conjunctively or disjunctively.
13:50:08 <dwhly> Shepazu: I was a big proponent originally of 1, 2, 3.
13:50:16 <dwhly> ... Wanted to have simple case of 1
13:50:35 <dwhly> ... Even if its always more complex, having a single structure is better.
13:50:49 <dwhly> BigBlueHat: Except to Nick's point.
13:51:17 <dwhly> Shepazu: You always have to pick a type. Get rid of 1-3.
13:51:30 <dwhly> TimCole: 5 looks like 2 and 3
13:51:51 <dwhly> Nick: Completely add odds with mental model programmer has.
13:51:53 <shepazu> q+
13:52:19 <dwhly> Ivan: If we were only to take one structure. then 4 would cover it all.
13:53:37 <dwhly> Nick: What if we had virtual embedded resource that wraps other resources?
13:53:44 <dwhly> ... (Agreeing w/ #4)
13:54:15 <dwhly> Shepazu: My argument in allowing 1-3 is complexity of implementation.
13:55:06 <dwhly> Ivan: Go with #4, accept #1.
13:55:12 <dwhly> Shepazu: Why
13:55:23 <dwhly> BigBlueHat: Could be a URI.
13:57:52 <dwhly> Azaroth: We've already made a lot of concessions for simple use cases. It would be a big change to disallow 1.
14:02:11 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
14:18:45 <ivan> ivan has joined #annotation
14:20:24 <tbdinesh> TimCole: notice, as in 4. one can always use exaple10 structure. - you can always use Choice
14:21:08 <tbdinesh> ivan: we should also say what #3 is for the sake of clarity
14:21:53 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: what about removing choice? we only do not cover admittedly esoteric use cases
14:22:50 <tbdinesh> azaroth: 3.26 covers cardinality of targets
14:23:51 <tbdinesh> ivan: at this point my feeling is.. lets put this additional structure as at risk
14:24:52 <tbdinesh> shepazu: i can see a case for each body applying to a particular target
14:25:48 <tbdinesh> ivan: can we propose a resolution by have 3 more classes disjun, conjun, and ordered
14:27:51 <tbdinesh> azaroth: concept imp not name
14:28:15 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Extend the Choice structure by adding back Composite, List, plus a new one Individuals to explicitly state each is independent. The entire section to be marked At Risk
14:29:09 <tbdinesh> ivan:now moving on.. i would close 205 as editorial issue by refereing to 207
14:29:23 <ivan> +1
14:29:27 <azaroth> +1
14:29:28 <TimCole> +1
14:29:34 <takeshi> +1
14:29:34 <nickstenn> +1
14:29:35 <bigbluehat> +1
14:29:36 <bjdmeest> +1
14:29:42 <tbdinesh> +1
14:29:45 <shepazu> 0
14:30:01 <tbdinesh> RESOLUTION:  Extend the Choice structure by adding back Composite, List, plus a new one Individuals to explicitly state each is independent. The entire section to be marked At Risk
14:30:01 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
14:30:01 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T14-30-01-1
14:33:42 <tbdinesh> going on to https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206
14:34:01 <tbdinesh> issue https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206
14:35:27 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: talking about new issue sent by his group over email
14:36:45 <tbdinesh> takeshi: its a limitation of javascript. unicode is extended from 2 bytes to 4 bytes.
14:38:02 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: it would be lovely if unicode guys stated what a normalized code would be. for example, emoji code
14:38:36 <tbdinesh> ... real impl prob is JS throws its hands up.
14:39:07 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: summarizing to richard. JS is not doing the right thing
14:40:20 <tbdinesh> richard on phone: you pointed out graphene clusters was the right thing to follow/point
14:40:31 <fsasaki> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206#issuecomment-217479442
14:41:08 <nickstenn> the fundamental tension is between users' selections, which are made on logical characters, and the realistic implementation complexity of counting logical characters in UCS-2-based javascript
14:41:09 <tbdinesh> ivan: go to practicality or purity?
14:41:16 <r12a> r12a has joined #annotation
14:41:34 <tbdinesh> s/richard/rishida
14:42:14 <fsasaki> present+ r12a
14:42:22 <tbdinesh> shepazu: whole point thing about face and color being 2 code points..
