14:33:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:33:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc
14:33:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:33:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:33:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:33:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:33:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:33:26 <trackbot> Date: 03 June 2016
14:33:38 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu
14:33:45 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu
14:33:58 <ivan> Chair: Tim and Rob
14:34:11 <ivan> Regrets+ Ben, Dan
14:44:23 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:45:37 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:54:30 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:06 <ShaneM> I have a client with a crisis this morning.  regrets.
14:58:52 <ShaneM> oh - I see the agenda is largely about testing.    hmm.  I will figure something out so I can call in when that topic starts up.
14:59:22 <ivan> wait: webex seems to be unaccessible, meaning that we may have to cancel the call! !@#$%^&*
14:59:44 <bigbluehat> which might be fine for ShaneM it sounds
15:00:12 <azaroth> It gets stuck at 98% for me
15:00:13 <azaroth> :(
15:00:21 <Loqi> it'll be ok
15:00:47 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:01:06 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:01:14 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:02:45 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:03:14 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:03:45 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
15:03:51 <ivan> present+ ivan
15:03:56 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
15:04:41 <Kyrce> present+ Kyrce_Swenson
15:05:06 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
15:05:14 <TimCole> present+ Tim_Cole
15:06:15 <TimCole> scribenick: Jacob
15:06:39 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:45 <TimCole> Topic: Minutes
15:06:59 <Jacob> TimCole: any remarks about the minutes from last week?
15:07:09 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:22 <TimCole> Topic: Progress to CR
15:07:25 <azaroth> Regrets+ TB_Dinesh, Ben_De_Meester, Dan_Whaley
15:07:48 <Jacob> ... Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts, progress has been posted
15:08:57 <Jacob> azaroth: update-- two issues opened by Europeana folks, normalization discussion needs to agreed upon, other than these, other issues have been closed
15:09:32 <Jacob> ... should be able to quickly close the remaining issues
15:09:37 <Jacob> ... ready to go to CR
15:09:46 <Jacob> ... vocab still needs some examples added
15:10:02 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227
15:10:46 <Jacob> ... recommendation from internationalization group was that the normalization para be removed unless specific requirements make it necessary
15:11:00 <TimCole> q?
15:11:12 <ivan> q+
15:11:20 <TimCole> ack iv
15:11:26 <Janina_> Janina_ has joined #annotation
15:11:34 <Jacob> ... normalizations might be applied due to our requirements but not necessary to mention internationalization
15:11:57 <Jacob> ivan: propose to close the issue as they (internationalization folks) have suggested
15:12:02 <TimCole> Proposal: for #227 remove paragraph on normalization and close (move to editorial)
15:12:22 <azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
15:12:48 <Jacob> azaroth: want to look at the 2nd para after the table
15:13:54 <Jacob> ... can try to lop the paragraph into two in order to separate the normalization from the part describing selection
15:14:22 <tilgovi> Mostly just removing the DOM Strings part, then? And splitting the rest around it?
15:14:56 <Jacob> ... suggesting splitting the para so that the first part discusses normalization and then rephrase the second para so that it doesn't discuss normalization at all
15:16:00 <TimCole>  applications SHOULD implement the DOM String Comparisons method. This allows the Selector to be used with different encodings and user agents and still have the same semantics and utility.
15:16:06 <Jacob> ... so first 2 sentences become a para, next sentence is deleted [?], and remainder of paragraph has all mentions of normalization removed
15:16:15 <TimCole> Note that this does not affect the state of the content of the document being annotated, only the way that the content is recorded in the Annotation.
15:16:38 <Jacob> TimCole: suggest we preserve the sentences above and delete everything else
15:17:08 <Jacob> ... so that no one thinks that the underlying content should be changed
15:18:17 <Jacob> ... opinions? ok, with removing the paragraph altogether, but also ok with preserving stuff about string comparisons as long as we don't provide details on how those comparisons are to be made
15:18:39 <Jacob> azaroth: will make quick changes now, then ...[garbled]
15:18:55 <Jacob> ... come back to issue before end of call
15:20:32 <Jacob> ivan: need to close remaining issues, then make a resolution to freeze features, give WG a week to review the documents, so that they can note any glaring problems, with the goal to officially request to go to CR by the end of next week
15:20:59 <Jacob> TimCole: so ok to vote next week so long as WG has been notified to review the documents by the end of today
15:21:04 <Jacob> ivan: yes
15:21:24 <Jacob> TimCole: plans for testing, need to be finalized by next week?
