15:21:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:21:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/03/04-annotation-irc
15:21:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:21:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
15:21:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:21:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 39 minutes
15:21:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:21:59 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2015
15:53:15 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:53:47 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
15:53:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:53:51 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:53:51 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 7 minutes
15:53:52 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:53:52 <trackbot> Date: 04 March 2015
15:54:00 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/0004.html
15:54:10 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/0004.html code 2666
15:54:41 <fjh> Chair: Frederick Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
15:54:50 <fjh> Present+ Frederick Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
15:55:04 <fjh> Regrets+Doug_Schepers
15:55:10 <fjh> Regrets+ Doug_Schepers
15:55:19 <fjh> s/Regrets+Doug_Schepers//
15:55:44 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:55:58 <azaroth> Morning all :)
15:56:28 <fjh> s/Morning.*//
15:56:42 <fjh> Regrets+ Ben_De_Meester
15:57:06 <paoloC> paoloC has joined #annotation
15:57:13 <fjh> Regrets+ Dave_all_is_chaos_Cramer
15:57:31 <Zakim> DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has now started
15:57:37 <Zakim> +azaroth
15:57:48 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:57:56 <fjh> Regrets+ Dave_Cramer
15:58:06 <fjh> Regrets- Dave_all_is_chaos_Cramer
15:58:48 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:59:06 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:59:12 <fjh> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:59:12 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
15:59:15 <Zakim> +TimCole
15:59:16 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
15:59:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see azaroth, fjh, TimCole (muted)
15:59:18 <Zakim> On IRC I see Matt_Haas, TimCole, paoloC, azaroth, fjh, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, shepazu, oshepherd, KevinMarks, nickstenn, Mitar, JakeHart, dwhly, bigbluehat, rhiaro, stain, trackbot
15:59:27 <fjh> Present+ Time_Cole
15:59:35 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
16:00:49 <Zakim> +Matt_Haas
16:01:02 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt_Haas
16:01:16 <fjh> ScribeNick: TimCole
16:01:24 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
16:01:29 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
16:01:29 <fjh> Present+ Tim_Cole
16:01:39 <fjh> Present- Time_Cole
16:01:56 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
16:02:00 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
16:02:18 <Zakim> + +1.617.588.aaaa
16:02:29 <fjh> zakim,aaaa is paoloC
16:02:29 <Zakim> +paoloC; got it
16:02:39 <paoloC> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:02:54 <fjh> Linked Data Platform is Recommendation, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Feb/0171.html
16:02:54 <fjh> Next week Time Zone warning if not in US: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/0003.html (thanks Ivan)
16:03:05 <RayD> cannot call in.   Get the greeting but never asks for the code
16:03:08 <TimCole> fjh: Linked Data Platform is a recommendation; we will talk about f2f later.
16:03:17 <RayD> anyone else?
16:03:20 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #annotation
16:03:26 <TimCole> fjh: Please be aware of time zone issue next week (see Ivan's email)
16:03:27 <ivan> zakim, code?
16:03:27 <Zakim> the conference code is 2666 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ivan
16:03:53 <Zakim> +ivan
16:03:58 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
16:04:02 <TimCole> fjh: any concerns about minutes?
16:04:09 <Zakim> +Bill_Kasdorf
16:04:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:04:54 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:04:56 <fjh> Present+ Bill_Kasdorf
16:05:03 <csillag> csillag has joined #annotation
16:05:05 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: 25 February 2015 minutes approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-annotation-minutes.html
16:05:05 <Zakim> + +1.202.707.aabb
16:05:16 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: 25 February 2015 minutes approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/02/25-annotation-minutes.html
16:05:29 <fjh> zakim, where is 202?
16:05:29 <Zakim> North American dialing code 1.202 is District of Columbia
16:05:40 <fjh> Topic: F2F Updates
16:05:43 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
16:05:55 <Zakim> + +36.2.020.7.aacc
16:05:55 <fjh> Web Annotation 22 April in conjunction with iAnnotate 23-24 April
16:05:59 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
16:06:14 <fjh> fjh: need to set up F2F page w logistics page etc
16:06:17 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:06:24 <TimCole> Rob: current wiki page about f2f short, need to add info.
