14:34:56 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:34:56 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-irc
14:34:58 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:34:58 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:35:00 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:35:00 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 25 minutes
14:35:01 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:35:01 <trackbot> Date: 10 June 2015
14:35:08 <fjh_> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0031.html
14:35:22 <fjh_> fjh_ has changed the topic to: anno agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0031.html WebEx
14:35:38 <fjh_> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch
14:35:50 <fjh_> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
14:36:09 <fjh_> Regrets+ Rob_Sanderson
14:36:32 <fjh_> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:57:02 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:58:15 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
14:58:31 <fjh_> Present+ Ray_Denenberg, Doug_Schepers
14:58:39 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
14:58:39 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:45 <dauwhe> dauwhe has left #annotation
14:58:55 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
14:59:29 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:00:21 <fjh_> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:00:50 <TimCole> Janina and Jacob are in the room with Tim
15:00:55 <Janina_> Janina_ has joined #annotation
15:01:10 <TimCole> Present+ Tim _Cole
15:01:11 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:01:14 <Janina_> Present+ Janina_Sarol
15:01:40 <shepazu> Zakim, pick a victim
15:01:40 <Zakim> sorry, shepazu, I don't know what conference this is
15:01:49 <shepazu> Zakim, this is Web Annotation
15:01:49 <Zakim> sorry, shepazu, I do not see a conference named 'Web Annotation' in progress or scheduled at this time
15:01:54 <fjh_> ScribeNick: TimCole
15:02:09 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:02:13 <ivan> Present+ Ivan_Herman
15:02:19 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:02:27 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:02:37 <fjh_> TPAC F2F update - scheduled for two days now, Mon/Tue , http://www.w3.org/2015/11/TPAC/
15:02:38 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt Haas
15:02:45 <fjh_> TR/Style sheet update response -  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015May/0060.html
15:02:51 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:02:52 <fjh_>  Dataset Usage Vocabulary request for review and guidance, see  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015May/0058.html
15:03:06 <TimCole> Topic: F2F at TPAC
15:03:17 <TimCole> fjh: now 2 days
15:03:27 <TimCole> ... Oct 26 & 27 ?
15:04:00 <TimCole> Topic: TR/Style update survey
15:04:20 <TimCole> fjh: need help with regard turtle / json-ld and other questions on survey
15:04:29 <TimCole> ... deadline is today
15:04:44 <shepazu> q+
15:04:52 <TimCole> ... has anybody have concerns with regards to the stylesheets for our specs?
15:04:52 <fjh_> ack shepazu
15:05:21 <TimCole> shapazu: concerns -- we are using a way of switching between json and turtle
15:05:29 <fjh_> views switching - toggle between tabs
15:05:35 <TimCole> ... we will need to keep this ability to switch between views
15:05:53 <TimCole> ... the wide format of specs can harm readability
15:06:16 <TimCole> ... there are ways of making narrower specs
15:06:49 <TimCole> fjh: clarification, Doug is saying margins / white space should be wider and text narrower
15:06:50 <bigbluehat> shepazu: Social WG has a tabbed UI in their Activity Streams 2.0 draft: http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2.html#fig-expresses-the-statement-urn-example-person-martin-created-http-example.org-foo.jpg-.-no-additional-detail-is-given.x
15:06:50 <fjh_> text needs to be less wide for readability
15:06:53 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:07:04 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:07:06 <fjh_> wider gutter on side bar
15:07:16 <TimCole> shepazu: would help with annotation display
15:07:33 <TimCole> fjh: do we have any links we can give them?
15:08:02 <TimCole> shepazu: I think you can give them published data model and also rangefinder and protocol drafts
15:08:18 <TimCole> fjh: will finish this today
15:08:36 <TimCole> Topic: DataSet usage vocabulary
15:08:40 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:08:41 <fjh_> Dataset Usage Vocabulary request for review and guidance, see  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015May/0058.html
15:08:56 <TimCole> fjh: I think this ties into motivations
15:08:58 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:09:07 <TimCole> ... do we need to add motivations important to us.