15:21:51 <shepazu> q+
15:21:54 <Jacob> ivan: documents, pubs must be ready, call with director must be set up, that period should be used 100% on testing
15:22:19 <Jacob> ... so if possible plans for testing should be finalized by next week
15:22:34 <azaroth> Okay, new version at:  http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
15:22:43 <Jacob> ... plans must be written down, as agreed in Berlin
15:22:44 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:23:06 <TimCole> ack doug
15:24:12 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
15:25:05 <TimCole> q?
15:25:14 <TimCole> ack shep
15:25:39 <Jacob> TimCole: link posted to issues not yet marked postponed or editorial
15:25:51 <Jacob> ... most recent issue is for resource previews in annos
15:26:14 <Jacob> ivan: let's close issue 227, rob has made the changes
15:26:50 <Jacob> azaroth: moved selection to preceeding para, deleted everything else except the dom string mention
15:26:57 <tilgovi> q+
15:26:58 <TimCole> q?
15:27:14 <TimCole> ack tilgovi
15:28:35 <Jacob> tilgovi: dom string comparison recommendation was one of things called out by the internationalization folks as something causing problems
15:28:53 <Jacob> ... should not introduce normalizations there
15:29:00 <Jacob> TimCole: so drop the mention
15:29:25 <Jacob> azaroth: should we go ahead and delete the subsequent para which mentions the dom apis
15:29:57 <tilgovi> Shouldn't that next para read "Text Quote"?
15:30:03 <tilgovi> It says Position.
15:30:53 <Jacob> TimCole: deletion doesn't change the substance of the section, just means we aren't giving any help to implementers
15:31:24 <Jacob> tilgovi: would leave in the DOM api's para, otherwise people will use the selector api
15:32:09 <Jacob> TimCole: my sense is that the less we say, the better; whole thing is in flux (as discussed in Berlin)
15:32:10 <TimCole> q?
15:32:24 <tilgovi> Fine for me.
15:33:03 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of the normalization routine
15:33:18 <TimCole> +1
15:33:20 <Jacob> +1
15:33:21 <azaroth> +1
15:33:28 <ivan> _+1
15:33:28 <ivan> +1
15:33:40 <bigbluehat> +1
15:33:48 <tilgovi> +1
15:33:53 <Kyrce> +1
15:34:00 <Jacob> RESOLUTION:  Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of the normalization routine
15:34:08 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:34:08 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-34-08
15:34:16 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:34:41 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
15:35:32 <Jacob> ivan: is #249 postponed?
15:35:42 <Jacob> TimCole: should be marked editor action or closed
15:35:49 <azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose
15:36:17 <TimCole> q?
15:36:39 <Jacob> azaroth: #257 -- want to include info in the anno that allows the client to display a snippet or preview to the end user
15:37:17 <Jacob> ... ivan has suggested this be postponed, [rob] agrees, don't know what clients actually need to do this yet
15:37:30 <Jacob> ivan: not sure it even needs to be in the model at all
15:37:41 <Jacob> TimCole: doesn't need to be in v.1 of the model
15:37:51 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources
15:38:08 <ivan> +1
15:38:11 <azaroth> +1
15:38:12 <TimCole> +1
15:38:14 <Jacob> +1
15:38:22 <tilgovi> +1
15:38:23 <bigbluehat> +1
15:38:35 <Jacob> RESOLUTION:  Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources
15:38:44 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:38:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-38-44
15:38:48 <Jacob> ... that leaves us with #247
15:39:16 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:39:32 <Jacob> azaroth: can add a sentence saying that if you have contradictory information from external resources, believe the external resources and not the annotation
15:40:04 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:40:06 <Jacob> ... e.g., external resource claims target is html, and anno claims something different, believe that it is html
15:40:11 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:40:34 <Jacob> TimCole: discussion?
15:40:45 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the resource should be considered authoritative, not the Annotation's properties
15:40:48 <Kyrce> +q
15:40:57 <azaroth> ack Kyrce
15:40:59 <TimCole> ack kyrce
15:41:13 <Jacob> Kyrce: is this a question of content of the resource or its format?
15:41:23 <Jacob> azaroth: not content, just its metadata
15:41:28 <ivan> +1
15:42:08 <Jacob> +1
15:42:09 <TimCole> +1
15:42:10 <Kyrce> +1
15:42:14 <azaroth> +1
15:42:14 <bigbluehat> +1
15:42:26 <Jacob> RESOLUTION:  Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the resource should be considered authoritative, not the Annotation's properties
15:42:38 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:42:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-42-38
15:42:49 <TimCole> q?