14:42:41 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: its backwards compatibility.. unicode guys will not change that
14:44:02 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: from the i10 perspective.. using code points is natural; not just JS .. but how to avoid the divergence
14:44:18 <tbdinesh> azaroth: can we embrace the divergence.
14:44:29 <tbdinesh> ivan: how
14:44:36 <r12a> q+
14:44:42 <tbdinesh> azaroth: with a property.. on..
14:45:03 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: no!
14:45:27 <azaroth> s/on../on the Text*Selectors, such as characterCountingType with a value of "CodePoint" or "CodeUnit"/
14:46:08 <tbdinesh> r12a: you must not select from high sorrogate to low sorrogate... so ..???
14:47:08 <r12a> q+
14:47:32 <tbdinesh> TimCole: migrate from text selectors to codepoint selectors (also rob)
14:47:59 <tbdinesh> ivan: takeshi.. what is the percentage of cases where this fails
14:48:28 <tbdinesh> takeshi: now since people have started using emoji.. docs with emojis will fail
14:49:00 <tbdinesh> TimCole: what about using another selector..
14:49:23 <tbdinesh> shepazu: uses would not know.. but implementors would
14:49:53 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: as an implementor.. i would rather use codepoints. as in JS its a lot of work
14:50:20 <tbdinesh> ... optimizing for JS for all platforms.. is huge work
14:50:48 <bigbluehat> nickstenn: this one? https://github.com/RadLikeWhoa/Countable
14:50:49 <ivan> Present+ Richard_Ishida
14:50:53 <tbdinesh> ivan: propose to close by turning it back into an editor..
14:51:09 <ivan> s/editor/editor_action/
14:51:14 <fsasaki> present- r12a
14:51:31 <tbdinesh> r12a: there is no scenario ever in code units.. where you need to select between high and low sorrogates
14:51:35 <shevski> shevski has joined #annotation
14:52:04 <tbdinesh> ... if you are dealing with utf8 you can figure out by looking at the bytes
14:52:49 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: (Continue to) Accept code point and add a note on browser implementation details
14:52:54 <tbdinesh> ... are we not being too specific .. we need ??? maybe the level of details what we need to say in this spec
14:53:20 <tbdinesh> s/???/something_re_graphenes
14:53:25 <azaroth> +1
14:53:38 <ivan> +1
14:53:51 <bigbluehat> +1
14:54:03 <bjdmeest> +1
14:54:27 <nickstenn> for the minutes: I'm still a bit nervous about codepoint vs logical character
14:54:27 <takeshi> +1
14:54:33 <tbdinesh> RESOLUTION: (Continue to) Accept code point and add a note on browser implementation details
14:54:34 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
14:54:34 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T14-54-34
14:55:05 <fsasaki> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213
14:55:57 <fsasaki> latest input from richard at https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-219731858
14:56:26 <tbdinesh> r12a: can you look at the bottom - last para
14:57:51 <tbdinesh> ... can you have multiple languages or not.. it does not make sense to specify 1 lang at a time
14:58:47 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: we did some related discussion earlier; we can provide a priority list eg [fr, en]
14:59:08 <nickstenn> bigbluehat: [earlier discussion] yes, but the core of it is actually punycode.ucs2.decode from https://github.com/bestiejs/punycode.js/
14:59:31 <bigbluehat> "A robust Punycode converter that fully complies to RFC 3492 and RFC 5891, and works on nearly all JavaScript platforms."
14:59:37 <tbdinesh> r12a: yes, the language of the intended user.. choosing localized version, but when you present it to someone you do not know what lang that bit of text is.
14:59:53 <tbdinesh> ... what is it that the actual lang that we are processing
15:00:50 <tbdinesh> TimCole: what time can you join us tmrw, we start at 9am. earlier the better
15:01:04 <tbdinesh> r12a: will let you know. i may not be able to even
15:01:42 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/208 is a small one.
15:02:33 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: the way it works.. BCP7 is always stable
15:02:54 <tbdinesh> ivan: we can close then. next small one..
15:03:55 <tbdinesh> TimCole: we dont need to describe the audience
15:04:31 <tbdinesh> ... so closed.
15:04:35 <tbdinesh> azaroth: we explicitly draw the line at ???
