15:44:12 RRSAgent has joined #annotation 15:44:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-irc 15:44:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 15:44:14 Zakim has joined #annotation 15:44:16 Zakim, this will be 2666 15:44:16 ok, trackbot 15:44:17 Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference 15:44:17 Date: 02 December 2016 15:44:24 Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/023d01d24c05$d86c2840$894478c0$@illinois.edu 15:44:36 ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda 2016-12-02: http://www.w3.org/mid/023d01d24c05$d86c2840$894478c0$@illinois.edu 15:44:48 Chair: Tim 15:50:28 azaroth has joined #annotation 15:53:23 TimCole has joined #annotation 15:57:45 Jacob has joined #annotation 15:59:33 Present+ 16:00:08 present+ Tim_Cole 16:00:49 Present+ Rob_Sanderson 16:00:54 Present+ Jacob_Jett 16:02:22 tbdinesh has joined #annotation 16:02:48 Present+ tb_dinesh 16:03:13 bjdmeest has joined #annotation 16:04:22 tilgovi has joined #annotation 16:04:44 present+ ShaneM 16:05:13 present+ RandallLeeds 16:05:17 Present+ Ben_De_Meester 16:06:29 scribenick ben_thatmustbeme 16:06:33 scribenick bjdmeest 16:06:46 scribenick: bjdmeest 16:06:54 PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-minutes.html 16:06:55 TimCole: [talking about agenda] 16:07:21 ... any objections about the minutes? no? 16:07:30 RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/11-annotation-minutes.html 16:07:46 topic: issue updates 16:07:58 TimCole: 2 open issues 16:08:01 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/381 16:08:08 q+ 16:08:11 ... ... #381 is the first one 16:08:21 ack ivan 16:08:25 ... previousVersionURI didn't exist in OWL 16:08:29 ivan: I did handle that 16:08:34 ... PR waiting for approval 16:08:38 ... #385 16:08:40 Present+ Benjamin_Young 16:09:06 ... replace non-existant with ??? from prov, which came closest imo 16:09:17 ... @azaroth, could you have a look? there were a lot of changes 16:09:22 PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation 16:09:23 azaroth: looks good to me. closedQ! 16:09:47 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/386 16:09:48 TimCole: any other comments about that? no? moving on... 16:09:54 ... #386 16:10:01 azaroth: testing question 16:10:15 ... there is a company in the UK that has implemented the model and protocol 16:10:30 ... they implemented the IF-MATCH check 16:10:54 ... but there's a problem with the test 16:11:11 ... the ETAG header of the response should match 16:11:26 ShaneM: is this #386? 16:11:45 ... I missed that, it looks like a fine thing to do, I'll do this today 16:11:53 ivan: can you close after you did that? 16:12:04 ShaneM: no, don't have write access, I'll ping one of you 16:12:25 TimCole: is there any doublecheck that Shane can do? 16:12:45 azaroth: my server had it implemented but switched off, I'll turn it on once it's implemented 16:12:54 ShaneM: I'll let you know, so you can test yourself 16:13:12 azaroth: I have the report of that company from the UK 16:13:31 ... I could wait and let them retest once ETAG is fixed 16:13:42 ... change the JSON manually 16:13:55 ivan: I'm in favor of the last one 16:14:12 Topic: CR status update 16:14:32 TimCole: we proposed a new CR on the vocabulary and the model on the 22nd of November 16:14:37 azaroth: changes: 16:14:51 ... we took out the AT RISK features of composite, list, and independents 16:15:01 ... because of insufficient implementations 16:15:07 ... only one of list and composite 16:15:53 bjdmeest_ has joined #annotation 16:15:58 q+ 16:16:00 scribenick: bjdmeest_ 16:16:06 ack Ti 16:16:23 azaroth: [going over the changes] 16:16:52 TimCole: about the context document? 