15:09:18 <TimCole> ... please look offline and provide comments and feedback
15:10:09 <TimCole> Topic: Journalism annotation coference
15:10:10 <fjh_> workshop report from Doug, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015May/0061.html and the AnnotatIST meeting http://janastu.org/technoscience/index.php/Annotatist
15:11:32 <shepazu> https://readfold.com/read/alexishope/journalism-annotation-3-GkLGdCJ2
15:11:49 <shepazu> https://hypothes.is/blog/poynter-annotation-summit-at-the-new-york-times/
15:12:08 <TimCole> shepazu: ReadFold summary is quite good and goes into detail
15:12:27 <TimCole> ... includes plenty of links
15:12:53 <TimCole> ... how can journalism use annotation? what should journalists be doing with annotation?
15:13:24 <TimCole> ... Genius is partnering with a number of journalists, somewhat like what hypothes.is is doing
15:13:40 <TimCole> ... LiveFire is another group supporting this kind of annotation
15:13:55 <TimCole> ... 2nd note: Choral Project formed from Mozilla OpenNews
15:14:21 <TimCole> ... Washington Post and NY Times are trying to improve user comments and may get involved.
15:14:30 <TimCole> ... interesting initiative
15:14:56 <TimCole> ... 3rd note: much of the conversation focused on comments on journalism and annotation as comments
15:15:08 <TimCole> ... less about copyedit kind of use cases.
15:15:41 <TimCole> ... there is an expectation that people are more involved in journalism
15:15:56 <TimCole> ... not an annotation use case per se, but does suggest what we should keep in mind.
15:16:42 <TimCole> ... 4th note: a good mix of journalists, bloggers, academics, a lot of positive energy
15:16:56 <fjh_> q?
15:16:58 <RayD> q+
15:17:00 <TimCole> ... may not grow the WG, but is an audience that will be interested in what we are doing.
15:17:02 <fjh_> ack RayD
15:17:25 <TimCole> RayD: we have a motivation 'commenting'
15:17:44 <TimCole> ... if you have an article with 400 comments below, are these annotations with motivation 'commenting'
15:17:45 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:17:59 <TimCole> shapazu: yes, that seems a possibility, and we should try to facilitate
15:18:18 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
15:18:37 <TimCole> ... we didn't go into motivation a great deal during the meeting, not a lot on the technical details, more on functional requirements
15:18:56 <TimCole> ... this may also be relevant to the discussion of adding an HTML note element
15:19:17 <TimCole> ... this would likely be a useful thing to this community
15:19:45 <TimCole> ... have talked to Web designers who would like to see this, i.e., comment as separate from the article itself.
15:19:59 <fjh_> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:19:59 <TimCole> fjh: need to revisit, but should move on for now.l
15:20:05 <fjh_> proposed RESOLUTION:  Teleconference minutes from 13 May 2015 approved, see  http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-annotation-minutes.html
15:20:17 <TimCole> RESOLUTION:  Teleconference minutes from 13 May 2015 approved, see  http://www.w3.org/2015/05/13-annotation-minutes.html
15:20:19 <fjh_> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 3 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
15:20:29 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 3 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
15:20:36 <fjh_> Topic: Protocol
15:20:54 <TimCole> fjh: Turtle discussion, Patch, etc.
15:21:15 <TimCole> ... Benjamin's points about Turtle resonnate
15:21:54 <TimCole> ... if we have a good reason to specify JSON-LD is the default rather than Turtle, should be okay
15:22:07 <fjh_> turtle required? https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0017.html
15:22:13 <shepazu> q+
15:22:14 <bigbluehat> 4.3.2.2 LDP servers SHOULD respond with a text/turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept request header is absent [turtle].
15:22:16 <bigbluehat> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/
15:22:48 <TimCole> bigbluehat: Here is the line from LDP spec that says SHOULD rather than MUST
15:23:16 <ivan> q+
15:23:18 <TimCole> ... this should lessen the amount of work and new things that adopters have to now to make an annotation server
15:23:26 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:23:28 <fjh_> proposal? if Accept is absent MUST JSON_LD for Annotatiuon Protocol
15:23:34 <TimCole> ... 4.3.2.2 should allow us to get away with this.
15:23:41 <ivan> q-
15:23:47 <RayD> q+
15:23:48 <fjh_> ack shepazu
15:24:17 <TimCole> shepazu: We should avoid optional features, but can say what Benjamin suggests.