15:05:16 <tbdinesh> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/210 next small one
15:05:59 <tbdinesh> fsasaki: give guidance for logical .. right to left or left to right.
15:06:25 <tbdinesh> azaroth: if its right to left but you look at left to right.. its still right to left
15:06:55 <tbdinesh> next https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/216
15:07:17 <tbdinesh> azaroth: any objections to UTC?
15:07:30 <nickstenn> +1 to not having to replicate the Olson database in javascript :p
15:07:42 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept use of UTC as recommended to include explicitly and use as default if not present
15:07:47 <azaroth> +1
15:07:50 <bigbluehat> +1
15:07:50 <ivan> +1
15:07:53 <bjdmeest> +1
15:07:58 <TimCole> +1
15:08:01 <takeshi> +1
15:08:07 <tbdinesh> +1
15:08:10 <tbdinesh> RESOLUTION: Accept use of UTC as recommended to include explicitly and use as default if not present
15:08:12 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:08:12 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T15-08-12
15:08:53 <tbdinesh> 215 is same / similar
15:09:03 <tbdinesh> azaroth: leave them both editorial
15:10:29 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: someone pls explain 216, is it to make it unambiguios?
15:11:12 <tbdinesh> azaroth: you cant have a timezone, without time. you only have a date
15:11:34 <tbdinesh> TimCole: json schema does not do just date
15:11:53 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: figuring actual date is not easy
15:12:34 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: if you were to record historic annotations.. then having to express the time. it will be hard
15:12:51 <tbdinesh> azaroth: vast majority.. what time/date is it now
15:13:17 <tbdinesh> azaroth: i think the proposal is to go back to date time and require UTC
15:14:06 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: point that Addison is make in 216 is .. incremental time value to absolute
15:14:18 <bigbluehat> 5.3 of this for those who like to read things about incremental time https://www.w3.org/TR/timezone/#ivfbased
15:14:42 <tbdinesh> ivan: when i use it manually i cheat. i put a date and 0000 as midnight
15:15:01 <tbdinesh> nickstenn: but its unambiguios :)
15:15:31 <tbdinesh> ivan: that requires a ersolution as we change the model
15:15:41 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Revert to requiring xsd:dateTime, and to REQUIRE UTC for all timestamps
15:15:56 <azaroth> (And this overrules the previous recommended resolution above)
15:16:06 <azaroth> +1
15:16:12 <nickstenn> +1
15:16:15 <bjdmeest> +1
15:16:17 <tbdinesh> +1
15:16:18 <takeshi> +1
15:16:19 <TimCole> +1
15:16:26 <bigbluehat> +1
15:17:02 <tbdinesh> RESOLUTION: Revert to requiring xsd:dateTime, and to REQUIRE UTC for all timestamps
15:17:14 <ivan> +1
15:17:37 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:17:37 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-irc#T15-17-37
15:19:36 <tbdinesh> now https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/218
15:19:56 <tbdinesh> azaroth: 223
15:20:24 <tbdinesh> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/223
15:21:12 <tbdinesh> azaroth: just give in context and not have language here
15:25:04 <tbdinesh_> tbdinesh_ has joined #annotation
15:27:45 <tbdinesh_> now https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/220
15:28:00 <tbdinesh_> azaroth: its an implementation specific thing
15:28:27 <tbdinesh_> ivan: its out of scope
15:29:33 <tbdinesh_> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/220 now
15:29:51 <tbdinesh_> fsasaki: same as lang?
15:31:13 <tbdinesh_> bigbluehat: he has hebrew mixed with english
15:31:56 <tbdinesh_> takeshi: if that text is on browser rendering we do not need rtl
15:33:24 <tbdinesh_> (this was about 224 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/224)
15:35:26 <azaroth> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:36:07 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:36:10 <bigbluehat> TimCole: we're stopping here for today. good job everybody
15:36:33 <bigbluehat> ...let's shift gears and talk testing
15:36:55 <azaroth> scribenick: tbdinesh_
15:37:23 <tbdinesh> now on testing
15:37:46 <tbdinesh> shepazu: several of us are working on testing, shane, ...
15:38:15 <tbdinesh> ... i had said during our last telcom that i would berak out of assertions and these two are working on it
15:38:54 <tbdinesh> ... basically, rob put together a spread sheet. diff than the way i would..
