<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2013

<mgylling> trackbot, start telcon

<trackbot> Meeting: Digital Publishing Interest Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2013

<mgylling> scribe: lizadaly

(Do I scribe here or in separate notes?)

<azaroth> Here would be great, thanks Liza

You bet

Markus: 2nd week where we are trying theme-based called; today Annotations is up

First, approve previous minutes; objections to approval for last week's minutes? No; minutes are approved

When should we meet again after Christmas?

Monday 6th or Monday the 13th?

<dshkolnik> 6th is fine here

<azaroth> 6th is fine for me

<gcapiel> 1/13 is better, but 1/6 works

Deadline for CSS Shapes notes is the 7th

It is so duly noted that the next meeting will be the 6th of January

Theme for the 6th of January?

(TBD after discussion)

Other discussion: Ivan will look into the mailing list issue raised by Tony

scribe: but he believes it may be fine now

Others are encouraged to raise any additional issues and he will follow up with the systems staff

Annotations

ANNOTATIONS

<olaf_druemmer> My name is Olaf Drümmer, I am CEO of callas software GmbH and axaio software GmbH in Berlin, Germany. I am also the chairman of teh PDF Association. My interest is around accessibility, MathML, STEM, and digital publishing in general.

Markus suggests we provide some context for this discussion

"Who is doing what?"

Markus: There are 3 entities engaged in this work

1. Open Annotation Community Group

Markus: 2. The IDPF, adapting the Open Annotations specification for use with EPUB

<ivan> Guest: Olaf (olaf_druemmer) Drümmer, Callas Software GmbH

Markus: They are pointing to it and developing some specializations for it
... 3. This interest group, at this point collecting use cases for annotations as it relates to digital publishing
... The use case corpus as developed here has a wider scope than the original OA effort as it takes into account new cases discovered in the collaboration with the IDPF

Rob: As an interest group, our charter doesn't allow us to _create_ specifications

Markus: One of the interesting things about this group is that a new W3C Working Group could use our use cases as inputs to their process
... The use cases developing here are partly informing the IDPF work and possibly future OA WGs
... Did that help set context?

Ivan: Yes but the WG discussion is premature

Markus: Indeed
... Another context: in the ebook space, there is no standard interoperable annotations spec; each reading system or platform uses their own
... There is a lot of lock-in, and this is a problem in trade publishing but even more so in the educational sector where annotations are used more proactively
... There is a clear need expressed by the e-education space for an interoperable specification/protocol for transportable annotations

Rob: There was some work that was too early by NISO to bring together interested parties in annotations
... Many of the people here were a part of that and it did get the conversation started, but nothing concrete came out of that

Markus: Questions/comments?

Liam: There seems to be some competition in the educational space already providing annotation services
... That can be a precursor to standardization or it can make standardization difficult if those players aren't on board

Rob: A lot of interest in annotation in other sectors, see RapGenius

<ivan> s/???/Rob/

BillK: There's a lot of activity in the scholarly science and research space

(thanks)

Markus: Let's look at two things: 1) work done so far in use cases
... 2) Next steps for this task force

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/Task_Forces/Annotation

<mgylling> http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/wiki/UseCase_Directory#Social_Reading_and_Annotations

Markus: The Annotation task force main page
... 2nd URL is the Use Case collection

Rob: There are 6 categories
... 1. Basic use cases, annotations on the entire publication
... 4 UCs in that section are different ways that annotations can be used at the publication level
... Comments on the publication ("this is a great book!"); tag the publication; structured comment (score + review); personal vs. public annotations
... 2. Annotations that target segments of the work
... e.g. reading location, reading position, bookmarks
... Highlighting a span of text (neither highlight nor bookmark have commentary, just pointers)
... Commenting on some part of the text, or an embedded resource (img, video)
... Annotation parts of those resources
... 3. Advanced UCs: cross-format annotations (e.g. annotation the "work" rather than the instance of the work)
... Styles within an annotation (green vs. yellow highlights)
... State of those resources on the web (content negotiable)
... Recording state of user-manipulatable resources (this may be out of scope)
... Multiple bodies
... All these are covered by the Open Annotation specification already
... Those not covered:
... Serialize annotations into a single package
... OA spec does not have an API, so these are covered here
... Ensuring that annotations persist and can be transferred
... Issues around publications that are not published openly (like DRM) or issues where the annotations are not published openly
... Specifying the target audience for the annotations ("these annotations are appropriate for young children")
... Contributing accessibility information about resources
... Have a rich description of a resource for use by other users

Ivan: On the API: Do you mean a JavaScript API that browsers can use via the web?

Rob: Could be both server-to-server or browser-to-server
... but this work focused on system-to-system

Ivan: Re: target audience for annotations; isn't this the same issue as requesting annotations for annotations?
... This more general use case could subsume that

Rob: You could annotate the annotation to give it a target audience, or it could be directly-applied metadata
... We have laid out different approaches; most people take the metadata approach because implementation is easier
... but either way is possible

Markus: (Learning Resource Metadata Initiative)

Gerardo: Is there a way to know that an annotation is specific to the purpose of describing an image vs [ lost signal ]

Rob: We went for a general system that doesn't need to know the specific motivation of the system

<gcapiel> versus providing general comments or feedback

<azaroth> metadata vs annotation discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-openannotation/2013Oct/0001.html

<azaroth> motivations; http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/core.html#Motivations

Markus: In the advanced model use cases section, cases 5 & 6
... 6 is the user-manipulated case

Rob: There is an object called 'state' which we have used for recording HTTP-level information (e.g. HTTP headers like content negotiation, time at which it should be applied)
... "Here is the time at which the annotation applies to the resource" which is not the same as whether you can retrieve that resource
... We envision using this process for user-manipulated annotations, though none are defined at this time
... Is there something specific to the digital publishing world in which it would be a "failure" if this were not defined?