16:17:02 azaroth: we can just change that one 16:17:10 ... we took independent, composite and list out of the context 16:17:23 ... people that are using them, those terms will no longer correctly resolve into RDF 16:17:49 TimCole: any comments about this? 16:18:08 could we publish them as a separate context? for folks who want them? 16:18:12 or is that too hard...? 16:18:12 azaroth: this needs to be turned into an extension for it to keep working 16:18:32 ivan: the only thing we may want to do is record an issue that says that it would be good to have that in V2 16:18:54 bigblue.. like an evolving context 16:19:04 ivan: we may come back to that later 16:19:04 bigblue.. like an evolving context standard 16:19:28 TimCole: we will remove from the Model tests any tests that use composite, list, or independent 16:19:39 ... or those that mention choice on target 16:19:47 ... I'll get that done, probably over the weekend 16:20:17 ... anything else about CR? 16:20:26 ... we have a lot of promising test results 16:20:34 ... for all other features 16:20:34 Topic: Need to have PR Transition ready by 20 December 16:20:58 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/PRTransitionAdmin/PRTransitionRequest.md 16:21:15 ivan: I made a draft of the transition request 16:21:33 ... what we need to do (except for having the finalized 3 reports) 16:21:41 ... really important are 2 things 16:21:49 ... 1: features marked at risk 16:22:10 Previous topic (sorry): here's the link to resurrect Composite, Independents, and List: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/387 16:22:38 ... maybe @azaroth can refine the text to reflect what exactly happened 16:22:55 ... and 2: specify what happened with the activity streams 16:23:05 azaroth: it has CR 6/12 16:23:16 ivan: anything new? 16:23:23 AS2 remaining issues https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues 16:23:28 ... we have to contact them 16:23:56 ... we can refer to CR as a PR, but by the time we have a recommendation, their spec also needs to recommendation 16:24:04 ... so we need to be sure 16:24:30 azaroth: I'll ask around, at least James 16:24:37 ivan: what's our fallback if we have problem? 16:24:53 azaroth: we can just duplicate all classes and predicates into our own namespace 16:25:23 ivan: as we said? only changes to the vocabulary document wrt the recommendations? 16:25:40 azaroth: yes, we don't mention AS in the model, so that's fine 16:25:45 ivan: can we set a deadline for this? 16:26:16 ... let's try to get that sorted out in a week? 16:26:29 ... if not, then we have to change the documents as well 16:26:31 uskudarli has joined #annotation 16:27:17 ... I would propose: if we don't have clear information about the AS2 PR transition by, e.g., the 16th, we take the fallback measure 16:27:40 Proposal: if we don't have clear information about the AS2 PR transition by, e.g., the 16th, we take the fallback measure 16:27:47 +1 16:27:48 +1 16:27:50 +1 16:27:51 +1 16:27:57 +1 16:28:14 +1 16:28:16 +1 16:28:53 +1 16:29:12 I doubt that it will come to a shock to W3M that coordination is difficult 16:29:39 RESOLUTION: if we don't have clear information about the AS2 PR transition by, e.g., the 16th, we take the fallback measure 16:30:06 ivan: next: all implementation information section should be as complete as possible 16:30:30 ... relying on the fact that all features have at least 2 implementations 16:30:44 ... there is a whole line where only implementation passes 16:31:04 azaroth: there are test results pending that implement that 16:31:32 discussing these results v 16:31:34 https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html 16:31:41 ... also for the other 16:32:07 https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-protocol/all.html 16:32:52 ivan:[so, all features will have at least 2 implementations] 16:33:20 ivan: [about the test results]: some descriptions are a bit too cryptic 16:33:21 q+ 16:33:48 ack Ti 16:33:55 TimCole: there are 2 approaches 16:34:05 ... there are assertions and test patterns 16:34:17 ... the assertions cover a lot more than what we need to exit CR 16:35:20 I am confused. Are we talking about model or protocol? 16:35:57 bjdmeest has joined #annotation 16:36:05 scribenick: bjdmeest 16:36:49 ivan: I like the approach of creating a separate html page, specifically for the transition 16:37:09 ... we have to be careful to send out the correct url 16:37:23 ShaneM: didn't we send the README.MD as url? 16:37:29 azaroth: [no] 16:37:55 ivan: whatever is quicker and easier... we just need to have it done 16:38:18 TimCole: we now have an ID on all subsets, and spreadsheet with all results 16:38:22 q+ to talk about an approach 16:38:23 ... it is easy to create a new HTML 16:38:33 ... to show only what matters for the CR 16:38:40 ... that's easy to create 16:38:44 ivan: and an important one 16:39:03 ack ShaneM 16:39:03 ShaneM, you wanted to talk about an approach 16:39:38 ShaneM: the top of that report is arbitrary html, so we could add the rolled up implementation report there 16:39:48 ... or a link to the external rolled up html 16:40:17 TimCole: how to add the rolled up to the report? 