See also: IRC log
TimCole: 9 people with +1 by email for the
CFC to go forward with CR
... Do we take a vote now?
ivan: Lets do that, as there are people who
didn't vote on the list who are here
... before we do that, lets agree on the publication date
TimCole: July 5th?
ivan: Even if we issue call for transition
today, it takes a week before the transition call, which would be around
the 20th
... we can try for the 23rd, something might come up on the transition
call
... Week of the 27th is a moratorium week, which pushes out to the 5th
of July
... would like to be that week. 23rd is living dangerously
TimCole: Don't want to live dangerously this
morning
... Will you put it in as a proposal
<ivan> Proposed RESOLUTION: The WG asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Protocol, Model, and Vocab documents as Candidate Recs, with a publication date on the 5th of July, 2016
<ivan> +1
+1
<csarven> +1
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
<takeshi> +1
<TimCole> +1
<tbdinesh> +1
<bjdmeest> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
<ShaneM> +1
RESOLUTION: The WG asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Protocol, Model, and Vocab documents as Candidate Recs, with a publication date on the 5th of July, 2016
<ivan> Remaining editorial issues: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
ivan: All of the issues are minor, but must
be done
... most complicated is need URI with a mockup of the implementation
report
... Otherwise the rest Rob [and editors] can do
ShaneM: I'll see if Gregg can do the mockup of the implementation report
ivan: Great, as soon as the issues are closed I'll start the process for the call
<ivan> +1
ivan: Shane, do you want to be on the call for the testing issues
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
ShaneM: I'll be there :|
ivan: That's it :)
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last week's call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
TimCole: Neither Rob nor I are available
next Friday 17th
... proposal is to cancel the call unless there's someone who wants to
lead it?
ivan: I can't do it either.
Shane: I'm also out
shepazu: I'm happy to have Friday off :)
TimCole: We'll pick up the calls on the 24th
ShaneM: Overview of where I'm at.... lots of
pieces to the puzzle. Been focusing on the model testing infrastructure
... Largely complete
... Thing I'm working on is an OR clause for a set of assertions. So
long as one feature passes, then the overall test passes
... The other piece of the puzzle is bugs in the WPT. Got those fixed
and have been checked in.
... Good because it has primed the pump of working with the maintainers
of the framework. So future integration should go more smootly
... Benjamin and Tim should talk about their stuff
bigbluehat: I had switched out to doing protocol testing
<bigbluehat> https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-tester
bigbluehat: Tim and friends seem to be doing
a good job with the schemas
... ^^ this link is a protocol client as javascript mocha tests
... Mostly a toy but hopefully useful
<bigbluehat> https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/pull/3
bigbluehat: built WPT-serve, ^^, python
based http client
... so code in that PR that implements the core of the annotation
protocol
... such as the prefer headers and responses. Thus an implementation
inside WPT to be integrated as part of the testing process
... javascript code then exercises the server
... easier than loading REST-client and running tests by hand
<TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation-tests
TimCole: A general question ... in the model
testing we have web application tests on github ^^
... is that where we're supposed to be working, or should we be in the
spec-ops area
ShaneM: Infrastructure in spec-ops,
annotation specific tests in web-annotation-tests
... there's a webhook that pulls those in to the deployment
... don't want to mess with the tests at the same time as the
infrastructure as they're independent
TimCole: So an implementation that wants to test, like Europeana, where do they go?
ShaneM: Couple steps before we get there,
but W3C has a test server
... URI escapes me at the moment
... that's the canonical place to run tests from. Can also bring up the
framework themselves if they want
<bigbluehat> http://www.w3c-test.org/
ShaneM: framework doesn't record what they do, you record it and provide in the implementation report
bigbluehat: the protocol pieces so far are
in the spec-ops repo as PRs
... web annotation tester repo is under my GH account right now
... didn't want it to seem more official :)
... could be set up to run in a browser, but once it's more complete,
along side the server, could be live where ever.