15:39:14 <azaroth> Spreadsheet link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QwhHYyEd-106nvwe_q-A9z02wO9R-Oa7l5vnmMlYTQ0/edit
15:39:15 <tbdinesh> ... broke it down into indiv objects, 0, 1. many..
15:39:31 <tbdinesh> ... i think this is useful
15:39:39 <tbdinesh> ... i suggested MUST SHOULD..
15:40:02 <tbdinesh> ... i am in the process of adding RFC key words
15:40:14 <tbdinesh> ... i split out body/target..
15:41:00 <tbdinesh> ... do we agree we need RFC2119 keyworks? i think we do
15:41:25 <tbdinesh> ... obviously we can generate tests automatically
15:41:40 <tbdinesh> ... is this sufficient?
15:42:11 <tbdinesh> ivan: some value of certain things .. are not in this table
15:42:37 <bigbluehat> for those following along at home, we're talking about using JSON Schema-based tests built (potentially) from azaroth's link above and run through the Web Platform Test framework which has been customized by ShaneM and lives here https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests
15:44:03 <tbdinesh> TimCole: for context.. implementors will use their impls, use the test interface, run those by basically use json-schema to chk valid/not-valid
15:44:26 <tbdinesh> ... to give implementors feedback on where they are
15:44:58 <tbdinesh> shepazu: there are about a 120 of these testable assertions, not inlcuding combinations or keywords
15:45:33 <tbdinesh> ... we have the test, we have the text area, we paste a json from the test and test
15:46:10 <tbdinesh> ... we dont have one test for each, we have maybe 150+ grouped tests
15:46:12 <azaroth> Huh, there's some missing rows ... will add them back
15:46:28 <tbdinesh> ivan: we we did RDFa we had much larger num
15:47:31 <tbdinesh> shepazu: i assume that once we have these tests, each impl can do their own framework for testing
15:48:09 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: which is why we architected it as descriptive platform
15:48:25 <tbdinesh> ... copy and paste thing is analogous to validate your html
15:49:07 <tbdinesh> ... manual tests are for us to further our process
15:49:21 <azaroth> Anything that looks wrong probably is, it was done on the flight here with limited wifi
15:49:36 <tbdinesh> shepazu: i had hoped to be able to get away from manual tests. is there anybody there who think there is another way
15:50:22 <tbdinesh> TimCole: there are certain things we have to think about. as along as there is for example, json schema
15:50:36 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:50:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html ivan
15:50:47 <tbdinesh> ... we have a couple of schemas, test docs, notes on certain combinations
15:51:26 <tbdinesh> ivan: i would like to see how the json schema holds these together. for the time being.. i am lost
15:51:43 <tbdinesh> shepazu: tim, can you demo something tmrw?
15:51:59 <tbdinesh> TimCole: benjamin and i will talk about and see how much we can show.
15:52:23 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: shane is possibly available tmrw to do screen tests demos
15:52:34 <bigbluehat> readme for current test system https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/tree/master/annotation-model
15:52:56 <ShaneM> basically it just works....  for simple cases anyway.
15:53:02 <tbdinesh> TimCole: we may want to test together, eg our text says there should be an id and if there is an id there must be only 1
15:53:29 <tbdinesh> ... 1 test, 2 possible results
15:54:38 <tbdinesh> TimCole: in json schema, there is test for URI format; is URI more restricted than IRI.. how do we reconcile
15:55:09 <tbdinesh> ... thats part of the morning. we will finish all this and some postponed issues
15:55:33 <tbdinesh> ivan: postponed might mean v2 next WG. lets not spend much time on that
15:55:46 <tbdinesh> TimCole: lets give all an opportunity and move on
15:56:10 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: can i have an UTC to inform Shane
15:56:32 <tbdinesh> TimCole: he is 7hrs off from here.
15:56:43 <tbdinesh> shepazu: time zone math is so hard
15:57:42 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:57:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html ivan
15:57:45 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
15:58:38 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:38 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:09:01 <ShaneM> I am?  It is 11 am here now
16:13:31 <shevski> shevski has joined #annotation
16:59:50 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
18:16:31 <shevski> shevski has joined #annotation
18:49:36 <ShaneM> ShaneM has joined #annotation