15:24:20 <shepazu> 4.3.2.3 LDP servers MUST respond with a application/ld+json representation of the requested LDP-RS when the request includes an Accept header, unless content negotiation or Turtle support requires a different outcome [JSON-LD].
15:24:52 <bigbluehat> q+
15:24:59 <fjh_> q+
15:25:04 <ivan> +1 to shepazu and bigbluehat
15:25:05 <fjh_> ack RayD
15:25:09 <TimCole>  ... so I agree that for annotation protocol, if absent we should respond with json-ld
15:25:29 <ivan> q+
15:25:39 <fjh_> ack bigbluehat
15:25:44 <TimCole> RayD: if nothing is requested by the Client, than why should we specify what the server returns
15:26:08 <ivan> q-
15:26:28 <TimCole> bigbluehat: the Client does have to know how to send an accept header
15:27:09 <TimCole> ... if I implement a server that sends back json-ld by default, will that mess up an LDP client that doesn't send accept header but expects Turtle
15:27:38 <TimCole> RayD: is the reason to relieve the necessity of client sending an accept header?
15:28:04 <TimCole> bigbluehat: more about when server is implemented are developers going to think they have to implement Turtle
15:28:46 <TimCole> ... if you looking at annotation protocol and using LDP spec to fill in the gaps, the tendency will be to think you have to do Turtle
15:28:53 <fjh_> proposed RESOLUTION: Annotation Protocol spec will override LDP 4.3.2.2 LDP servers SHOULD respond with a text/turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept request header is absent with "MUST respond with JSON-LD"
15:29:07 <TimCole> ... so by being explicit we avoid that mis conception.
15:30:06 <TimCole> fjh: our goal is for Turtle not to be the default developers think they have to meet, not to exclude Turtle altogether (e.g., with accept headers)
15:30:17 <fjh_> q?
15:30:34 <TimCole> q+
15:30:40 <fjh_> q-
15:30:41 <bigbluehat> +1
15:30:45 <Jacob> +1
15:30:53 <shepazu> +1
15:30:53 <fjh_> ack TimCole
15:30:53 <Jacob>  Yes
15:30:58 <bjdmeest> +1
15:31:04 <ivan> +1
15:31:37 <bigbluehat> q+
15:31:41 <bigbluehat> found it....
15:31:41 <shepazu> q+ ivan
15:31:43 <bigbluehat> "HTTP servers in general are not required to resolve ties in this way, or to support Turtle at all, but LDP servers are."
15:31:50 <fjh_> ack bigbluehat
15:31:50 <TimCole> fjh: we will make a resolution now, and wait to see if there is new information that comes forward.
15:32:48 <fjh_> ack ivan
15:32:52 <TimCole> bigbluehat: there is some language that may imply LDP servers have to support Turtle, 4.3.??
15:33:10 <fjh_> q+
15:33:46 <TimCole> ivan: we have had a discussion about whether it is a big deal -- it is for clients and for dedicated annotation servers
15:33:47 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: i just joined the LDP group :)!
15:34:17 <bigbluehat> fjh_: well...this one may be normative: http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h5_ldpc-post-turtle
15:34:27 <TimCole> ... so I think we should try what Doug, fjh, and Benjamin have suggested
15:34:30 <fjh_> ack fjh
15:34:34 <bigbluehat> "5.2.3.5 LDP servers that allow creation of LDP-RSs via POST MUST allow clients to create new members by enclosing a request entity body with a Content-Type request header whose value is text/turtle [turtle]. "
15:34:51 <bigbluehat> q+
15:34:55 <TimCole> ivan: historically when LDP began work json-LD did not yet exist.
15:35:11 <fjh_> ack bigbluehat
15:35:37 <TimCole> bigbluehat: if we agree that we can do this, we should and not depend as much on the LDP spec as a fallback
15:35:55 <TimCole> ... LDP spec examples are all Turtle
15:36:36 <shepazu> q+
15:36:46 <fjh_> ack shepazu
15:36:49 <TimCole> ... if we rely more on json-ld that would be good for annotation developers who don't need to rely as much on LDP Spec
15:37:17 <TimCole> shepazu: I think this should be okay. I do wonder what happens if a Client requests Turtle
15:37:23 <bigbluehat> ...good point...
