14:53:58 RRSAgent has joined #annotation 14:53:58 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/05-annotation-irc 14:54:04 Zakim has joined #annotation 14:54:09 rrsagent, start meeting 14:54:09 I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth. Try /msg RRSAgent help 14:54:13 trackbot, start meeting 14:54:15 RRSAgent, make logs public 14:54:17 Zakim, this will be 2666 14:54:17 ok, trackbot 14:54:18 Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference 14:54:18 Date: 05 August 2016 14:54:48 azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Aug/0035.html 15:01:32 tbdinesh has joined #annotation 15:02:00 bjdmeest has joined #annotation 15:02:00 present+ ShaneM 15:02:50 Chairs: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole 15:02:51 Present+ Ben_De_Meester 15:02:55 Present+ Rob_Sanderson 15:03:07 Present+ Tim_Cole 15:03:14 Present+ tbdinesh 15:03:18 takeshi has joined #annotation 15:04:22 scribenick: bigbluehat 15:05:27 azaroth: going over the agenda 15:05:36 ...there's been a flurry of i18n discussion 15:05:41 ...we'll get some updates on testing 15:05:47 ...if there are any demos, it'd be great to see them 15:06:03 ...is there anything anyone would like to add? 15:06:17 TimCole: I have a couple questions for clarification about model testing 15:06:28 azaroth: k. we'll run with what we have 15:06:31 TOPIC: Minutes Approval 15:06:45 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-annotation-minutes.html 15:06:52 +1 15:06:55 +1 15:06:55 +1 15:07:00 +1 15:07:07 RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/07/29-annotation-minutes.html 15:07:20 +1 15:07:22 PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation 15:07:23 azaroth: any announcements? 15:07:32 TOPIC: Issues 15:07:42 I18n issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335 15:07:45 azaroth: we have one major issue 15:07:58 ...hopefully people have been keeping up a little 15:08:08 ...there was some discussion in the Social Web WG 15:08:14 ...about how to resolve their I18N issues 15:08:30 ...there was some suggestion that they consider how we solved our I18N issues 15:08:42 ...they disagreed, and have told us we shouldn't do it that way either 15:09:12 ...there are three folks from social and one person from Europiana who feel we need to change our approach 15:09:23 ...there are also two subsidiary issues that have come out of it 15:09:37 ...one that proposes getting rid of textDirection and instead use Unicode characters 15:09:51 ...and 337 around the carnality of processingLanguage 15:10:04 ...We have to address them. the question is how. 15:10:13 q+ 15:10:23 ...We did talk to the I18N folks, and this approach was OK with them. 15:10:33 ...reversing them would be tricky as they've not been marked at risk 15:10:50 ...and in my opinion we have not seen information that proves they are actually not useful 15:10:57 ...we could change how we've described them 15:11:10 ...but we did go around several times with the I18N folks to come to the descriptions that we do have 15:11:16 ack TimCole 15:11:16 q+ 15:11:51 TimCole: one thing that got mentioned, is the assumption that we are specifying client behaviours as well as the data structures 15:12:08 ...the issue of context arose around formatted language hints 15:12:15 ...that an annotation creation agent could add about a resource 15:12:28 ...that might be useful 15:12:41 ...and that allowing multiple languages listed made it less useful 15:12:52 ...so we added processingLanguage and textDirecton to help 15:13:14 ...but then we've also stated that if the actual resource states something different, that these can be considered as overridden 15:13:21 ...and these properties are meant to be used as hints 15:13:45 ...since we're not specifying client behavior, I don't think we should put anything heavier in place 15:14:15 ...I'd propose some editorial revisions that clarify the intended use, and clarify that we don't know how they'll be used, but that we wanted them there as we felt they were useful 15:14:55 azaroth: format and language we can specify them on the annotation that the client can expect these things, but we can't guarantee 15:15:08 ...maybe the name has changed or whatever else 15:15:12 ...this is true with everything on the Web 15:15:19 ...the canonical source is authoritative 15:15:24 ...and it seems like a general principle 15:15:26 +1 15:15:28 ...in Section 2 15:15:38 Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese 15:15:40 ...saying we're not trying to be authoritative 15:16:03 ...you can add information as it's helpful, but if it's contradicted by the source, then you should believe that source 15:16:03 ack ivan 15:16:43 ivan: I'm not deep into these topics, but we did have a very long discussion with the real experts 15:17:11 ...and with all my respect for the detractors, we've made our decisions with the input of these experts 15:17:20 ...and with that as background, we should not remove them 15:17:33 ...unless they I18N folks ask that after all they would rather we remove them 15:17:46 ...as long as the I18N experts maintain their advice, we should keep things as they are 15:17:56 +1 15:18:06 +1 15:18:06 ...I am not sure what exactly what the editorial explanation like comments that we got 15:18:34 ...until now the only thing I see as a cursory reading is additional technical discussion 15:18:54 ...and doesn't seem to result in a "please put this content in this place in this way" sort of change 15:19:10 ...and it's really just too late for this sort of editorial usage commentary to be added to the spec 15:19:42 ...So, unless the I18N experts suggest we change them, we should make a resolution that we intend to keep them based on their input 15:20:00 +1 15:20:02 Unicode indicator will override. so not contradicting anything 15:20:06 ...and that it's just too late in the process to add the commentary 15:20:21 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Unless the i18n group advise otherwise, the WG will not remove textDirection and processingLanguage from the model 15:20:27 +1 15:20:29 +1 15:20:32 +1 15:20:43 +1 15:20:48 +1 15:20:50 +1 15:20:53 +1 15:20:57 +1 15:20:58 +1 15:21:18 q+ 15:21:35 PaoloCiccarese: so. I have a question. 15:21:41 ...say they don't come back to us about it 15:22:08 ...and that in a few months they come back and say that we should change these? 15:22:15 ivan: this can happen to any feature in the document 15:22:22 Errata is a way to capture information 15:22:41 ...it is a matter of at some point in time we'll have to figure out an errata mechanism 15:23:03 ...if it happens at all, it would be handled as an errata 15:23:10 q? 15:23:12 how can it be an errata. its a MAY 15:23:15 ack PaoloCiccarese 15:23:25 azaroth: are their any other thoughts? 15:23:27 RESOLUTION: Unless the i18n group advise otherwise, the WG will not remove textDirection and processingLanguage from the model 15:24:27 azaroth: the other one ivan proposed seem to say if we could come up with something better we would 15:24:45 ivan: yeah. we've mostly already said this via other comments 15:25:04 azaroth: correct, we've said essentially "if anyone has other commentary, we're happy to hear it." 15:25:18 as long as the change is non-normative! 15:25:19 ivan: right, as long as we've stated that we're here and accepting input 15:25:41 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WG is happy to improve the text of the textdirection, processinglanguage descriptions with clear input as to what those changes should be 15:25:52 +1 15:25:55 +1 15:26:00 +1 15:26:01 +1 15:26:03 (and indeed, any other text in any of the documents!) 15:26:04 +1 15:26:26 +1 15:26:48 +1 15:26:55 +1 15:26:58 q+ 15:26:59 +1 15:26:59 RESOLUTION: WG is happy to improve the text of the textdirection, processinglanguage descriptions with clear input as to what those changes should be 15:27:04 ack takeshi 15:27:38 takeshi: I noticed that processingLanguage does not state what values should be used 15:27:44 azaroth: yes. you are 100% correct. 15:28:11 takeshi: to make things administratively right, let's get that added as a GitHub issue 15:28:21 ...so it has a place, and the editors can handle it 15:28:30 ...because we need to have documentation for all our changes 15:28:34 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Clarify that the value of processingLanguage SHOULD be bcp47, as per language. 15:28:43 +1 15:28:45 +1 15:28:46 +1 15:28:47 +1 15:28:48 +1 15:28:51 +1 15:28:55 +1 15:29:37 azaroth: do people think we should invite the I18N folks to the meeting next week? 15:29:41 uskudarli has joined #annotation 15:30:05 ivan: probably, we should show public support--again--to say we support their input 15:30:36 RESOLUTION: Clarify that the value of processingLanguage SHOULD be bcp47, as per language. 