14:30:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:30:03 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/08/26-annotation-irc
14:30:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:30:05 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:30:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:30:07 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:30:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:30:08 <trackbot> Date: 26 August 2016
14:30:23 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/010201d1ff15$8813a540$983aefc0$@illinois.edu
14:30:38 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: agenda 2016-08-26: http://www.w3.org/mid/010201d1ff15$8813a540$983aefc0$@illinois.edu
14:30:50 <ivan> Chair: Rob, Tim
14:49:15 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
14:55:19 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:51 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
14:59:12 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
14:59:41 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:00:15 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
15:01:04 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:01:49 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:01:50 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:03:13 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:03:19 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_whaley
15:03:28 <azaroth> Regrets+ Ben_De_Meester
15:03:37 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:04:55 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:06:23 <tbdinesh> sorry had to exit early last meeting - had badconnection
15:06:25 <ShaneM> zakim, agenda?
15:06:25 <Zakim> I see nothing on the agenda
15:06:38 <ShaneM> TOPIC: Last weeks minutes
15:06:42 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:46 <ivan> +1
15:06:55 <TimCole> +1
15:07:00 <ivan> scribenick: Jacob
15:07:00 <azaroth> +1
15:07:00 <ShaneM> rrsagent, make logs public
15:07:02 <ShaneM> +1
15:07:09 <ShaneM> rrsagent, make minutes
15:07:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/26-annotation-minutes.html ShaneM
15:07:19 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:31 <TimCole> Topic: Exit Criteria
15:08:02 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:09:51 <azaroth> Rob's proposed text: https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/c5f2fdeeb7faad37af534e5b057ce03d92aada44/model/wd2/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
15:09:56 <azaroth> And: https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/3af99d57ec3ec645b17e4961cb63974f07a22feb/protocol/wd/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
15:10:21 <Jacob> ivan: will make an editorial change to put the exit criteria in all three documents
15:11:28 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:11:59 <Jacob> TimCole; what needs to go into that summary? do we need some ancillary documentation to clarify the text that goes in?
15:12:32 <Jacob> ivan: essential part would be the only part in the documents, can link to other documents for greater details
15:13:49 <Jacob> TimCole: once a test is up and running, may be worthwhile to get the summary of assertions, e.g., what are we testing?
15:14:26 <Jacob> ... what things are we claiming are features [of the model]?
15:14:29 <ShaneM> I have put a PR into the test results tree: https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/32
15:15:03 <Jacob> ... fairly easy to summarize at a high-level but as has been pointed out, we reuse properties on different objects
15:15:26 <Jacob> ... is the feature the property or the combination of property on a particular object?
15:15:28 <ShaneM> q+ to ask "feature of what?"
15:15:47 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
15:16:14 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
15:16:14 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask "feature of what?"
15:16:37 <Jacob> azaroth: had previously decided to treat the combination of properties on objects to be the feature, e.g., the name on an agent
15:17:19 <Jacob> ShaneM: feature of model? feature of vocabulary? feature of what?
15:17:39 <Jacob> ... need more context
15:18:11 <Jacob> azaroth: need exit criteria for both; if they are not the same then not sure what the criteria for vocab would be
15:18:48 <Jacob> ShaneM: focus on model for now
15:19:26 <Jacob> ... need to test the properties in their contexts, e.g., target at top level means something different than target at a deeper level
15:20:36 <Jacob> TimCole: would treat agent as creator of annotation as a feature, agent as creator of a specific resource as a feature, etc.
15:23:24 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:24:41 <ShaneM> can't we just say "2 independent implementations of each feature" ?
15:27:57 <ShaneM> Long discussion of draft text for CR exit criteria.  Rob had proposed text in github:
15:28:50 <ivan> -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/3af99d57ec3ec645b17e4961cb63974f07a22feb/protocol/wd/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria proposal for the protocol
15:29:23 <ivan> -> https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/c5f2fdeeb7faad37af534e5b057ce03d92aada44/model/wd2/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria proposal for the model
15:30:05 <Jacob> ivan: what to do about the vocabulary?
15:30:43 <Jacob> azaroth: could reuse the same proposal as the one for the model; hard to test the vocab separately from serializations
15:30:45 <PaoloCiccarese_> PaoloCiccarese_ has joined #annotation
15:31:04 <PCiccarese> PCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:31:04 <ShaneM> q+ to note that we delivered a serialization of the vocab.  testing its implementation is testing to make sure that multiple processors can parse it.
15:31:24 <Jacob> ivan: need to test the model when expressed in ttl is valid rdf
15:31:25 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
15:31:25 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to note that we delivered a serialization of the vocab.  testing its implementation is testing to make sure that multiple processors can parse it.
15:31:50 <Jacob> ShaneM: our implementation is the json-ld context
15:32:19 <Jacob> azaroth: context + ontology, those two together
15:32:44 <ShaneM> need to pull the context document into various JSON-LD processors
15:33:57 <Jacob> ivan: did we systematically check for validation of the context, check for production of valid rdf, etc.?
15:34:13 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/model/wd2/check_egs.py
15:34:14 <Jacob> TimCole: hasn't been done systematically yet
15:34:40 <Jacob> ... do we need to include annotations submitted by implementers?
15:34:54 <ShaneM> transitivity supports the validity
15:35:02 <Jacob> ivan: no, if the context doc is okay then their annotations will be ok
15:37:12 <TimCole> PROPOSAL: Go forward with Rob's drafts and our discussion about Vocabulary Exit Criteria (the last will be reviewed via email).
15:37:20 <ivan> +1
15:37:23 <Jacob> +1
15:37:23 <azaroth> +1
15:37:30 <TimCole> +1
15:38:04 <ShaneM> +1
15:38:13 <ShaneM> Should it be in a branch?
15:38:23 <TimCole> Ivan will make sure these get published once ready in gitHub
15:38:26 <azaroth> It's in exit-criteria at the moment
15:40:00 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: Go forward with Rob's drafts and our discussion about Vocabulary Exit Criteria (the last will be reviewed via email).
15:40:05 <TimCole> Topic: Implementers doing testing
15:40:15 <ShaneM> http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotation-model
15:40:38 <Jacob> TimCole: discussed emailing implementers last week, have yet to move on that
15:41:34 <Jacob> ... (@implemeters on call) first set of tests are up, more going up every later today and report
15:42:10 <Jacob> ... want implementers to start using tests
15:43:18 <Jacob> ... who should we prod to use these?
15:43:51 <ShaneM> Anyone can run tests here: http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotation-model
15:44:10 <Jacob> dwhly: building a universal client architecture
15:44:42 <Jacob> ... will take the summary here and ask tech team what they need to move forward
15:45:14 <TimCole> q?
15:45:19 <Jacob> ... want to test interoperability
15:46:56 <Jacob> TimCole: Nick's feedback on whether or not the testing process makes sense will be helpful, even if a bit of a distraction
15:47:11 <ShaneM> For example, is this page usable?  http://w3c-test.org/annotation-model/annotations/annotationAgentOptionals-manual.html
15:48:01 <tbdinesh> I can use that too so we can also start with tests
15:49:13 <azaroth> q+
15:49:41 <TimCole> ack azaroth
15:49:53 <Jacob> PCiccarese: still updating the client aspects of domeo and annotea, so not doing useful implementations atm
15:50:20 <Jacob> azaroth: no distinction of where the implementation is (client-side or server-side)
15:50:41 <ShaneM> q+ to point out that the protocol tests just speak the protocol.
15:50:52 <Jacob> PCiccarese: so if old server could produce a new annotation, that would count as an implementation?
15:51:00 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
15:51:01 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to point out that the protocol tests just speak the protocol.
15:51:14 <tbdinesh> but to read it back might be harder (paolo)
15:52:01 <ShaneM> q+ to note that I think that the protocol tests include a server implementation.
15:52:02 <azaroth> Protocol implementations won't be a problem, I think.
15:52:08 <ShaneM> azaroth: yay!
15:52:19 <azaroth> Benjamin and I each have one, plus I know of two others
15:52:20 <Jacob> TimCole: if tests are in good shape next shape (which seems to be the case), will contact several other implementers to engage with the tests
15:52:23 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
15:52:23 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to note that I think that the protocol tests include a server implementation.
15:53:12 <Jacob> s/next shape/next week
15:54:15 <Jacob> ... also adding to the web repo readme some info about how to use the schemas locally
15:54:26 <Jacob> ... Rob helping with the python
15:54:44 <Jacob> ... Jacob already gave some text describing the ajv / node.js process
15:56:04 <Jacob> ... want to have some experience with implementers by the end of next week so that our extension request has some basis
15:56:44 <ivan> q+
15:56:48 <Jacob> ShaneM: protocol test q: submitting the server wpt first, is it okay if the server tests up initially?
15:56:57 <TimCole> ack ivan
15:57:32 <Jacob> ... e.g., tests exercising the server are nearly ready to submit, but the ones testing a client are farther away from readiness, is it okay to push on with out the other?
15:58:24 <Jacob> ivan: need to get the extension request to w3c sooner rather than later, need to demonstrate that we have things that can be relied on
15:59:29 <Jacob> ... would be great if by 2 weeks from now the testing/implementation repo is not empty
15:59:57 <Jacob> ... even incomplete results are good
16:00:02 <Jacob> ... so whatever we have
16:00:31 <Jacob> ShaneM: so we could begin generating reports later today
16:00:46 <Jacob> ... concerned that we haven't actually looked at the tests
16:00:57 <Jacob> ... need to make sure the results match our expectations
16:01:26 <Jacob> TimCole: model tests, excepting the annotation collections should go up over the weekend
16:02:53 <Jacob> ... do need to look at the validation (pass/fail), how to generate the report to make clear the differences between the examples from the documentation, e.g., ex.1 (no substantial features) vs. ex. 42 (an annotation collection
16:03:11 <Jacob> ... vs. ex. 44 (many substantial features)
16:03:51 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:03:51 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:03:51 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been ShaneM, Jacob_Jett, Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, TB_Dinesh, Benjamin_Young, Dan_whaley, Tim_Cole, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:03:59 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/08/26-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:04:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:04:00 <RRSAgent> I see no action items