16:06:24 <Zakim> + +1.650.274.aadd
16:06:38 <dwhly> zakim, aadd is dwhly
16:06:38 <Zakim> +dwhly; got it
16:06:42 <csillag> zakim, aacc is me
16:06:42 <Zakim> +csillag; got it
16:06:46 <fjh> LDP F2F 21 April SF, see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Main_Page/Linked_Data_2015
16:07:01 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:07:26 <TimCole> fjh: if able to attend LDP f2f please let both WGs know.
16:07:26 <dwhly> present+ Dan_Whaley
16:07:57 <fjh> s/LDP F2F/LDP is having open meeting/
16:08:35 <TimCole> azaroth: add yourself into to wiki if you plan to attend LDP f2f
16:08:47 <Zakim> + +1.864.787.aaee
16:08:57 <TimCole> ... can also let Rob know and provide suggestions about topic to cover
16:09:06 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:09:08 <fjh> azaroth: meeting is open, not required to be W3C member to attend
16:09:11 <fjh> Social Web F2F Cambridge MA, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Feb/0176.html
16:09:14 <azaroth> Annotation WG F2F wiki page: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/f2f/SF_Q1_2015
16:09:26 <azaroth> (that needs work, please)
16:09:44 <TimCole> fjh: Social f2f will be in Cambridge, fjh may attend on day 1.
16:09:46 <paoloC> I might stop by for a bit as well
16:10:04 <azaroth> Oh and thank you to Dan for helping with the logistics for the LDP meeting to make sure they're back to back with us
16:10:04 <TimCole> ... Randall may also attend parts
16:10:13 <fjh> 17–18 March
16:10:22 <azaroth> Greatly appreciated, and definitely above and beyond :)
16:10:37 <fjh> Topic: Use Cases
16:11:16 <azaroth> q+ to request protocol "use case" status update
16:11:20 <TimCole> paoloC: the 3 use cases I've been looking at (newish) are: filtering reviews, annotation of CSV data
16:11:38 <azaroth> +1 to discussion :)
16:11:41 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:11:41 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to request protocol "use case" status update
16:11:57 <TimCole> azaroth: should also add on the protocol use cases
16:12:11 <TimCole> ... domeo, lorestore, annotator.
16:12:13 <Zakim> + +1.914.980.aaff
16:12:29 <tilgovi> me
16:12:37 <tilgovi> (Randall)
16:12:39 <dwhly> zakim, aaff is tilgovi
16:12:39 <Zakim> +tilgovi; got it
16:12:45 <bigbluehat> Filtering of annotations: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Filtering_of_annotations
16:12:45 <fjh> s/me//
16:12:49 <paoloC> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Filtering_of_annotations
16:13:11 <TimCole> paoloC: 3 examples of filtering
16:13:25 <TimCole> ... user only wants to see notes from a particular individual
16:13:40 <TimCole> .... user wants to exclude notes from an individual
16:14:12 <TimCole> ... user wants to find annotations from another person
16:14:25 <fjh> first is my annotations, third is some specific person’s annotations
16:14:42 <TimCole> ... would also add groups rather than individuals.
16:15:06 <TimCole> ... this use cases impacts model and protocol
16:15:21 <TimCole> ... current data model should handle these use cases.
16:15:56 <Bill_Kasdorf> q+
16:16:07 <fjh> q+
16:16:15 <fjh> ack bill
16:16:18 <ivan> q+
16:16:18 <TimCole> ... in terms of protocol, will need features that include and exclude.
16:16:44 <TimCole> Bill_Kasdorf: another case -- time filtering
16:17:00 <TimCole> paoloC: another case is filtering by location
16:17:09 <azaroth> q+ to note harvesting as UC for time filtering
16:17:19 <fjh> ack fjh
16:17:22 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:17:26 <TimCole> ... for example the way Instagram adds location
16:17:49 <TimCole> fjh: this sounds a lot like search - and, or, not
16:17:50 <fjh> ack ivan
16:18:13 <TimCole> ivan: a little concerned about that
16:18:29 <fjh> impacts model, protocol etc
16:18:45 <TimCole> ... we might have to build into the protocol a filtering language, this can get complex quickly
16:18:57 <TimCole> ... this complicates the job of the servers
16:19:07 <TimCole> ... another option is to rely on the clients to filter
16:19:27 <TimCole> ... not which one is better, but we should be wary of feature creep
16:19:31 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:19:31 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note harvesting as UC for time filtering
16:19:32 <paoloC> q+
16:20:01 <TimCole> azaroth: note harvesting of annotations between systems (server to server) is a potential way to approach time based annotations
16:20:30 <TimCole> ... also agree that any sort of query language complicates the protocol dramatically.
16:20:32 <fjh> ISSUE: clarify extent of filtering, client local vs search  and server side, system impacts
16:20:32 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-19 - Clarify extent of filtering, client local vs search  and server side, system impacts.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/issues/19/edit>.
16:20:36 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:21:23 <TimCole> paoloC: in talking about protocol used by Annotopia, you can ask for annotations about a certain object
16:21:24 <fjh> q+
16:21:29 <azaroth> q+
16:21:36 <TimCole> ... what is difference between search and what is filtering
16:21:48 <fjh> ack fjh
16:21:51 <TimCole> ... what needs to be included in the get annotations function in the protocol
16:22:14 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:22:18 <TimCole> fjh: the answer may revolve about locale of your search.
16:22:42 <TimCole> azaroth: filtering by the server (rather than client) is search
16:22:56 <TimCole> ... you need some way to say here are the properties you want to search on
16:23:30 <fjh> surmise search is probably related to discovery versus filtering locally accessable annotations (client or server)
16:23:38 <paoloC> q+
16:23:39 <TimCole> ... what also comes up is the issue of lists of annotation, here is list of annotations about ebooks (available for purchase).
16:23:50 <fjh> but azaroth answer makes sense
16:23:55 <fjh> q?
16:24:02 <TimCole> ... gets us one step closer to having dynamic lists of annotations
16:24:07 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:24:46 <azaroth> q+
16:24:48 <TimCole> paoloC: one way of looking at it, e.g., ebook, is sending / selling list of annotations, but there are other reasons for sets of annotations.
16:25:17 <TimCole> ... you might be interested in relations, for example.
16:25:40 <fjh> Regrets+ Kyrce_Swenson
16:25:54 <fjh> q?
16:26:04 <TimCole> ... this means that what we normally record for sets of annotations will be affected, e.g., by adding additional tags to show membership of annotation in set.
16:26:39 <Zakim> + +1.434.971.aagg
16:26:46 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:26:51 <TimCole> ... another might be a user creating annotations in a span of time, but more often they are creating different buckets of annotations, time not as important.
16:27:11 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:27:15 <TimCole> ... sets could be related to filtering as well as for shipping in connection with a particular document.
16:27:22 <fjh> q?
16:27:23 <Zakim> -dwhly
16:27:52 <azaroth> +1 to moving on
16:27:56 <TimCole> azaroth: +1, sets for shipping not the only use case to consider, but as an easier starting point might give us useful information about annotation sets.
16:28:21 <paoloC> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Reviews_as_Annotation
16:28:32 <TimCole> paoloC: we need to develop plans for how we attack use cases.
16:28:45 <TimCole> paoloC: Second use case: Reviews
16:28:49 <fjh> need to take use case and constrain on user stories, e.g how sets, filtering, search etc relate, what are the limitations and so on
16:28:57 <TimCole> ... brought up by multiple people
16:29:19 <Jacob> isn't this just filtering by motivation?
16:29:19 <TimCole> ... I have a product or whatever on the Web and I want to retrieve reviews for it.
16:29:36 <TimCole> ... I should have a motivation for creating these annotations
16:30:05 <TimCole> ... people also refer to other reviews and reviewers
16:30:29 <RayD> q+
16:30:29 <TimCole> ... so I have responses to reviews that also need to be included
16:30:36 <fjh> ack RayD
16:30:42 <TimCole> ... this creates complicated mixtures of annotations.
16:30:52 <Jacob> right, this looks like one of the discourse use cases that came out of digital emblematicA
16:30:55 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
16:31:14 <dwhly> zakim, IPcaller.a is me
16:31:14 <Zakim> +dwhly; got it
16:31:21 <paoloC> q+
16:31:27 <ivan> +1 to Ray
16:31:45 <TimCole> RayD: if someone creates a review then someone reviews my review, the next user needs to be able to just retrieve reviews of the book and leave off the reviews of reviews.
16:31:47 <azaroth> ack paoloC
16:31:51 <Jacob> I think it depends on the specifics of the case
16:31:52 <fjh> q?
16:32:06 <Bill_Kasdorf> +1
16:32:13 <TimCole> paoloC: there are 2 ways of doing, one way is to forget about the original target for the response
16:32:18 <fjh> agree, depends on specific content
16:32:29 <TimCole> ... however this is related to the discussion use case
16:32:47 <azaroth> q+
16:32:48 <TimCole> ... a lot of reviews - response - response etc. become discussions.
16:32:53 <fjh> q?
16:33:08 <Bill_Kasdorf> That is +1 to reply is an annotation on the annotation, you need to traverse a chain to get to the original annotation's target
16:33:27 <Jacob> is it possible to yoke the hasScope property to capture the context of these chains of intertwining replies?
16:33:38 <TimCole> ... if you have a powerful client that can model discussions, you want to see the chain of targets
16:33:42 <fjh> q+
16:33:44 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:33:50 <Jacob> through best practices?
16:33:54 <TimCole> ... do you give different values to targets in the chain when filtering.
16:34:31 <TimCole> azaroth: agrees with Jacob that reply targets both original product and review
16:34:53 <TimCole> ... but we don't need to bake a decision on this into the specification
16:34:57 <paoloC> q+
16:34:58 <fjh> +1 annotation is on both, previous comment and original target
16:34:59 <RayD> q+
16:35:01 <fjh> ack fjh
16:35:09 <Bill_Kasdorf> we are talking about a web, after all ;-)
16:35:12 <TimCole> ... we should allow communities to make decision most appropriate to their use case.
16:35:16 <Jacob> +1 to allowing the best practice to emerge from the community
16:35:17 <azaroth> :)
16:35:27 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:35:41 <TimCole> fjh: agree, it should be up to you whether you want the reply to target both the review and the product
16:36:03 <RayD> q-
16:36:04 <fjh> +1 community decision, model supports choices
16:36:10 <fjh> q?
16:36:13 <TimCole> paoloC: want to clarify what Rob said, we allow multiple targets, so you can decide to use or not.
16:36:41 <TimCole> azaroth: this comes under the issue of whether you can specify the role of a body or target (issue 11 in GitHub)
16:36:59 <TimCole> ... if we resolve issue 11 it will resolve this question.
16:37:27 <fjh> q+
16:37:52 <azaroth> Issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/11
16:37:53 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-20 - Https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/11.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/issues/20/edit>.
16:38:03 <TimCole> ... community could make a sub-property of hasTarget, but would be best if we understand why and see if we can accommodate in the model without having to create sub-property.
16:38:17 <azaroth> Link to the issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/11
16:38:21 <TimCole> fjh: extensibility is part of this question, but we should defer for now.
16:38:22 <fjh> q?