15:30:44 trackbot, pointer 15:30:44 Sorry, azaroth, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer'. Please refer to for help. 15:30:52 rrsagent, pointer? 15:30:52 See http://www.w3.org/2016/08/05-annotation-irc#T15-30-52 15:31:52 azaroth: I will make an issue that says that our content is based on the input of the I18N group 15:31:55 TOPIC: Testing 15:32:31 azaroth: one key piece to discuss is testing the value of properties even if the property is optional 15:32:36 ...including format and language 15:32:43 ...there is an ever increasing number of media types 15:32:53 ...and there's on the order of 8k languages and sub features on those 15:33:00 ...that also in theory could be tested with a JSON Schema 15:33:05 ...but that seems like massive overkill 15:33:16 ...and seems impossible to maintain 15:33:22 ...given the ongoing addition to both lists 15:33:35 ...so perhaps we can test the shape of the strings 15:34:05 q+ 15:34:05 ^[a-z][a-z][a-z]? 15:34:06 ...using the list of top-level media types followed by a slash followed by some other characters 15:34:15 ack TimCole 15:34:23 ...is probably sufficient for media type 15:34:46 TimCole: I agree that if the feature is optional, we won't try to be perfectly rigorous, but we will try to warn if the shape is wrong 15:34:52 ...that seems better than not testing at all 15:35:19 ...the perfect solution would need to use an outside services 15:35:38 ...we can continue to test the MUST requirements more rigorously 15:36:02 ...the other issue that came up was that if testing the value it's possible to add some more clarity to what the value should be 15:36:06 it means we need a separate assertion 15:36:13 ...there were a couple of other things 15:36:29 ...there are situations where we reference external vocabularies 15:36:38 ...two keys on Annotation: 15:36:48 ...audience and accessibility 15:36:48 https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#intended-audience 15:36:54 (and following section) 15:36:57 ...the audience one should be from the Schema.org namespace 15:37:21 ...these come from the Schema.org classes 15:37:29 ^schema:(.+)$ ? 15:37:50 ...right. as azaroth says you can check that the value starts with `schema` 15:38:06 ShaneM: a follow-up question. Does the spec hard code the prefix? 15:38:08 TimCole: yes. 15:38:11 ShaneM: excellent 15:38:27 TimCole: k. that sounds easy and we don't need to look up the actual classes 15:38:44 ...and then the last question 15:39:03 ...we do have a few situations where it "should be exactly 1 but may be 0 or more." 15:39:32 ...it seems worth checking these 15:39:55 ShaneM: thinking about. it's not a fail regardless 15:40:02 azaroth: seems like a warning if there's 0 or more than 1 15:40:06 ...and fine if there's only 1 15:40:21 ShaneM: we have syntax for this in our assertion structure 15:40:32 ...the tests can still continue even if this check fails 15:40:59 ...what we need to do is make sure the message that comes out with the failure states that it's a suggested feature and not an actual failure 15:41:12 TimCole: could you clarify the "succeed and continue" situation? 15:41:23 ShaneM: "succeed and continue" is not the result, it's the expected result? 15:41:51 ...so if the thing worked, continue. which is what you'd expect it to do 15:42:11 ...I think we should just play with the combinations and see what we get 15:42:25 TimCole: I'd like a message to come out in the results which is a warning, but that the process does continue 15:42:31 ...and its still marked as valid 15:42:52 ShaneM: unfortunately WPT has no method for outputting a message when things are successful 15:43:18 TimCole: so passing the test is fine, but if you didn't pass the test, then we could "succeed and continue" 15:43:24 ...we'll try that see if that's what we need 15:43:32 ShaneM: right. that'd be the approach I'd suggest 15:43:48 TimCole: we also have definitional schemas and other schemas that can be used as test scripts 15:43:55 ...we should be able to try and run some test scripts next week 15:44:04 ...and we'll be working on section 4 and section 5 15:44:17 ...the goal being to have all the schemas built next week 15:44:30 ...and perhaps we could get help running the test scripts 15:44:35 ...if I provide some draft test scripts 15:44:50 ShaneM: I'm happy to do that. the test dev environment is actually up and running 15:44:55 testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/tools/runner/index.html 