... Will let the mailing list know when it's useful for more than just
me
TimCole: Have you talked with Nick since Berlin
bigbluehat: I haven't since then no
TimCole: Rob created a spreadsheet before
Berlin of the keys / features of the model
... have used that as a starting point
<TimCole> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13LRf2-OCJlKplQE5MTV3breguuRhUyhQW8IZ_jQMBjw/edit?usp=sharing
TimCole: and working with Shane to get
schemas into folders. Revising the spreadsheet, which I sent to the list
... will take a week or two to get it fully populated, but moving along
okay
... still using v0.4
... others can edit and improve the schemas
... one gap is a set of negative examples that should NOT validate
... Getting the schemas to run with help from Shane
Shane: Have a core question - remembering
that the tests are manual, we want to have the fewest number of tests
that give the greatest coverage
... You're keeping that in mind as you group the assertions together?
... Sent a proposal to semi-automate lots of tests with the same input.
TimCole: We can write a script that will use
all of the schemas as a single test
... Can run a few then skip a bunch that aren't relevant
... thought we might end up with one test per major folder, so 5-6 tests
... maybe what you're suggesting will address it
ShaneM: single test per major feature area
could make sense
... but one test per way that a feature is used
... if there's orthogonality in a feature it should be broken up into
two tests
... we have a way to automatically repopulate the manual test input
window for the annotation when the next test loads
... you paste in the annotation, and there's a checkbox to copy it to
the next one.
... so you don't paste it again, you just click go again
... to reduce the clunkiness
... if there's 6, I don't care, if there's 100, I care about clunkiness
TimCole: We might end up with about 10?
... 5 kinds of bodies: bodyValue, embedded text, external resource,
specific resource, choice/set
... some of them then follow on to other tests, like for specific
resource or choice
... would have the same (almost) 5 things for targets
... so the major features are about a dozen
ShaneM: convenience feature might not make sense?
TimCole: I think it would
ShaneM: Oh not because it's a small number, but because the input would be different
TimCole: I might have multiple bodies that a
single annotation implements multiple features
... dont' think people should break up their annotations
... not sure I have a good use case in mind
... if what you're saying is not hard to do, it would be nice
... multiple bodies that demonstrate different features seem useful
... any questions at this point?
... In terms of documenting the test process, have a good readme file
... is that the kind of docs we need. Need the report from Gregg. What
else do we need?
ShaneM: Definitely need docs. Readme is
guidance for test authors, not testers
... need a thing to say how to run the tests and capture the results
... some is just part of WPT
... Have a couple mechanisms to get from tests to implementation reports
... both are fine, just need to pick one
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/CRTransitionRequest.md
ivan: One of the things I forgot. Have
created CR transition request text
... supposed to present about testing and implementation on the call
... don't have to have a detailed presentation
... but a draft description would be good to make the request smooth
... want to send request monday or so
<ShaneM> ACTION: ShaneM to write up drafty test process document for model, server, and clients [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write up drafty test process document for model, server, and clients [on Shane McCarron - due 2016-06-17].
TimCole: a little worried about richness?
ivan: doesn't need to be rich, just have to
have it in writing that we have the main testing blocks
... this is what they are, and that's maybe all we need, but I don't
know where they are now
TimCole: Shane has volunteered to help
... both Rob and I are travelling tomorrow
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about how we expect to test an implementation of an annotation server
ShaneM: I know how to test an annotaiton
client ... wondering about testing an annotaiton server
... is the work you've been doing so far Benjamin something we can use
to exercise a real server
bigbluehat: That's the hope :)
<bigbluehat> https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-tester/blob/master/test/musts.js
bigbluehat: Actual javascript ^^ it uses
Chai and structures tests in MUST and SHOULD and refs lines from the
spec
... copy and pasted. Then tries to write a test for the specific
MUST/SHOULD. Focusing on specific stuff
... good if Rob could test against MangoServer
... and anyone else with an implementation
... how close the testing and protocol code are. Unit tests for the
server I'm writing.
