14:48:20 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:48:20 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-annotation-irc
14:48:22 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:48:22 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:48:24 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:48:24 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 12 minutes
14:48:25 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:48:25 <trackbot> Date: 08 April 2015
14:49:20 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0008.html
14:49:37 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: annotation code 2666  ; agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0008.html
14:50:00 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:50:04 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:51:36 <fjh> Regrets+ Luc_Moreau, Paolo_Ciccarese, Kyrce_Swenson
14:51:47 <fjh> Present+ Davis_Salisbury
14:52:27 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:54:27 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #annotation
14:54:51 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:56:57 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:57:17 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:57:22 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
14:57:37 <Zakim> DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has now started
14:57:43 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
14:57:44 <fjh> zakim, ipcaller is me
14:57:45 <Zakim> +fjh; got it
14:58:26 <Zakim> +Doug_Schepers
14:58:35 <Zakim> +TimCole
14:58:49 <fjh> Present+ Doub_Schepers, Tim_Cole
14:58:55 <fjh> s/Doub/Doug/
14:59:33 <fjh> ScribeNick: Tim_Cole
14:59:35 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
14:59:43 <Zakim> + +1.202.707.aaaa
15:00:00 <fjh> zakim, aaaa is RayD
15:00:01 <Zakim> +RayD; got it
15:00:18 <fjh> zakim, who is here?
15:00:19 <Zakim> On the phone I see fjh, Doug_Schepers, TimCole, RayD
15:00:20 <Zakim> On IRC I see TimCole, RayD, Jacob, fjh_, Zakim, RRSAgent, azaroth, fjh, dauwhe, renoirb_, ivan, KevinMarks, shepazu, MarkS, stain, dwhly, JakeHart, Mitar, bret, nickstenn,
15:00:20 <Zakim> ... bigbluehat, csillag_, rhiaro, trackbot
15:00:24 <Zakim> +dauwhe
15:00:29 <Zakim> + +1.650.274.aabb
15:00:34 <dauwhe> present+ Dave_Cramer
15:00:37 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:00:38 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:00:57 <Bill_Kasdorf> Bill_Kasdorf has joined #annotation
15:01:14 <Zakim> +Matt_Haas
15:01:18 <fjh> zakim, aabb is dwhly
15:01:18 <Zakim> +dwhly; got it
15:01:26 <Zakim> +azaroth
15:01:30 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:01:37 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt_Haas
15:01:57 <Zakim> +Bill_Kasdorf
15:02:27 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:02:43 <Zakim> -[IPcaller]
15:03:44 <ivan> zakim, dial ivan-voip
15:03:44 <Zakim> ok, ivan; the call is being made
15:03:46 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:03:46 <Zakim> +Ivan
15:03:58 <fjh> schema.org community group, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0001.html
15:04:02 <tbdinesh> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:04:02 <Zakim> +tbdinesh; got it
15:04:14 <TimCole> fjh: announcement - schema.org community group has been formed.
15:04:25 <tbdinesh> present +TB_Dinesh
15:04:34 <ivan> q+
15:04:44 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:05:04 <TimCole> shepazu: primarily for vocabulary / ontology geeks, if you're interested in schema.org,
15:05:07 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:05:10 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_whaley
15:05:30 <TimCole> ... and you're concerned with development of ontology(ies) that might be used for annotations, you may want to join this CG
15:05:42 <fjh> q?
15:05:50 <TimCole> ... a good way for the community to help drive development of schema.org
15:06:20 <Zakim> + +1.864.787.aacc
15:06:39 <RayD> q+
15:07:00 <fjh> ack ivan
15:07:31 <TimCole> ivan: at the moment, it is not really acceptable to make normative references to schema.org vocabulary
15:07:55 <TimCole> ... this is relevant to us given our discussion about using schema.org terms instead of dublin core terms
15:08:11 <Zakim> + +1.603.313.aadd
15:08:28 <TimCole> ... there have been discussions between W3C and schema.org for many months, formation of CG is a  first step in dealing with this issue.
15:08:28 <azaroth> q+
15:08:32 <fjh> ack rayd
15:09:06 <TimCole> RayD: the issue came up a few weeks ago about classes for annotation bodies
15:09:25 <TimCole> ... DC classes worked well for most but not all; schema.org had a better class
15:09:52 <Zakim> + +1.914.980.aaee
15:09:52 <TimCole> ivan: for the time being let's not worry too much about the choice between DC and schema.org
15:10:08 <fjh> might want to add note to doc on this dublin core vs schema.org so it is not forgotten
15:10:12 <Jacob> IIRC, there was at least one example where the opposite was true...text comes to mind but I might be mis-remembering which media type it was.
