15:50:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:50:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-irc
15:50:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:50:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
15:50:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:50:41 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:50:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:50:42 <trackbot> Date: 11 November 2016
15:50:57 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/081501d23b92$78988090$69c981b0$@illinois.edu
15:51:11 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda 2016-11-11: http://www.w3.org/mid/081501d23b92$78988090$69c981b0$@illinois.edu
15:51:17 <ivan> Chair: Tim
15:51:22 <ivan> Regrets: Ben
15:52:55 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:56:12 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:56:24 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:59:13 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:59:14 <azaroth> Regrets+ Ben_de_Meester
15:59:25 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:59:44 <TimCole> Present+ TimCole
15:59:55 <ivan> present+
16:00:15 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
16:00:55 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:01:59 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
16:02:47 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
16:02:51 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:03:05 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-minutes.html
16:03:12 <ivan> +1
16:03:13 <azaroth> TimCole: Last meeting was October 28th, any issues with the minutes?
16:03:16 <azaroth> +1
16:03:17 <TimCole> +1
16:03:17 <Jacob> +1
16:03:22 <tbdinesh> +1
16:03:23 <bigbluehat> +1
16:03:23 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-minutes.html
16:03:38 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:03:43 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:03:56 <azaroth> TimCole: There's 3 open issues, most recent was ActivityStream issue
16:04:08 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
16:04:36 <Jacob> Agree with Rob. Looks to me like we're doing what we're supposed to.
16:04:38 <TimCole> azaroth: Issue #357, doesn't seem to be an issue here.
16:04:46 <ShaneM> agenda+ tests seem to NOT specify skipFailures
16:04:55 <TimCole> ... Activity Streams defines appropriate classes
16:05:37 <TimCole> ... where we recommend FOAF semantics, the only thing were implying is that they overlap with Activity Streams semantics in a couple of areas
16:05:55 <TimCole> ... seems like this is okay in RDF, don't see the problem
16:06:26 <TimCole> ivan: where does the concern come from? where do we talk about FOAF?
16:06:33 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#foaf-organization
16:06:37 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#foaf-person
16:06:39 <TimCole> azaroth: in the Vocab we mention
16:06:45 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-vocab/#foaf-organization
16:07:07 <bigbluehat> used here https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#h-agents
16:07:26 <TimCole> ivan: would prefer us to use VCard vocab for some of our keys
16:07:46 <TimCole> azaroth: on the grounds that Activity Streams mentions VCard
16:08:15 <TimCole> ivan: in the mention of FOAF normative?
16:08:29 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#agents
16:08:29 <TimCole> azaroth: not a MUST
16:09:19 <TimCole> ivan: is still a borderline because he would ask us to change a SHOULD from FOAF to VCard
16:09:29 <ShaneM> feels like an unreasonable risk
16:09:36 <bigbluehat> +1
16:09:41 <azaroth> +1
16:09:43 <Jacob> +1
16:09:44 <TimCole> azaroth: would end up with mix of VCard and FOAF
16:10:15 <TimCole> ivan: doesn't seem a compelling technical reason to change - tag as postpone?
16:10:29 <Jacob> that sounds reasonable
16:10:31 <TimCole> ... too late to change since not essential technically
16:11:06 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Given no technical reason to change from FOAF to vCard, we will postpone the discussion until a future version
16:11:07 <azaroth> +1
16:11:14 <Jacob> +1
16:11:16 <TimCole> +1
16:11:18 <ivan> +1
16:11:19 <takeshi> +1
16:11:19 <tbdinesh> +1
16:11:24 <ShaneM> +1
16:11:31 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:11:31 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-irc#T16-11-31
16:11:35 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Given no technical reason to change from FOAF to vCard, we will postpone the discussion until a future version
16:11:36 <bigbluehat> +1
16:11:37 <TimCole> scribenick: azaroth
16:12:21 <azaroth> TimCole: Other opens are SVG (raised by Ivan) and registering the profile
16:12:29 <azaroth> Ivan: Can close the SVG issue if we run out of time.
16:12:50 <azaroth> bigbluehat: The only thing so far is changing the reference url to protocol
16:12:59 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/324#issuecomment-258262342
16:13:18 <azaroth> bigbluehat: This is the proposed submission
16:13:20 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:13:27 <azaroth> ... Ivan and Rob said to point to the protocol
16:13:42 <azaroth> ... Would be good to add a note to mention the media type in the model
16:13:45 <azaroth> q+
16:14:01 <azaroth> Ivan: Marked as a milestone for rec, as there's no change to the documents
16:14:06 <azaroth> ... It's not even urgent
16:14:20 <azaroth> bigbluehat: With this info, I can send in the submission and report back
16:14:30 <azaroth> ivan: So for PR we have only two open issues.