16:40:35 ShaneM: there's a file 'reportHeader.html', you could just change that 16:40:44 s/reportHeader/report-header/ 16:40:49 ... the magic and unicorns will do the rest 16:41:20 ivan: about the rolled up html: can we complete this by the end of next week? 16:41:33 TimCole: I can try to do this on Monday or Tuesday 16:41:57 ivan: can I dream about a situation, by the end of next week, where all specs are perfect? 16:42:17 TimCole: we need extra test reports, reports of the UK, and @azaroths work 16:42:27 azaroth: I can do it whenever 16:42:35 TimCole: next week is a reasonable target 16:42:59 ShaneM: I wrote an automated tool to rerun all the manuel tests, and regenerate all the results 16:43:12 ... once we have the tests submitted, I can press 'go' 16:43:33 azaroth: I think we need to distinguish between collections and annotations 16:44:09 ... in the collection MUSTS, that fails, because they test collections, not annotations 16:45:32 ... we shouldn't test annotations and say they pass collection tests 16:46:22 TimCole: it would be nice to distinguish that RI and the next two are implementations of collections and pages 16:47:11 In essence, we are saying we pass a bunch of tests (the collection and pages musts and optionals) because we're running Annotations through those tests,and they have similar properties, or the tests check for presence first and (clearly) total is not present on an Annotation 16:47:42 So we pass tests not through actual implementation but by testing data that isn't intended for that purpose but happens to pass the tests, as written 16:47:53 ivan: so, can we talk about dates for getting the deadlines? or are there other things? 16:48:06 TimCole: there are some tests, some rewriting... it can be done in a week 16:48:23 ivan: in 2 weeks, on the 16th, everything is closed 16:48:35 ... by closed, I mean, we have no pending issues about the transition 16:49:42 ... first of all, there is christmas time coming, I will be on vacation starting the 20th, the week of the 9th is complicated... It will be difficult to find the right transition date 16:50:00 ... also, the CR should be up for 4 weeks, and our charter ends on february 16:50:13 ... so before the 20th, I send the transition request for PR 16:50:18 s/CR/PR 16:50:35 ... and we try to find a transition date by the end of January 16:50:57 ... so we have a transition around the 5th or 6th 16:51:16 ... the goal would be to publish PR the 17th of January, or 24th is still ok 16:51:49 ... so, I'd like to have everything ready in two weeks, to have the process started asap 16:51:50 =1 16:52:05 TimCole: who is available the 16th? 16:52:57 ivan: we have to have a formal vote, we cannot have this vote before the 20th 16:53:45 TimCole: we'll do as much as possible by next week 16:54:19 ivan: the PR versions will only need to be done by January, ReSpec will do most of the work 16:54:57 TimCole: we needed to talk about the transition requests, whether there'll be a new WG, or the open annotation WG 16:55:08 +1 to reusing things 16:55:14 ivan: my preference would be to reopen the Open Annotation CG 16:56:04 ... I need availability dates for you guys for the transition request 16:56:15 ... 5, 6, 10, 16 16:56:23 TimCole: fine for me 16:56:32 azaroth: also fine 16:56:46 bigbluehat: also fine 16:57:14 ivan: I'll put in right now an entry to Philip's and Ralph's calendar, so we can act in between 16:57:48 TimCole: so, one pull request pending, I will the make the deletions according to that pull request 16:58:15 ... next week, no full group meeting, only if test relevant stuff 16:58:38 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:58:38 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-minutes.html ivan 16:58:44 trackbot, end telcon 16:58:44 Zakim, list attendees 16:58:44 As of this point the attendees have been ivan, Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson, Jacob_Jett, tb_dinesh, ShaneM, RandallLeeds, Ben_De_Meester, Benjamin_Young 16:58:52 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:58:52 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-minutes.html trackbot 16:58:53 RRSAgent, bye 16:58:53 I see no action items