15:10:15 <TimCole> ... we can reasonably hope this will not be an issue by the time we are ready to propose recommendation.
15:10:18 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeda
15:10:20 <fjh> zakim, where is 864?
15:10:20 <Zakim> North American dialing code 1.864 is South Carolina
15:10:26 <bigbluehat> yep
15:10:29 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
15:10:30 <bigbluehat> sorry...
15:10:32 <judell> judell has joined #annotation
15:10:34 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:10:40 <bigbluehat> s/sorry...//
15:10:47 <fjh> q?
15:10:54 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:10:59 <TimCole> fjh: we should add a note to our previous discussion about DC and schema.org terms
15:11:13 <judell> Present: Jon Udell (Hypthesis)
15:11:31 <fjh> q+
15:11:49 <TimCole> azaroth: we should be sure to track this issue; but for now should we assume that schema.org will be available for normative reference by time we are ready
15:12:14 <RayD> q+
15:12:17 <TimCole> ... azaroth proposes we should do this, but keep an issue in github or as a note in the doc.
15:12:35 <TimCole> fjh: suggest keeping a note in the doc.
15:12:38 <ivan> ack fjh
15:13:06 <fjh> ack RayD
15:13:11 <TimCole> ... not sure what should be the default for now, but as long as we note it, may not make much difference.
15:13:29 <fjh_> fjh_ has joined #annotation
15:13:30 <bigbluehat> Zakim: I am +1.864.787.aacc
15:13:39 <fjh> zakim, aacc is bigbluehat
15:13:39 <Zakim> +bigbluehat; got it
15:13:40 <TimCole> RayD: we should not be shy about defining OA properties when a normative reference not available
15:13:46 <fjh> s/Zakim: I am.*//
15:14:05 <TimCole> ... and then right before we ready to propose a recommendation we can switch to schema.org if available.
15:14:13 <RayD> I might
15:14:24 <Jacob> Tim and Jacob as well
15:14:26 <tbdinesh> me too
15:14:32 <Bill_Kasdorf> I'm on the schema.org CG
15:14:43 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:14:43 <Zakim> -tbdinesh
15:14:52 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: 18 March 2015 minutes are approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/att-0064/minutes-2015-03-18.html
15:15:01 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: 18 March 2015 minutes are approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Mar/att-0064/minutes-2015-03-18.html
15:15:14 <fjh> Topic: Face to Face Meetings
15:15:23 <RayD> q+
15:15:27 <fjh> ack RayD
15:15:28 <Zakim> +[IPcaller.a]
15:15:35 <TimCole> fjh: any thing we need to know about logistics, etc.
15:15:42 <tbdinesh> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:15:42 <Zakim> +tbdinesh; got it
15:15:46 <Matt_Haas> Is the conference sold out? I’m sorry to say, that I cannot attend.
15:15:48 <TimCole> RayD: what is process for developing agenda and when will we see it.
15:16:15 <TimCole> fjh: we will work on it this week. Will include robust anchoring, continuation of data model, ...
15:16:49 <shepazu> q+
15:17:32 <TimCole> dwhyl: room is available at 8 AM and we can go as late as we want.
15:17:38 <csillag> csillag has joined #annotation
15:18:07 <Zakim> + +36.2.020.7.aaff
15:18:12 <azaroth> +1 to /starting/ at 9
15:18:14 <TimCole> shepazu: officially 9 to 5 (and that's when we can count on wireless being available)
15:18:26 <csillag> zakim, aaff is me
15:18:26 <Zakim> +csillag; got it
15:18:35 <azaroth> and many thanks to Dan for getting everything sorted out!
15:18:43 <Zakim> -[IPcaller.a]
15:19:15 <TimCole> dwhly: lunch will be in the room to coordinate better with another event taking place same day
15:19:18 <RayD> +1 for Thai!
15:19:38 <bigbluehat> Hack Days :)
15:19:46 <TimCole> fjh: IAnnotate Thursday & Friday, followed by hackfest Sat and Sun
15:19:52 <bigbluehat> https://hypothes.is/blog/i-annotate-hack-days/
15:20:01 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
15:20:03 <TimCole> fjh: people should respond to IAnnotate questions
15:20:11 <tbdinesh> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:20:13 <Zakim> +tbdinesh; got it
15:21:13 <TimCole> dwhly: everyone attending IAnnotate should have gotten email with questions; please provide feedback on tracks and what will be most useful
15:21:29 <fjh> iannotate agenda page https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ML3u4hmCF2oeIFNG3To4L1NBjqWnYQ37vYJ5Y2eLUdY/edit
15:22:23 <tilgovi> Or if you're not a developer
15:22:39 <bigbluehat> RSVP for Hack Days is here http://www.meetup.com/SFOpenAnnotation/events/221577503/
15:22:54 <TimCole> ... the hack days will be useful for developers who want space to work on annotations in the company of other developers; there will be a barbeque Saturday night at Dan's
15:22:56 <bigbluehat> and yes, you don't have to be a developer to attend
15:23:32 <stain> ..was there any news about travel assistance..? Sorry for not being in the loop, I've been very busy :(
15:23:50 <TimCole> bigbluehat: people who are not developers also welcome to try stuff out, look over shoulders, help with user feedback, the more people who can do hands on the better
15:24:18 <stain> dwhly: thanks
15:24:31 <TimCole> topic: TPAC
15:25:00 <fjh> http://www.w3.org/2015/11/TPAC/
15:25:02 <TimCole> azaroth: we put down 15 people for a meeting of annotation WG; closer to time we will clarify
15:25:36 <TimCole> topic: Social Web
15:26:15 <ivan> q+
15:26:21 <dauwhe> Zakim, mute me
15:26:21 <Zakim> dauwhe should now be muted
15:26:23 <TimCole> fjh: we've established a relationship, made clear to the WG what's important to us, they are still in formative stages
15:26:53 <TimCole> ... we should have interoperability, but not clear if we will share classes and properties
15:26:58 <fjh> ack shepazu
15:27:31 <csillag> zakim, mute me
15:27:31 <Zakim> csillag should now be muted
15:27:57 <fjh> ack ivan
15:28:32 <TimCole> ivan: re Social WG, a concern is that we don't yet have a clear idea of the 2 WGs plans on the protocol issue
15:28:37 <azaroth> q+
15:28:57 <RayD> q+
15:28:59 <TimCole> ... what does Annotation WG plan to do on protocol on issue and what direction do we plan to go?
15:29:17 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:29:22 <TimCole> ... we have had some discussions with LDP WG, but nothing final, we need to decide.
15:29:48 <ivan> q+
15:29:53 <fjh> q+
15:29:59 <TimCole> azaroth: I have not had time to get back to protocol issue due to press of other work; will have updated version by end of this week.
15:30:22 <tbdinesh> re social web, we need an example of annotation in a social web context
15:30:33 <TimCole> ... assumes the submission of binary data is out of scope, this makes the LDP implementation much easier (only have to worry about RDF)
15:30:53 <TimCole> ... so we should be able to write a very thin LDP layer to post and retrive what they need.
15:31:13 <tbdinesh> s/we need/is there/
15:31:27 <TimCole> ... so in moving forward, I would recommend that we give people something to react to (re LDP) and if people are dismayed we should get alternatives
15:32:03 <TimCole> fjh: may be beneficial to thrash a bit for a brief while
15:32:04 <azaroth> q?
15:32:09 <fjh> ack RayD
15:32:17 <fjh> q-
15:32:50 <TimCole> RayD: if the question is whether we are going to go forward with the protocol, the protocol is critical -- sounds of agreement from others
15:33:09 <fjh> q+
15:33:30 <azaroth> q+ to note query vs CRUD
15:33:31 <TimCole> ... also prefer the container approach for annotation, see RayD's email on this
15:33:37 <fjh> ack ivan
15:33:50 <TimCole> ivan: Definitely should make protocol
15:34:37 <TimCole> ... but we have 3 different approaches: from scratch, align with LDP, or go along with Social WG approach
15:34:41 <RayD> q+
15:34:54 <TimCole> ... we must make a choice between these 3 general approaches fairly soon
15:35:08 <bigbluehat> 1+
15:35:13 <bigbluehat> s/1+//
15:35:15 <bigbluehat> q+
15:35:18 <TimCole> ... to get there we need to know more about each of these approaches, so far only have begun fleshing out the LDP approach
15:35:59 <ivan> q+
15:36:03 <bigbluehat> Social WG is currently analyzing their own set of options (currently 3): LDP, micropub, and pump.io (based on AS 1.0)
15:36:03 <TimCole> fjh: we don't know enough about the Social WG approach, but would like to get a little further on LDP approach and then talk to Social WG
15:36:10 <bigbluehat> they don't have a "clear winner" yet
15:36:46 <fjh> q?
15:36:48 <TimCole> ... (re RayD) the case has merit, but question about what specific work is needed to make it possible.
15:36:48 <fjh> ack fjh
15:36:50 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:36:50 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note query vs CRUD
15:36:56 <bigbluehat> if our WG is interest in / pursuing LDP (or either of the others), that could serve as an additional +1 for that protocol.
15:37:39 <TimCole> azaroth: note the distinction between simple CRUD, which is handled by LDP easily and simply, but the search operations (which will be essential) will need an additional layer
15:37:52 <fjh> I’m suggesting we focus and simplify the LDP protocol doc, then share with social web to explore their view based in that info
15:38:05 <TimCole> ... regardless of underlying CRUD methodology is, we will likely have some domain-specific query requirements to deal with
15:38:30 <TimCole> ... we will need to deal with the CRUD issues and then get on to query issues
15:38:53 <fjh> might consider separating search as well
15:38:54 <fjh> q?
15:38:57 <fjh> ack RayD
15:39:08 <TimCole> ... I've looked at the options being considered by Social WG; someone needs to look at how we might use their non-LDP options for annotation
15:39:31 <fjh> ack bigbluehat
15:39:32 <TimCole> RayD: possible to read protocol document without having to understand the whole of LDP document
15:39:57 <TimCole> bigbluehat: Rob presented most of my main points well,
15:40:16 <fjh> q+
15:40:29 <TimCole> ... our work with Social WG tells us that they still are in early stages -- they will have a f2f in Europe in July and then at TPAC
15:40:50 <TimCole> ... so we should stay in touch as they make a decision, and then a joint f2f at TPAC would be good
15:41:07 <TimCole> ... but right now that are also at an early stage.
15:41:32 <TimCole> ... LDP may be most mature in terms of deployment and being ready for spec writing
15:42:03 <TimCole> ... still some confusion in micropub world, and limited efforts to resolve some of these confusion
15:42:36 <TimCole> ... so we need to keep in close communication with Social WG through the summer and leading up to TPAC
15:42:49 <TimCole> ... pump.io biggest contribution is around federation
15:43:12 <TimCole> ... Social WG is trying to map all of these to their use cases; we may want to do the same thing for our use cases.
15:43:14 <fjh> q?
15:43:19 <shepazu> q+
15:43:55 <TimCole> ivan: can we try not to put ourselves in just a waiting position, but rather be proactive at looking at the other options being considered by Social WG
15:44:04 <azaroth> +1 to Ivan
15:44:21 <TimCole> ... we need a better sense of whether these approaches can work for our annotation use cases.
15:44:41 <TimCole> ... this would allow us to go back to Social WG and maybe influence their decision.
15:44:56 <azaroth> q+ to agree w/ Ivan, we can help SWG's choice by being informed w/ use cases
15:44:57 <bigbluehat> +1 to *not* waiting until TPAC to engage...didn't mean to imply that
15:45:06 <fjh> q?
15:45:07 <TimCole> ... we need a clear idea about whether any of these other approaches will work for us now
15:45:12 <bigbluehat> point was to engage *now* and close the loop at TPAC
15:45:31 <ivan> sorry bigbluehat , I may have misunderstood you
15:45:42 <fjh> ack ivan
15:45:43 <TimCole> fjh: we should probably focus next week or so on closing the circle on LDP protocol document
15:45:46 <ivan> I think we are violently agreeing...
15:45:52 <bigbluehat> likely :)
15:45:59 <TimCole> ... Do we have a volunteer to look at one or both of these other approaches
15:46:19 <fjh> ack fjh
15:46:22 <TimCole> ... regarding search, was assuming this is a separate doc with its own complexity
15:46:41 <fjh> q?
15:46:57 <TimCole> azaroth: yes, search should be separate from protocol, both because it does not build on LDP and because you might want to implement separately
15:47:14 <fjh> ack shepazu
15:47:17 <TimCole> ... did not mean to imply a single protocol spec that encompasses both
15:47:51 <fjh> +1 to separate to search spec
15:48:01 <TimCole> shepazu: Doug thinks we should develop in parallel where possible
15:48:03 <fjh> +1 to working in parallel as Doug notes
15:48:23 <TimCole> ... the protocol spec will inform data model, as well robust anchoring, etc.
15:48:48 <TimCole> ... we should make sure the pieces work well together before we release anything in final form
15:49:15 <fjh> my comment is that if we have a draft protocol doc in the next week that should help, not suggesting we wait long time
15:49:23 <TimCole> ... the charter contains several specs that need to work together
15:49:47 <fjh> +1 to concrete proposals
15:49:51 <Jacob> +1
15:49:52 <TimCole> ... members of this working group should feel free to put ideas out there in a form others can react to
15:50:40 <tilgovi> Same
15:50:46 <tilgovi> s/same//
15:50:47 <fjh> q?