15:43:00 <Jacob> TimCole: that seems to be it; 2 issues for testing and 2 issues for pending
15:43:01 <azaroth> Yay! :D
15:43:02 <Loqi> woot
15:43:05 <azaroth> Thank you all :)
15:43:19 <Jacob> ivan; all done, as testing issues don't need to be addressed at this time
15:43:41 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
15:44:04 <Jacob> ... everything else is editor's actions
15:44:23 <Jacob> ... my impression is that all of them have been addressed but they need to be closed
15:45:30 <Jacob> ivan: features freeze, call for one week review, then CR next week
15:46:09 <ivan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)
15:46:17 <azaroth> +1
15:46:18 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:46:21 <ivan> +1
15:46:22 <TimCole> +1
15:46:23 <Jacob> +1
15:46:23 <bigbluehat> +1
15:46:24 <Kyrce> +1
15:46:30 <Jacob> TimCole: discussion?
15:46:46 <ShaneM> +1
15:46:48 <tilgovi> +1
15:46:51 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)
15:47:09 <TimCole> Topic: Testing
15:47:29 <Jacob> ... will take the testing issues out of order and start with the new one
15:47:50 <Jacob> ... ivan noted a need for interoperability testing
15:48:38 <Jacob> ivan: yes, would be nice to demo interoperability via server, in practice -- 1 client pushes an anno into a server and another client fetches that anno and displays it in its own way
15:48:50 <TimCole> q+
15:48:54 <ShaneM> hmm.... I don't think that is a CR requirement.
15:49:04 <Jacob> ... whether we have enough implementations to do that, don't know, but would be a good extra
15:49:53 <Jacob> TimCole: like this idea in general, but concerned that the implementations don't have much overlap w/r/t domain, community, or topicality
15:50:17 <TimCole> ack ti
15:50:27 <Jacob> ... e.g., emblem annotation are kind of unique, is testing if they're interoperable artificial?
15:50:53 <Jacob> ivan: understand, shouldn't be a formal active criteria, but would be very nice to demonstrate
15:51:08 <azaroth> q+
15:51:17 <TimCole> ack aza
15:51:18 <Jacob> ... if it can be done, it will strengthen the interoperability of the standard
15:51:27 <ShaneM> protocol testing should ensure that each client sends and retrieves annotations correctly...
15:52:14 <Jacob> azaroth: seems like we should try to have 2 clients and 2 servers where client 1 makes a anno on server 1, copy it to server 2 and have it read by client 2
15:53:48 <Jacob> ivan: testing a singular implementation for the protocol is not the same as testing across multiple clients
15:54:24 <Jacob> ShaneM: however, if have multiple clients and they all pass the protocol tests, then hasn't interoperability been tested?
15:54:52 <Jacob> ivan: need a server independent from the clients
15:55:02 <Jacob> ShaneM: assuming this for protocol tests
15:55:18 <Jacob> ivan: discussed in Berlin to use scenarios
15:56:04 <Jacob> ShaneM: the web platform test infrastructure is a server, so be pointing the protocol tests at that server, then an independent server will have been provided to/for them
15:56:55 <Jacob> TimCole: to be clear, the protocol requires accepting/responding to LDP exchanges, so it didn't seem clear to us that that capacity existed at this tinme
15:57:15 <Jacob> ShaneM: the platform is capable of modeling any protocol that is desired
15:57:53 <azaroth> ShaneM++
15:57:54 <Loqi> ShaneM has 2 karma
15:58:00 <bigbluehat> ShaneM+++++++
15:58:01 <Loqi> ShaneM has 3 karma
15:58:31 <Jacob> TimCole: sounds like we have a better way to do protocol testing than we thought in Berlin
15:59:22 <Jacob> ... seems that we still need to test if anno looks the same in two different implementation environments, e.g., Rob's implementation v Europeana implementation
16:00:31 <Jacob> ShaneM: protocol test is next for me, sounds like vocab/model tests are there, so will move on to implementing protocol tests
16:00:59 <Jacob> TimCole: have built some schemas to test the model, is the infrastructure to trigger a run in place?
16:01:50 <Jacob> ShaneM: will post the instructions for how to do the testing to the lists
16:02:15 <Jacob> TimCole: will spend next friday on discussing testing after taking the CR vote
16:02:30 <Jacob> ivan: everyone should take some time to read through the documents
16:02:51 <Jacob> TimCole: will be very good, many small typos lurking
16:03:00 <Jacob> ...adjourn
16:04:31 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:04:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:04:40 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:04:40 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:04:40 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, shepazu, Jacob_Jett, ivan, Benjamin_Young, Kyrce_Swenson, Randall_Leeds, Tim_Cole, ShaneM, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:04:48 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:04:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:04:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:04:49 <RRSAgent> I see no action items