15:37:36 <TimCole> ... it may not be an option to leave ambiguous
15:37:50 <TimCole> ... how big a deal is it to convert JSON-LD to Turtle
15:37:58 <fjh_> yes, good point. the decision is about what to do when client does not specify ACCEPT header
15:38:04 <bigbluehat> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#h5_ldprs-get-turtle - "MUST respond with a Turtle rep...[when asked]"
15:38:14 <TimCole> ivan: there are some libraries, but especially for javaScript it is not as easy as you might think
15:38:22 <fjh_> so the proposed resoution is for smaller question
15:39:01 <TimCole> bigbluehat: json-ld into Turtle you typically get the same thing, but going the other way what you get is less predictable
15:39:05 <fjh_> q+
15:39:26 <TimCole> ... the shape of your json if you ingest Turtle may vary in ways that are problematic
15:40:09 <renoirb> renoirb has joined #annotation
15:40:10 <bigbluehat> Turtle to JSON-LD is "easy" (given tooling)
15:40:23 <bigbluehat> but converting Turtle to a specific JSON-LD "shape" is not as trivial
15:40:23 <TimCole> fjh: we should address the issue of what to do if no accept header in request that our protocol says return json-ld.
15:40:26 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Annotation Protocol spec will override LDP 4.3.2.2 LDP servers SHOULD respond with a text/turtle representation of the requested LDP-RS whenever the Accept request header is absent with "MUST respond with JSON-LD"
15:40:42 <PaoloCiccarese> Framing is still a big unsolved issue for those that use graphs databases
15:40:56 <bigbluehat> q+
15:41:01 <bigbluehat> q-
15:41:06 <fjh_> action: fjh to follow up on JSON-LD resolution
15:41:06 <TimCole> fjh: I will send a message to annotation list, and then we should follow-up with LDP WG (Doug suggests cross-posting okay in this time).
15:41:06 <trackbot> Created ACTION-20 - Follow up on json-ld resolution [on Frederick Hirsch - due 2015-06-17].
15:41:10 <fjh_> q?
15:41:11 <tbdinesh> bigbluehat: then json-ld needs a normal form or else we can never assume json-ld will be useful in the intended way
15:41:15 <fjh_> q?
15:41:18 <fjh_> q-
15:41:29 <bigbluehat> tbdinesh: correct.
15:41:34 <TimCole> Topic: Patch formats
15:41:37 <fjh_> patch formats https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0012.html
15:42:00 <ivan> q+
15:42:13 <fjh_> ack ivan
15:42:46 <bigbluehat> q+
15:42:48 <TimCole> ivan: summary - what happens is that LDP Patch allows you to change a graph (rather than remove and replace)
15:43:03 <TimCole> ... LDP Patch is not yet a standard
15:43:39 <TimCole> ... this means that there is a document, is essentially using a Turtle-inspired syntax, close to SPARQL
15:44:04 <TimCole> ... if we define a Patch for annotation, which format do we want to specify?
15:44:16 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:44:45 <TimCole> ... related to previous issue, if we live in a json world, than specifying LDP Patch would require learning a different syntax for patching
15:45:06 <TimCole> ... there is a json Patch document out there, but don't know much about it
15:45:08 <bigbluehat> JSON Patch spec http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902
15:45:14 <fjh_> ack bigbluehat
15:45:44 <TimCole> bigbluehat: core issue is that LDP Patch is about updating graphs, json Patch is about updating documents
15:46:07 <TimCole> ... we could decide to avoid patch, given that annotations are huge
15:46:14 <fjh_> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:46:17 <TimCole> ... but Patch could be useful
15:46:35 <bigbluehat> correct. afaik also.
15:46:44 <TimCole> Paolo: clarification - Patch is only about updating annotations (not containers), is this correct?
15:46:54 <bigbluehat> s/correct. afaik also.//
15:47:18 <fjh_> ivan: yes
15:47:19 <TimCole> ... for us we sometimes use a patch when changing an annotation set, but never really have to use for an individual annotation
15:47:41 <TimCole> ivan: removing one annotation and replacing does not seem a big deal based
15:47:44 <fjh_> question for group - is patch needed
15:47:55 <TimCole> paolo: agree this seems to be the case
15:48:10 <TimCole> ivan: this was raised early on in protocol discussion
15:48:37 <TimCole> paolo: we may also have thought we needed patch for annotation sets, but not an issue given LDP Container
15:49:59 <bigbluehat> q+
15:50:13 <TimCole> paolo: it depends on what we mean by big annotations - lots of triples or very large text bodies or multi-lingual... but even these don't seem to require Patch
15:50:32 <fjh_> ack bigbluehat
15:50:37 <fjh_> q+
15:50:52 <TimCole> bigbluehat: agree, we don't really need patch
15:51:13 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:51:27 <TimCole> ... even for very large annotations, you have options to break up into multiple resources, but typically you need the entire annotation any
15:51:35 <fjh_> proposed RESOLUTION: Annotation WG defer Patch to later release, not needed for v1
15:51:40 <TimCole> ... for most of our use cases it seems like a premature optimization
15:52:19 <TimCole> paolo: a use case with lots of triples is a named graph as body; body might get large
15:53:02 <bigbluehat> +1 to the resolution
15:53:08 <ivan> +1
15:53:09 <Jacob> +1
15:53:10 <bigbluehat> later...if ever...
15:53:11 <TimCole> ... but if I want to change the triples of the body I probably need to switch out the entire body anyway, so not much value in Patch
15:53:22 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:53:30 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Annotation WG defer Patch to later release, not needed for v1
15:54:02 <TimCole> Topic: Use Cases - Education
15:54:06 <fjh_> Educational use case - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0004.html
15:54:30 <Matt_Haas> q+
15:54:51 <fjh_> ack fjh
15:54:54 <TimCole> fjh: use case is essentially that an instructor has 2 classes, and intermingling of annotations becomes a possibility
15:55:23 <Jacob> Please speak up. You're mostly inaudible
15:55:39 <TimCole> matt_hass: idea is that instructors sees conversations from both classes, but class members only see the discussion in their class
15:55:56 <shepazu> q+
15:56:19 <TimCole> ... so the issue is managing annotations by groups and dealing with individuals (the instructor) in both groups
15:56:41 <TimCole> fjh: core question about whether this is in scope for WG right now
15:56:57 <PaoloCiccarese> q-
15:57:20 <fjh_> ack shepazu
15:57:23 <TimCole> ... there are other WGs working on security and permissions; we should work with outputs of these WGs
15:57:36 <TimCole> shepazu: it is not explicitly in scope.
15:57:48 <TimCole> ... reasonable to have this conversation here
15:58:05 <TimCole> ... there will be lots of levels of access, granularity, permissions
15:58:06 <fjh_> not arguing we should not discuss - asking that we consider the degree of work we take on
15:58:24 <TimCole> ... but this is probably not going to result in normative text in our specs yet
15:58:40 <TimCole> ... nothing in our current data model would prevent you from doing what you need to do
15:58:53 <TimCole> ... might bear on our protocol document, however.
15:59:02 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:59:08 <fjh_> +1 to Doug
15:59:14 <fjh_> ack Matt_Haas
15:59:19 <TimCole> ... making certain annotations public, private, group-based, we should not forbid this in our specs
15:59:32 <TimCole> ... the question is whether our WG will standardize how this is done
16:00:11 <fjh_> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:00:26 <TimCole> paolo: we talked about this a bit at last F2F
16:00:41 <TimCole> ... thought was to look at Annotator.js model and some of the extensions that have been created.
16:00:53 <TimCole> ... would like to see if protocol can say something about this.
16:01:01 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
16:01:01 <TimCole> fjh: will take to Rob and email.
16:01:43 <TimCole> fjh: adjourn
16:01:49 <fjh_> Topic Adjourn
16:02:10 <takeshi> takeshi has left #annotation
16:02:11 <ivan> tracker, end telcon
16:02:21 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:21 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:21 <Zakim> sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
16:02:29 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:02:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:02:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:02:30 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-actions.rdf :
16:02:30 <RRSAgent> ACTION: fjh to follow up on JSON-LD resolution [1]
16:02:30 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-irc#T15-41-06