15:50:50 <TimCole> ... if you have the will and the time to look at one of our deliverables and think you can help develop and bring to the table some concrete ideas, you should do so
15:51:00 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:51:01 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to agree w/ Ivan, we can help SWG's choice by being informed w/ use cases
15:51:08 <TimCole> ... please bring your ideas to Doug, Ivan and the Chairs
15:51:21 <fjh> q+
15:51:38 <TimCole> azaroth: agree with what Doug said, and will be responsive if you need some help
15:52:19 <TimCole> ... work on protocol has to respond to use cases, and agree with ivan that we can potentially help Social WG because we have overlapping use cases
15:52:48 <azaroth> +1 to fjh
15:52:52 <TimCole> fjh: you don't need to formally edit a document in order to get your concrete ideas on the table -- text to the list is a good start
15:53:02 <Zakim> -csillag
15:53:28 <Zakim> +??P36
15:53:33 <csillag> zakim, p36 is me
15:53:33 <Zakim> sorry, csillag, I do not recognize a party named 'p36'
15:53:41 <csillag> zakim, P36 is me
15:53:41 <Zakim> sorry, csillag, I do not recognize a party named 'P36'
15:53:49 <csillag> zakim, ??P36 is me
15:53:49 <Zakim> +csillag; got it
15:53:52 <csillag> zakim, mute me
15:53:52 <Zakim> csillag should now be muted
15:53:54 <TimCole> shepazu: you can put proposals onto the email lists, but not as effective as bringing a draft of a spec to the WG
15:54:25 <TimCole> ... people react more to spec drafts and fragments
15:54:42 <TimCole> ... especially now that we have the ability to annotate specs
15:55:08 <TimCole> ... even very rough spec drafts can be worthwhile putting up
15:55:09 <azaroth> Agree that very rough drafts get more feedback, but we can work together to turn the text from mailing list into that spec
15:55:19 <TimCole> fjh: we can use ReSpec for doing this
15:55:51 <tilgovi> Easy forward is to say, as Frederick did, just get it out in text. Then, as Doug said, ask for help and get it into spec form.
15:55:58 <bigbluehat> +1 to helping the community learn ReSpec and moving things into more solid formats
15:56:05 <tilgovi> Don't feel shy about either step. :-)
15:56:09 <fjh> q?
15:56:11 <bigbluehat> +1
15:56:13 <azaroth> +1
15:56:14 <TimCole> shepazu: Doug will help turn text into spec, so don't be hesitant or shy because of the formality of spec format
15:56:17 <fjh> ack fjh
15:56:34 <RayD> q+
15:56:43 <fjh> ack RayD
15:56:57 <Jacob> on the body or on the annotation node
15:57:02 <TimCole> RayD: what is motivation placement topic?
15:57:25 <TimCole> azaroth: the idea that you might be able to put motivation on specific resource rather than just the annotation
15:57:40 <TimCole> fjh: wanted to make sure we closed this topic out
15:57:55 <TimCole> azaroth: let's get consensus on this next week
15:58:16 <TimCole> fjh: adjourn, we will talk next week.
15:58:25 <Zakim> - +1.603.313.aadd
15:58:30 <Zakim> -RayD
15:58:31 <Zakim> -Ivan
15:58:33 <Zakim> -tbdinesh
15:58:34 <Zakim> -Bill_Kasdorf
15:58:34 <Zakim> -dauwhe
15:58:35 <Zakim> -Matt_Haas
15:58:35 <Zakim> -Doug_Schepers
15:58:37 <Zakim> -TimCole
15:58:37 <Zakim> -azaroth
15:58:37 <Zakim> -tbdinesh.a
15:58:38 <Zakim> - +1.914.980.aaee
15:58:40 <Zakim> -bigbluehat
15:58:40 <Zakim> -fjh
15:58:41 <Zakim> -csillag
15:59:00 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
15:59:00 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
15:59:01 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been fjh, Doug_Schepers, TimCole, +1.202.707.aaaa, RayD, dauwhe, +1.650.274.aabb, Matt_Haas, dwhly, azaroth, Bill_Kasdorf, Ivan, tbdinesh,
15:59:02 <Zakim> ... +1.864.787.aacc, +1.603.313.aadd, +1.914.980.aaee, bigbluehat, +36.2.020.7.aaff, csillag
15:59:08 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
15:59:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
15:59:09 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
15:59:09 <RRSAgent> I see no action items