16:14:38 <TimCole> ack azaroth
16:14:45 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
16:15:17 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/346
16:15:23 <TimCole> azaroth: There is a waiting an addition pointing from model to vocab about media type
16:15:36 <TimCole> scribenick: azaroth
16:15:42 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/376
16:15:59 <TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
16:16:15 <TimCole> azaroth: 376 has been closed via email
16:16:33 <TimCole> ivan: at risk features will still need to be moved to appendix
16:16:38 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
16:16:56 <azaroth> ivan: for the SVG issue can you do it
16:18:03 <azaroth> azaroth: Can do, but the SVG representation generated by Omnigraffle isn't very good
16:18:05 <TimCole> Topic: Implementation / Testing Status
16:18:13 <azaroth> ivan: Okay, I'm happy to just close the issue
16:18:36 <azaroth> TimCole: Features that we need extra work on.  There are 4 criteria we don't have enough implementations of
16:18:49 <azaroth> ... Choice of Body, Choice of Target, Creator for Body, Creator for Target
16:19:14 <azaroth> ... For my part, we have an implementation for creator for Body and Target
16:19:28 <azaroth> ... Don't know where we are for a second implementation
16:19:35 <tbdinesh> q+ is it too late for impls
16:20:12 <azaroth> bigbluehat: I have the research done and started coding. The plan is to use a translate API, and let the user store the body in different languages.
16:20:25 <azaroth> ... so a choice for body, and creator (user vs api) for body
16:20:28 <tbdinesh> If its not too late for impls we have list/choice coming soon
16:20:30 <TimCole> ack tbdinesh
16:21:04 <azaroth> tbdinesh: We are almost ready.  Maybe a few days. We will have choice and list done.
16:21:27 <azaroth> ivan: When can we get it into the test suite and hence the report?
16:21:33 <azaroth> tbdinesh: I hope by middle of next week
16:21:48 <azaroth> ivan: Benjamin, what about you?
16:22:06 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Mid week would be a more sensible target than monday
16:22:15 <azaroth> bigbluehat: It's not conceptually hard, but the devil is in the details
16:22:29 <azaroth> ivan: If Dinesh and Benjamin get them into the report, are we done?
16:23:00 <ShaneM> q+ about testing todayu
16:23:05 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about testing todayu
16:23:08 <azaroth> azaroth: I'll have a choice and creator of body available, hopefully by the end of hte day
16:23:22 <azaroth> TimCole: So confident for Choice and Creator for body, but not for target
16:23:33 <azaroth> tbdinesh: The obvious implementation is for body
16:24:06 <azaroth> bigbluehat: It's the problem of knowing who the creator of the target is in the first place
16:24:16 <azaroth> ... it wouldn't be hard to get it from a wordpress template, for example
16:24:28 <azaroth> TimCole: I don't think we have the time to do that at this stage though
16:24:54 <azaroth> ivan: This leaves us with features for which we have to declare that the CR exit criteria are not met
16:25:08 <bigbluehat> can we list those specific features (again...)?
16:25:29 <azaroth> ... so the only thing we can do is to reissue a CR on the model and the vocab, and put the unimplemented features in an appendix
16:25:39 <ShaneM> q+ to ask about appendices
16:25:57 <TimCole> ack Shane
16:25:57 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about testing todayu and to ask about appendices
16:26:12 <azaroth> TimCole: If we're able to show choice and creator on the body, is there anything in the vocab for it?
16:26:28 <azaroth> azaroth: Nope, as we'll have implementations for the classes
16:27:05 <azaroth> ShaneM: If something's marked at risk, and we have to remove it, then we don't need a new CR?
16:27:17 <azaroth> ... so we could just mark things at risk in a new CR
16:27:39 <azaroth> ... and then if there is an implementation, we keep it and if not, we move it to an appendix
16:27:51 <azaroth> ivan: Yes, but we don't expect any implementations at this point
16:28:16 <azaroth> TimCole: We do the tests before the criteria, so I don't think we need to change the tests
16:28:35 <azaroth> ... They just don't contribute to the criteria
16:28:50 <azaroth> ShaneM: But it'll just clutter the test results with a bunch of fails unnecessarily
16:29:07 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr
16:29:14 <azaroth> ivan: So we have some time pressure now. Process wise this ^^ is where we are
16:29:26 <azaroth> ... that means that the minimum time is 4 weeks after the publication
16:30:17 <azaroth> ... which means we have to be quick in this. We could issue a PR mid december. Which goes to the end of January. Charter is extended to end of February
16:30:22 <ShaneM> q?
16:30:24 <bigbluehat> so by what date do we need what things implemented?