... could rewrite in python
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask how difficult it would be to put this in a browser
https://github.com/azaroth42/MangoServer
ShaneM: Your tests are in JS, can we wrap it to run in a browser with an HTML file to give it the endpoint and just click go
bigbluehat: Should be fine to do that
... can be incorporated with other testing frameworks. Could import to
WPT. Distance is unknown
ShaneM: that makes our story consistent, which is important
TimCole: Any questions?
... Interop question about client A sends annotation to a server and
then client B reads it in some fashion
... do we understand how that's going to work?
ShaneM: Don't need to do it, so don't put it in the plan
ivan: Yes, lets not require it in the
official documents
... but the director would love to see it
... if we can do it, even as partially a mock up, that would be great
<shepazu> +1
ivan: We know Europeana have a server. Need clients.
TimCole: Server seems easier than getting clients that annotate the same content
ivan: Yes. Europeana have annotations on
images. Maybe Rob can pick up one of their annotations
... to display and reuse the annotation. That would be already great.
Clearly independent
<ShaneM> note that bigbluehat is implementing a server right now in WPT
ivan: Not sure how much work it would require
TimCole: Have some content here that might be shared with Europeana
ivan: One thing we need to resolve is to set
a date for end of CR period can't be end of September as the charter
runs out
... I propose the end of September but maybe there are other dates in
mind?
TimCole: Availability of implementations to
test
... schedule in July/August is hard
ivan: Can't set the date earlier
... and can't make it later
TimCole: So 3 month CR
ivan: which is quite reasonable
... sometimes it's longer, but it's reasonable
TimCole: A little optimistic, but that's what we've got to do
ivan: If we can't close CR in terms of proving all the features, then it stays open until we get it. The end date is just that implementers don't have to rush
TimCole: What happens in september if we're not there?
ivan: We ask for an extension, and leave the
CR open
... horror stories about groups with CR open for 2 years
shepazu: if it gets to be 6 months and we
haven't exited CR, can re-examine the criteria and drop features or
postpone them
... would be more important to have a REC than a perfect one
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about dropping features
ivan: Yes, that's fine. If we need another month, that's easuy
ShaneM: Curious about process in the W3C for dropping features
ivan: We reissue a CR
ShaneM: That's too bad
shepazu: We're very close to completing some
of its deliverables, if we request a bit more time that won't be
controversial
... 99% odds that they'll keep it open while we try to finish
ShaneM: don't disagree. Let's say there's 20 features, and 1 doesn't demonstrate interop, was hoping to say you could just drop the feature without going back to the beginning
shepazu: Can do if we mark the feature at
risk
... if we mark something as at risk, and when we transition we remove
the feature
ivan: We have two features at risk -- one is
the social web work on activitystreams, the one from us is
Composite/List/Independents
... so date is fine, for my planning, when do we think it will be done?
... meaning there's actions on shane, gregg and a few editorial things
bigbluehat: AS2.0 is moving to CR ... still
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
ivan: all of them are minor
<ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/251
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about moving them to non TR space
ShaneM: For 251, I wouldn't put them in TR/
but anywhere else
... might want to update them in the future
ivan: Shane when do you think you can get yours done
<shepazu> ShaneM++
ShaneM: Before the end of the day
<Loqi> ShaneM has 4 karma
ivan: So can go to the direction on Tuesday
TimCole: Discussion around vocab for
... what do we do to validate the vocab document
ivan: Not really testing of it, it's
abstract that's serialized at least into JSON-LD as per the model
... not sure what we'd test
... we could test that the json-ld context against a processor produces
turtle
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say that technically the implementation of the vocab is the context
ShaneM: Implementation is the context
... way you demonstrate interop could be feeding it to three JSON-LD
processors and make sure that they accept it
... we did that for HTML5 modularization
ivan: Know of two processors
TimCole: Lets put that in
ShaneM: Will put that in to the document
TimCole: Let's adjourn and talk in 2 weeks
bye all!@
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon