14:32:39 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:32:39 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-irc
14:32:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:32:41 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:32:43 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:32:43 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:32:44 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:32:44 <trackbot> Date: 19 August 2016
14:46:30 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:49:01 <TimCole> Meeting: Web Annotation WG
14:49:18 <TimCole> Chair: TimCole
14:51:23 <TimCole> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Aug/0145.html
14:51:44 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:52:18 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
14:53:37 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
14:59:47 <TimCole> Regrets: Rob_Sanderson
14:59:53 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
15:00:44 <TimCole> Regrets: Paolo Ciccarese
15:01:25 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:01:58 <TimCole> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Aug/0145.html
15:02:14 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:02:16 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Aug/0145.html
15:03:26 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:04:00 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:04:08 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
15:04:33 <TimCole> scribenick: Jacob
15:05:06 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:27 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:39 <TimCole> Topic: Issues
15:06:06 <Jacob> TimCole: Rob posted a question about agent requirements
15:06:09 <TimCole> Issue - agent requirements :  https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/349
15:06:49 <Jacob> ... noted that there are no MUST requirements on agents involved in creating annotations or resources that serve as bodies
15:06:54 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:06:58 <Jacob> ... do have SHOULDS but no MUSTS
15:07:16 <Jacob> .. doesn't prevent checking for agent objects (even if empty)
15:07:58 <Jacob> ... not any real concerns but want to confirm that agents being unspecified is how we want it
15:08:43 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:08:59 <Jacob> ... will leave this as -- should be closed -- but will wait for Rob's return
15:09:02 <TimCole> : https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/348
15:09:18 <Jacob> ... other issue is an editorial recommendation for textDirection
15:09:42 <Jacob> ... discussion participants from internationalization group; suggesting wording changes
15:10:04 <Jacob> ivan: should add the editorial labels [have added them]
15:11:08 <Jacob> ... not clear is whether proposals to close the related textDirection discussions, e.g., #335
15:11:09 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335
15:11:32 <Jacob> ... is 348 a proposal to close 335?
15:12:10 <Jacob> TimCole: no other actions out of this
15:12:45 <TimCole> Topic: Testing
15:13:11 <Jacob> ... model testing
15:13:35 <TimCole> http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotations/annotationMusts-manual.html
15:13:41 <Jacob> ... posted a few links to the test area Shane set up
15:14:27 <Jacob> ... can go there, paste in an annotation, and determine if all of the keys specific to "annotation" are valid, i.e. does not test body/target properties
15:14:51 <Jacob> ... it does check optional annotation properties, e.g., created
15:15:02 <Jacob> ... if 0 or 1 it passes but 2+ fails
15:15:42 <Jacob> ... if these tests look usable to implementers then should potentially move to the production region so that more implementers can use them
15:15:52 <Jacob> ... will be similar sets for bodies and targets
15:16:07 <Jacob> ... want to verify this approach works first
15:16:55 <Jacob> ShaneM: want to pay attention to the readability of the assertion list
15:17:23 <Jacob> ... existing ones readable, make sense, etc. but wish they could be more ledgible
15:17:48 <bigbluehat> q+ can we use some markdown?
15:17:57 <bigbluehat> q+
15:18:05 <Jacob> ... not critical but will want to make it even clearer what is being tested, e.g., "leap off the page"
15:18:31 <TimCole> ack big
15:18:37 <Jacob> TimCole: can we embed html into the text here?
15:18:55 <Jacob> ShaneM: yes but not sure how this will propogate through the tool chain
15:19:16 <Jacob> Ben: could use markdown instead of embedding html
15:19:27 <Jacob> ShaneM: good idea, will embed markdown processing
15:19:37 <TimCole> http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotations/annotationOptionals-manual.html
15:19:47 <Jacob> TimCole: recommended / optional assertions are harder to word
15:20:30 <Jacob> ... [summary of web-page]
15:21:16 <Jacob> ... how should these be worded? alot of text explaining the "failure" result
15:21:40 <Jacob> ... which is followed by some fairly arcane json validation text
15:21:52 <Jacob> ShaneM: could use the OR structure
15:22:22 <Jacob> ... e.g., branch A, "property not included", branch B, "property value invalid"
15:23:10 <Jacob> TimCole: Could cascade several...e.g., creator key
15:23:24 <Jacob> ... was it implemented? then was only one implemented?
15:23:37 <ivan> +1 to Shane
15:23:47 <Jacob> ShaneM: makes sense but more important to get the test out there, don't need to be perfect
15:23:56 <Jacob> ... can defer this issue until later
15:24:11 <Jacob> TimCole: will move on to body/target tests then
15:24:20 <Jacob> ... haven't started on annotation collection tests
15:24:32 <Jacob> ... wanted help from Rob, so not starting them until late next week
15:25:00 <Jacob> ... in the interim should we solicit feedback on the three tests (annotation, body, target)?
15:25:16 <Jacob> ivan: anything we can do to get the community more involved would be good
15:25:25 <Jacob> ... running very behind on the CR schedule
15:25:43 <Jacob> ... need to publish asap, even if additional / new tests are coming
15:26:18 <Jacob> ShaneM: will move the existing tests to the main repo, tagging tim and benjamin as reviewers
15:26:52 <Jacob> ... then peer-reviewed step will be accomplished
15:28:08 <Jacob> TimCole: will be cleaning some of the unused / older folders out to simplify the merge
15:28:38 <Jacob> ... other thing we are doing is testing locally using ajv / nodejs
15:28:50 <Jacob> ... relatively easy process
15:29:32 <Jacob> ... going to write some additional json schemas to allow local annotation testing in a similar manner to the existing test infrastructure
15:29:57 <Jacob> ShaneM: if there's a way to add that to the repo, can do that
15:30:33 <Jacob> TimCole: script is a command line, just using a text file for it but can look at making a more formal ajv script
15:31:14 <Jacob> ShaneM: there is a makeTest script, which should generate a test so long as valid schema are available
15:31:25 <ShaneM> s/makeTest/make_tests.py/
15:31:49 <Jacob> TimCole: json allows a certain amount of recursion, e.g., choice has items, items may be lists, etc.
15:32:18 <Jacob> ... need to be careful not to loop to infinity
15:33:06 <Jacob> ... will provide instructions next week on how to run these in ajv
15:33:23 <Jacob> ... hopefully Rob will help us provide instructions on how to do the same with python libraries
15:33:39 <bigbluehat> q+
15:33:54 <Jacob> ivan: should look at implementor list and generate some emails to get community involved
15:34:13 <TimCole> ack bigbluehat
15:34:23 <Jacob> ShaneM: will take some cycles to get the changes merged
15:34:40 <Jacob> Benjamin: should we use github to rally the implementers?
15:35:31 <Jacob> ... would allow implementers to self-identify
15:35:45 <Jacob> ivan: need to still email those we know; the more the better
15:36:06 <Jacob> Benjamin: github issue will also go out to the list
15:37:24 <Jacob> TimCole: any concerns about reporting the test results?
15:37:38 <Jacob> ... clear what was/wasn't implemented, etc.
15:38:12 <Jacob> ShaneM: will put an example result using the W3C's reporting tool (makes a table of who's implementing which features)
15:38:34 <TimCole> Topic: Protocol Testing
15:38:35 <Jacob> TimCole: testing example 42 is nice, implements many of the model's features
15:38:49 <TimCole> s /42/44
15:39:02 <Jacob> ShaneM: continuing to work on the ldp hand-off from Benjamin
15:39:35 <Jacob> ... physically adding a "route" into the server that knows that for certain things goes through our protocol
15:39:57 <Jacob> ... making internal changes for short-term data
15:40:17 <Jacob> ... converted the client-side testing to WP[something] framework
15:40:33 <bigbluehat> q+
15:40:38 <TimCole> s /[something]/T
15:40:47 <TimCole> ack bigbluehat
15:41:22 <Jacob> Benjamin: moving to hunting to Wiley's implementation status and open-source implementations
15:41:36 <Jacob> ... revisiting past annotation work to get them involved, provide more options
15:42:24 <Jacob> ShaneM: protocol test can be demo'd now, just not in the WPT context
15:43:16 <Jacob> ... client-side experience would be similar to what we have now, server-side will have a page
15:45:15 <Jacob> ... to-do list: integrate the route and html page for client-protocol testing, server-side is a single test case
15:46:27 <Jacob> TimCole: will there be pushback from implementers who received the invalid result but insist they have implemented correctly, how do they note this?
15:46:33 <ShaneM> annotation-protocol/client and annotation-protocol/server are the paths
15:46:40 <ShaneM> I have written the documentation - not yet checked in.
15:46:48 <Jacob> ShaneM: via github -- then we prove they were wrong or fix the test
15:47:13 <Jacob> TimCole: other action items?
15:47:18 <bigbluehat> I know csarven is interested in the HTML note if we can get that on the schedule
15:47:58 <ShaneM> q+ to ask if there is any danger of having to recycle CR?
15:47:58 <Jacob> ivan: html note, can be done when the CR is done
15:49:50 <Jacob> ... internationalization will probably be a topic next week
15:50:01 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
15:50:01 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if there is any danger of having to recycle CR?
15:50:05 <csarven> Not in the call.. but, yes. Interested in pushing a NOTE. I'll send an email out - would like to narrow down on exactly what we are expecting from this note.
15:50:42 <Jacob> ivan: nothing has yet to come up to cause us to restart the CR, but the internaitonalization discussion could result in a technical change
15:50:52 <ivan> q+
15:51:19 <TimCole> ack ivan
15:52:10 <Jacob> ... @ShaneM: will the testing specs built for us be reused for other groups
15:52:29 <Jacob> ShaneM: yes, was the reason specops moved on it
15:52:49 <Jacob> ... general case of testing the shape of a json data structure is critical for many standards
15:53:17 <Jacob> ... protocol testing a little less important but will reuse the protocol testing model for other protocols
15:53:39 <Jacob> ... was why the effort to take a neutral approach was taken
15:53:57 <Jacob> TimCole: will be updating the assertions with markdown in the next couple of hours
15:54:11 <Jacob> ... adjourne
15:54:22 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
15:54:22 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:54:22 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Benjamin_Young, Tim_Cole, ShaneM, Ivan, Jacob_Jett, Dan_Whaley, TB_Dinesh
15:54:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:54:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
15:54:31 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:54:31 <RRSAgent> I see no action items