16:30:36 <azaroth> ... So we can do it, but I would like for it to be done quickly
16:30:54 <ShaneM> http://td.spec-ops.io/test-results/annotation-model/less-than-2.html
16:30:54 <azaroth> ... We need to vote today that we're doing this ... that we issue a revised CR
16:31:42 <azaroth> ... Then the problem is that I am around next week M/T, not really around tomorrow, and may need help getting the proper documentation to the director for the right authorization for a new CR
16:31:52 <azaroth> ... so the week after, the week of the 21st, it could be published
16:31:54 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Reissue CR with Choice for Targets and Agent for Body moved to appendix (or marked as at-risk)
16:32:46 <bigbluehat> so...this only happens if tbdinesh and I don't get our stuff done by Wednesday?
16:33:02 <ivan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Reissue CR with Choice for Targets and Agent for Body moved to an informative appendix
16:33:54 <azaroth> +1
16:33:56 <ivan> +1
16:34:14 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Reissue CR with Choice for Targets and Agent for Targets moved to an informative appendix
16:34:17 <azaroth> +1
16:34:20 <ivan> +1
16:34:20 <Jacob> +1
16:34:20 <TimCole> +1
16:34:21 <takeshi> +1
16:34:23 <ShaneM> q+ to talk about testing today (so I dont forget)
16:34:24 <bigbluehat> +1
16:34:25 <ShaneM> +1
16:34:31 <tbdinesh> +1
16:34:34 <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Reissue CR with Choice for Targets and Agent for Targets moved to an informative appendix
16:34:58 <azaroth> ivan: So the whole document needs to be edited for the new status, which is where timing comes in
16:35:07 <azaroth> ... do you think you can do this next week, if I'm not around?
16:35:52 <azaroth> azaroth: I can work on the text today, but need someone to look over the process parts of it
16:36:09 <azaroth> ivan: You can look at the CR request from July
16:36:22 <azaroth> ... A publication date of the 24th is a safe bet
16:36:58 <azaroth> ... Need to get a reply from Ralph to issue an official request, the choice is 22nd or 24th
16:37:05 <azaroth> TimCole: 24th is a holiday in the US
16:37:09 <azaroth> ivan: You are right, okay the 22nd
16:37:22 <azaroth> ... so the request needs to be out on Monday or Tuesday
16:38:06 <azaroth> ... If the whole thing is done, I can send a preliminary publication request to the web master
16:38:22 <azaroth> ... last time I did run into a number of issues with pubrules and so forth, so please be careful of that
16:38:49 <azaroth> ... So a deadline of the 20th of December for PR
16:39:00 <azaroth> s/for PR//
16:39:22 <azaroth> ... and then there's Christmas, so the PR is January ... PR is 28 days after publication
16:40:09 <azaroth> ... I wonder why the process document uses days not weeks ...
16:40:19 <azaroth> ... so PR first week of January, and then in Rec in February
16:40:58 <azaroth> TimCole: CR goes to 20th Dec, but we'll want all of the paperwork done in advance of that
16:41:03 <azaroth> ivan: Mostly the test report
16:41:15 <azaroth> ... in the repo there's just the pattern for the emails
16:41:16 <tbdinesh> if anyone can implement choice for target and agent for target, we can do one by end of next week
16:41:49 <azaroth> ... in the text there's a description of the testing process and so on.  We should send the request in the week of Dec 20, which will sit until the first week of January
16:41:59 <azaroth> ... lets get the CR done first, that's the urgent thing
16:42:12 <azaroth> TimCole: So the good news is we dont' need the test reports next week
16:42:20 <ShaneM> q?
16:42:27 <azaroth> TOPIC: testing
16:42:35 <TimCole> ack ShaneM
16:42:35 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about testing today (so I dont forget)
16:42:54 <azaroth> ShaneM: Someone mentioned tests today. There's a problem with the tests in the main repo, so use mine
16:43:30 <azaroth> ... We removed the lines from the tests that said ignore the results of optional tests.  So the test reports are currently wrong
16:43:49 <azaroth> ... I made the change back and re-re-ran the tests, but need to get them merged to the main repo
16:44:22 <ShaneM> http://td.spec-ops.io:8000/tools/runner/index.html
16:44:46 <azaroth> ... That server reflects the fixes as above, and the changes for collection and pages that Tim made yesterday
16:44:53 <azaroth> The report currently looks like ...
16:45:05 <azaroth> s/The report/... The report/
16:45:10 <ShaneM> http://td.spec-ops.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html
16:45:38 <azaroth> ... this is a report that is rolled up.  There's a column per implementation.