15:44:56 ...and stays up to date with the repo 15:45:03 TimCole: k. we'll try that 15:45:13 ...the tests could compare a series of assertions 15:45:29 tbdinesh has joined #annotation 15:45:31 ...I'd like to put something together that puts all the optionals together 15:45:58 ShaneM: I think that's fine. as long as there's an annotation that matches those criteria 15:46:31 ...there's just no way to do it with one huge schema, because there's no way one annotation would exercise all those tests 15:46:48 TimCole: great. we're hoping to put stuff together with some of these libraries 15:46:55 ...perhaps in another language besides JS 15:46:55 https://www.npmjs.com/package/language-tags is a JS package to validate language tags btw 15:47:08 azaroth: happy to help with Python for one 15:47:13 q? 15:47:17 TimCole: if nothing else is needed here, let's move on to protocol testing 15:47:32 scribenick: TimCole 15:47:56 Topic: Protocol Testing 15:48:19 bigbluehat: protocol multiple headers was a bit of a red herring 15:48:37 https://www.npmjs.com/package/media-type JS library 15:48:47 ... have a stack of PR to bring protocol more in line with LDP 15:48:54 ivan: are they all editorial? 15:49:14 bigbluehat: maybe not, e.g., prefer headers... 15:49:50 ... include parameter in 2 headers, the latter should override 15:50:11 ... have rewritten the spec language to make clear how multiple headers work together 15:50:27 ivan: a little lost in details 15:50:33 https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/fix-333-multiple-http-headers/protocol/wd/index.html#h-container-representation-preferences 15:50:46 bigbluehat: so this is the section that I've proposed be revised 15:51:08 ... includes how LDP specifies the link headers should look 15:51:44 ivan: this seems making more precise, not a technical change? 15:52:19 yes there is 15:52:21 azaroth: the CR doesn't mention multiple headers, so perhaps this is a clarification 15:52:26 https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-protocol/ 15:52:46 bigbluehat: we did add an 'example 4', was not in CR 15:52:56 ... so this is editorial 15:53:41 q+ to ask a question about model testing (before we adjourn) 15:53:57 ivan: any change (even editorial) has to be fully documented and determined to be editorial 15:54:47 azaroth: for the PR for this protocol issue, can we go ahead and merge after update section is updated 15:55:03 bigbluehat: Note, the PR includes a few other clarifications 15:55:22 ... will add something to the changes section and then azaroth can merge 15:55:27 q? 15:55:48 azaroth: how close to protocol testing implementation? 15:56:01 bigbluehat: updated to do include headers properly 15:56:16 ... researching how to get into WPT 15:56:22 https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/pull/3 15:56:51 ShaneM: at point where we want to request merge into WPT (once mergeable) 15:57:13 bigbluehat: yes. and once merged should be fully compliant annotation server 15:57:20 is there an annotations "dump" somewhere that can be used for protocol testing? 15:57:22 azaroth: anything further on protocol? 15:57:30 ack ShaneM 15:57:30 ShaneM, you wanted to ask a question about model testing (before we adjourn) 15:58:06 ShaneM: found js tests for media types and languages 15:58:15 ... ajv supports this 15:58:37 ... does not rely on external services 15:58:50 ... ajv implementation does not rely on external services 15:59:10 azaroth: would tie implementation to ajv libraries 15:59:18 ... would not be able to use in python 15:59:29 q+ 15:59:43 azaroth: if possible to have a branch? 15:59:56 ack TimCole 16:00:50 TimCole: wait and do later, but not slow down progress on implementation testing 16:01:02 q? 16:01:16 TOPIC: AOB? 16:01:49 TOPIC: Adjourn :) 16:02:14 Ivan: You'll do the minutes magic? 16:02:16 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:02:16 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/05-annotation-minutes.html ivan 16:02:20 :) 16:02:28 Thank you! 16:02:42 Oh, and thank you to Benjamin for scribing and Tim for assistance 16:02:51 :) 16:02:53 happy to 16:02:58 once a year ;) 16:04:31 tbdinesh has left #annotation 16:04:38 hehe 16:04:51 ^_^ 16:41:36 shepazu has joined #annotation 17:25:09 tilgovi has joined #annotation 18:13:25 Zakim has left #annotation 21:43:22 tilgovi has joined #annotation 22:18:14 shepazu_ has joined #annotation