16:38:24 <fjh> ack fjh
16:38:52 <fjh> 3rd case, CSC
16:38:57 <paoloC> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Annotating_CSV_Data
16:38:59 <fjh> s/CSC/CSV/
16:39:03 <ivan> s/CSC/CSV/
16:39:08 <TimCole> bigbluehat: Annotating CSV on the Web
16:39:13 <ivan> q+
16:39:19 <TimCole> ... we don't currently reference in our data model
16:39:36 <TimCole> ... the CSV WG has registered a mime type with IANA
16:40:01 <TimCole> ... fragment identifiers are pinned to media types
16:40:12 <fjh> ack ivan
16:40:18 <TimCole> ... selectors in our current data model are not tied to media types
16:40:19 <azaroth> q+ to note conformsTo
16:41:15 <fjh> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7111
16:41:22 <TimCole> ivan: CSV WG does allow for annotations, but don't currently define exact method.
16:41:45 <TimCole> ... CSV WG might use rfc 7111 as way to identify target
16:42:00 <TimCole> ... CSV 5 may allow comment lines
16:42:07 <azaroth> s/5/files/
16:42:13 <TimCole> ... 7111 refers to data without the comment line
16:42:46 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:42:46 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note conformsTo
16:42:47 <TimCole> ... this is to keep row number references from being skewed by comment lines
16:42:53 <fjh> q?
16:43:07 <azaroth> http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#fragment-selector
16:43:41 <TimCole> azaroth: regarding reference to media type is allowed as part of fragment selector, if we add 7111 does that solve the issue?
16:43:48 <bigbluehat> <#annotation> dcterms:conformsTo <http://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7111>
16:44:22 <TimCole> ... i.e., using dcterms:conformsTo on the fragment selector
16:44:29 <paoloC> q+
16:44:36 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:44:39 <azaroth> ISSUE: Add RFC 7111 to Fragment selector table ; and look for other specs
16:44:40 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-21 - Add rfc 7111 to fragment selector table ; and look for other specs.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/issues/21/edit>.
16:44:41 <bigbluehat> q+
16:45:00 <TimCole> ivan: 7111 should be included in our table as one of the media types that can be associated with fragment selectors
16:45:21 <TimCole> paoloC: how do we handle the comment lines in practice
16:45:46 <TimCole> ivan: it depends on the parser. some parsers deal with comment lines one way, others another
16:45:52 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:46:03 <TimCole> paoloC: this has consequences for annotating scientific data
16:46:19 <TimCole> ivan: 7111 is silent on this
16:46:32 <TimCole> ... its a mess, there are CSV files that have comments
16:46:48 <TimCole> ... so the only advice is that CSV files should not have comments.
16:46:54 <fjh> could add note to document that comments should be filtered out first before processing…
16:47:01 <fjh> q?
16:47:11 <TimCole> paoloC: should we add a note of caution with regard to CSV fragment identifiers?
16:47:11 <azaroth> +1
16:47:26 <fjh> +1 to add warning note about comments
16:47:30 <TimCole> ivan: we should treat 7111 fragment identifiers as black boxes
16:48:08 <TimCole> ivan: are the examples of media type fragment identifiers only examples?
16:48:09 <fjh> ISSUE: 4.2.1 clarify if fragment specification table is normative or non-normative
16:48:09 <trackbot> Created ISSUE-22 - 4.2.1 clarify if fragment specification table is normative or non-normative.  Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/issues/22/edit>.
16:48:13 <TimCole> azaroth: yes
16:48:16 <azaroth> +1
16:48:17 <fjh> q?
16:48:22 <fjh> ack bigbluehat
16:48:32 <TimCole> ivan: they are not marked as non-normative and we need to do that explicitly
16:49:00 <TimCole> bigbluehat: agree should be clear these are examples (non-normative)
16:49:26 <fjh> ISSUE-22: on data model
16:49:26 <trackbot> Notes added to ISSUE-22 4.2.1 clarify if fragment specification table is normative or non-normative.
16:50:21 <TimCole> ... should we add advice that you shouldn't use 7111 fragment identifiers when annotating CSV files that have comments?
16:50:49 <TimCole> ... knowing what you are annotating should help you decide what kind(s) of selectors to use -- i.e. which will work best.