Markus: In an educational setting, learners will have a quiz widget ('answer these 10 questions'); the teacher wants to annotation question 8 and makes the annotation; when the learners get into the quiz they should not see the annotation until they get to question 8
... There is no predictability in how this widget is built

Rob: There might be an opportunity to attach to JS events "only display this onChange, etc"
... Because this is complex since there are no standards in how these widgets behave

;Rob: ...I wanted to raise this with the group

Markus: What is your sense of how complete this is in terms of use cases?

Rob: Very small number of features present in the model that are not used by any of these use cases
... I could create cases for them but they would not be very relevant to this IG audience
... It is complete from my perspective

Markus: We need to review this further to decide whether it is complete; are there things that seem to be missing right now?

BillK: This may overlap with some categories we already have including versioning: how do we indicate the version of a publication that is being commented on?

Rob: The way we have approached versioning is to look at the web architecture and go with what's there
... Hints: state of the resource at a time period is how we've tried to capture versioning in a neutral way
... Easier would be to give every version of a resource a URI (like Wikipedia)

BillK: I'm thinking of annotation that is a critique or a correction that has been subsequently corrected
... The ability to then indicate whether the comment still applies or does not apply in a later version

Rob: So, either multiple specific version to which it applies, or a range of time in which it applies

BillK: This can only be applied after the fact

Rob: The annotation and the publication may be in different systems
... We discussed this issue: when an annotation only applies in a specific case, we decided not to open that can of worms
... but we decided to tackle specific instances of this issue if they came up

BillK: In the scholarly world: the mechanism by CrossRef is called CrossMark
... A user of a publication can see whether they have the latest version of the publication
... Important for medical use cases since they can get retracted

Markus: Is this something we want to represent in the use case collection then?

Rob: Nothing's been accepted yet, so we can rediscuss whether to tackle it

BillK: I wasn't sure if this was a distinct use case or a variation on an existing one

(Markus is having connection problems)

Ivan: The annotations themselves should/may be structured and therefore a formatted document
... e.g. the annotation needs to have markup

Rob: That use case is there; any resource can be a body of an annotation
... Including cat images

Ivan questions the utility of a fish for connection resolution

Ivan: Next steps, Rob?

Rob: I will add the use case of whether an annotation is valid for a document at a particular state
... How do we move to more formal vetting? Do we wait for the other task forces?

Ivan: We don't have any formal approach
... The unit of the task force is the entire IG
... The IG should get some time to review the UCs
... and then say yes/no
... Assuming they agree... what is the next step?

Rob: Markus and I will take the UCs back to the IDPF and to the community group
... Within the community group we can help with the annotations packages problems and system-to-system APIs
... We haven't want to formalize metadata in that group but could take a stab at it for this audience and for accessibility

Ivan: What I would like to see: 2 documents, 1 is looking at the use cases: are there requirements that lead to missing features?
... 2. Particular to this task force: if the IG decides that they want to go for a WG, how do these use cases the charter of a possible WG?
... 1 outcome is a draft charter

Rob: Markus, Rob, and Paolo discussed using these UCs towards a charter
... Re: missing features in the OWP (Open Web Platform), would be helpful to have people in the other task forces with web experience look at whether those features are possible now

Ivan: 3. Maybe require work with BillK's task force: identification of how parts of a document are targeted for annotation

Dave Cramer: I volunteer for latinreq

BillK: There will need to be a CSS discussion at that meeting too

<azaroth> ACTION: Rob to note the differences between javascript API vs inter-system web API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-dpub-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'Rob'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/dpub/IG/track/users>.

<azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to note the differences between javascript API vs inter-system web API [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-dpub-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-13 - Note the differences between javascript api vs inter-system web api [on Robert Sanderson - due 2013-12-23].

Dave Cramer: We will use the mailing list for discussions of that

Thanks!

<azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to create new use case regarding description of when annotation is no longer relevant for a publication (eg corrections) [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-dpub-minutes.html#action03]

<mgylling> bye!

<trackbot> Created ACTION-14 - Create new use case regarding description of when annotation is no longer relevant for a publication (eg corrections) [on Robert Sanderson - due 2013-12-23].

<dshkolnik> bye

<azaroth> ivan: You're going to do the magic invocation for the minutes?

<ivan> yes

<ivan> I am working on the minutes

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/???/Rob/
FAILED: s/???/Rob/
Succeeded: s/want/wait/
Found Scribe: lizadaly
Inferring ScribeNick: lizadaly

WARNING: No "Present: ... " found!
Possibly Present: Bert BillK Bill_Kasdorf Gerardo Guest IPcaller Ivan JeanKaplansky Jean_K Laura_Fowler Liam Liza Markus P50 P78 Rob Sharad Stearns Suzanne Suzanne_Taylor aaaa aabb aacc aadd astearns azaroth benjaminsko dauwhe dpub dshkolnik fjh gcapiel joined lizadaly mgylling olaf_druemmer plinss trackbot
You can indicate people for the Present list like this:
        <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary
        <dbooth> Present+ amy

Regrets: Vladimir_Levantovsky Tom_De_Nies Phil_Madans Rich_Schwerdtfeger Thierry_Michel Tzviya_Siegman George_Walkley Pierre_Danet Luc_Audrain Vincent_Gros Brady_Duga

WARNING: No meeting chair found!
You should specify the meeting chair like this:
<dbooth> Chair: dbooth

Found Date: 16 Dec 2013
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2013/12/16-dpub-minutes.html
People with action items: azaroth rob

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.