16:45:54 <azaroth> ... the tests are alpha sorted, which puts them out of order
16:46:23 <azaroth> ... the optionals in yellow in the second part. The list of tests are essentially in a random order in the results
16:46:31 <azaroth> ... so we re-order in the report
16:46:38 <azaroth> ivan: Red vs Yellow?
16:46:50 <azaroth> ShaneM: Red is that it actually failed
16:47:08 <azaroth> ... Not entirely sure what it means in practice
16:47:34 <azaroth> TimCole: Not sure why my and Takeshi impelmentations got fails not yellow
16:48:13 <azaroth> TimCole: The tests aren't very sophisticated, so I'm not sure how it would do that.
16:48:24 <azaroth> ... it has to have a type, and from an enumeration
16:48:32 <azaroth> ... if you don't have the key at all, it should report that you failed
16:48:38 <azaroth> ... we can investigate this later
16:49:12 <azaroth> Ivan: Looking at the protocol tests
16:49:18 <azaroth> ... it fails on two required things
16:50:49 <azaroth> azaroth: I can fix those
16:51:29 <ShaneM> what's the URI to your implementation Rob?
16:51:30 <azaroth> Ivan: We have several weeks because of the CR issue
16:51:38 <azaroth> ... what about vocab?
16:52:08 <azaroth> ShaneM: Unfortunately, I don't have time to put the report together, but the results are there so can someone else create a report?
16:53:14 <azaroth> TimCole: I'm happy to help put it together... but I don't know what was really done and how to make the report
16:53:27 <azaroth> ShaneM: If it's more than a few paragraphs I think we're doing it wrong
16:53:34 <bigbluehat> this is where it goes though, yeah? https://github.com/w3c/test-results/tree/gh-pages/annotation-vocab
16:53:58 <azaroth> ShaneM: That's where it goes
16:54:38 <azaroth> azaroth: I'll dig up my code
16:54:47 <azaroth> ivan: The CR republication is the urgent thing
16:55:12 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Let's make a task list and when they're due by
16:55:30 <azaroth> ShaneM: Hugo has been running the protocol tests, and we should have results from them
16:55:41 <azaroth> ivan: That would be three which is good
16:56:13 <azaroth> TimCole: Collection and Pages... anyone satisfying the protocol tests should be able to submit results
16:56:23 <azaroth> ... I don't see them in Shane's new test server
16:56:37 <azaroth> ShaneM: We don't have any results
16:56:43 <azaroth> ... I don't have input for them
16:56:51 <azaroth> TimCole: Rob you can submit one?
16:57:06 <azaroth> ShaneM: The other is the test suite itself
16:57:24 <azaroth> ... is that okay?
16:57:27 <azaroth> ivan: Yes that's fine
16:57:52 <azaroth> ShaneM: We can ask Hugo to run theirs
16:58:07 <azaroth> TimCole: Where we are with the spreadsheet from earlier this week
16:58:18 <azaroth> ... the column with the identifiers might need updating
16:58:25 <azaroth> ... to map which tests map to which criteria
16:58:37 <azaroth> ... should discuss to make sure I got it right, at the meeting after thanksgiving
16:58:56 <azaroth> ivan: Once we've verified, put it into HTML or markdown and put it up along side the test results
16:59:00 <azaroth> ... and link to the table
16:59:05 <azaroth> TimCole: Sounds like a plan
16:59:20 <azaroth> ... one last thing, there's some errors with the Pund.it implementation in terms of context
16:59:32 <azaroth> ... which is required for the model. Where do we sit on that?
16:59:48 <ShaneM> its okay that they fail that test...
17:00:14 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
17:00:28 <azaroth> azaroth: I can talk to them, but we have the right number of implementations
17:00:36 <azaroth> ivan: Yes, that's their problem, not ours in some sense
17:00:50 <azaroth> ivan: Not about testing, but to be sure that we know what the next steps are
17:01:52 <azaroth> ... Rob to take the lead on sending the request for new CR to Ralph and Phillipe
17:02:02 <azaroth> ... There has to be 5 business days between request and publication
17:02:41 <azaroth> ... There must be a publication moratorium list somewhere
17:02:55 <azaroth> TimCole: Would monday be in time for 22nd?
17:04:02 <azaroth> azaroth:  Okay, so I'll do the editing today and over the weekend and the request on Monday
17:04:14 <azaroth> ShaneM: Could be a bug in the report generator for the fails
17:10:55 <ivan> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2016AprJun/0004.html says there is no moratorium on thxgiving
17:11:06 <ivan> azaroth, TimCole, see ^
17:11:45 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:11:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:11:52 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
17:11:52 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:11:52 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Benjamin_Young, TimCole, ivan, Jacob_Jett, ShaneM, TB_Dinesh
17:12:00 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:12:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:12:01 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:12:01 <RRSAgent> I see no action items