16:51:07 <bigbluehat> +1
16:52:08 <Zakim> -dwhly
16:52:34 <paoloC> q+
16:52:45 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:52:54 <bigbluehat> q+
16:53:07 <TimCole> paoloC: another use case relating to text mining
16:53:07 <azaroth> +1
16:53:14 <Jacob> +1
16:53:33 <fjh> ack bigbluehat
16:54:04 <TimCole> ... one big chunk of annotations I have created come from text mining
16:54:27 <TimCole> ... sometimes when tagging the tag is an exact match other times it's a broader tag
16:54:54 <TimCole> ... e.g., you can tag with exact name of cancer, or you can tag with cancer in general
16:55:06 <TimCole> ... there are different reasons to do each
16:55:28 <TimCole> ... so AO borrowed skos:exactMatch, etc.
16:56:05 <TimCole> ... if I want to encode this distinction in current data model, how do I do so?
16:56:33 <fjh> q?
16:56:38 <TimCole> ... what is our understanding of our use of skos?
16:56:42 <azaroth> q+
16:56:49 <fjh> ack azaroth
16:57:31 <TimCole> azaroth: I agree that if we are using skos:related, or skos:closeMatch, we should also be able to use broader, narrower, etc.
16:57:33 <paoloC> q+
16:57:55 <fjh> ack paoloC
16:57:55 <Jacob> +1 for social web discussion on list
16:57:58 <ivan> +1
16:58:06 <TimCole> ... I think personally that this use of skos is fine, but not certain degree we should talk about hierarchical taxonomies in our specification.
16:58:07 <fjh> zakim, close queue
16:58:07 <Zakim> ok, fjh, the speaker queue is closed
16:58:08 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #annotation
16:58:36 <TimCole> ... we could be clearer about how you might do exact match or close match, but we should be careful not to redefine skos.
16:59:07 <TimCole> paoloC: okay with that, but skos:related is not a super-property of broader or narrower. Could create issues.
16:59:09 <fjh> much thanks to TimCole for scribing and thanks Paolo for leading the use case discussion
16:59:17 <azaroth> +1 to Paolo's expertise there
16:59:28 <TimCole> ... otherwise fine with idea of using skos more.
16:59:46 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:59:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/03/04-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:59:48 <Zakim> - +1.202.707.aabb
16:59:51 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:59:51 <ivan> zakim, drop me
16:59:51 <Zakim> ivan is being disconnected
16:59:52 <TimCole> ... Social use case needs to come up again
16:59:52 <Zakim> -ivan
16:59:52 <Zakim> -Bill_Kasdorf
16:59:53 <Zakim> -azaroth
16:59:55 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
16:59:56 <Zakim> -paoloC
16:59:57 <Zakim> - +1.434.971.aagg
16:59:58 <Zakim> -fjh
16:59:59 <Zakim> -TimCole
17:00:01 <Zakim> - +1.864.787.aaee
17:00:18 <Zakim> -csillag
17:01:05 <Zakim> -tilgovi
17:06:06 <Zakim> disconnecting the lone participant, Matt_Haas, in DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM
17:06:07 <Zakim> DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has ended
17:06:07 <Zakim> Attendees were azaroth, fjh, TimCole, Matt_Haas, +1.617.588.aaaa, paoloC, ivan, Bill_Kasdorf, [IPcaller], +1.202.707.aabb, +36.2.020.7.aacc, +1.650.274.aadd, dwhly, csillag,
17:06:07 <Zakim> ... +1.864.787.aaee, +1.914.980.aaff, tilgovi, +1.434.971.aagg
18:05:32 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
18:08:32 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
18:23:07 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:30:45 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
18:38:43 <ivan> ivan has joined #annotation
19:02:28 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
19:27:52 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
19:45:00 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
22:42:27 <csillag> csillag has left #annotation
23:16:50 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
23:20:15 <shepazu> shepazu has joined #annotation
23:51:10 <stain> stain has joined #annotation