14:24:48 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:24:48 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-annotation-irc
14:24:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:24:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:24:52 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:24:52 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 36 minutes
14:24:53 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:24:53 <trackbot> Date: 17 June 2015
14:24:55 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0074.html
14:25:16 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: annotation agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0074.html
14:26:10 <fjh> Chair: Frederick Hirsch, Rob Sanderson
14:26:23 <fjh> Present+ Frederick Hirsch, Rob Sanderson
14:27:59 <fjh> Regrets+ Ivan_Herman
14:59:17 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:59:39 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
15:00:19 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:00:28 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:00:35 <Matt_Haas> Present+ Matt_Haas
15:00:44 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:01:20 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
15:01:48 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:02:09 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
15:02:16 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:02:31 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:02:38 <shepazu_> Present+ shepazu
15:02:55 <fjh> Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:03:32 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:04:21 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:04:27 <Guest> Guest has joined #annotation
15:04:27 <fjh> ScribeNick: bjdmeest
15:04:33 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:04:37 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:04:42 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
15:04:49 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:04:56 <fjh> response to TR design survey, please review: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0045.html
15:04:56 <fjh> TPAC registration now open: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0041.html
15:04:57 <fjh> updated publications page: https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/PubStatus
15:04:59 <Zakim> DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has now started
15:05:00 <davis_salisbury> present + davis_salisbury
15:05:06 <Zakim> + +1.650.274.aaaa
15:05:12 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:05:17 <dwhly> zakim, dwhly is aaaa
15:05:18 <Zakim> sorry, dwhly, I do not recognize a party named 'dwhly'
15:05:27 <bjdmeest> fjh: [announcements about links in chat]
15:05:27 <dwhly> zakim, aaaa is dwhly
15:05:27 <Zakim> +dwhly; got it
15:05:33 <bjdmeest> ... any other announcements?
15:05:34 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:05:40 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 10 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:45 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 10 June approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/06/10-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:48 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:05:50 <fjh> Topic: Protocol
15:05:57 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:06:00 <fjh> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
15:06:47 <bjdmeest> azaroth: some good discussion about the protocol
15:06:51 <bjdmeest> ... on the list
15:07:13 <Zakim> -dwhly
15:07:13 <Zakim> DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has ended
15:07:13 <Zakim> Attendees were +1.650.274.aaaa, dwhly
15:07:49 <bjdmeest> ... issue about: mini-annotations, patch, terminology about client-server
15:08:01 <bjdmeest> ... removed suggestion URI-pattern for annotation containers
15:08:18 <bjdmeest> ... added annotations where additional constraints are added on top of LDP
15:08:27 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:08:28 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., link to alternate containers/services
15:08:42 <bjdmeest> ... notes in the spec are added
15:09:17 <bjdmeest> ... are there particular issues, i.e., crystalization or crossover, to be discussed?
15:09:33 <bjdmeest> ... JSON-LD provides profiles, none are usable for ANNO
15:09:42 <bjdmeest> ... we could define our own profile
15:09:53 <fjh> q+
15:10:00 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:10:18 <bjdmeest> ... fjh: profile attribute is already in the draft, is more work needed?
15:10:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: it's noted in 4.2.2 that you can retrieve annotations with a profile
15:10:50 <bjdmeest> ... further work: we need to actually create the profile doc
15:11:02 <bjdmeest> ... endsection for considerations for IANA
15:11:11 <bjdmeest> ... and register the profile
15:11:27 <bjdmeest> ... but let's postpone the registering until there is consensus here
15:11:41 <fjh> q+ to ask about publishing FPWD
15:11:43 <bjdmeest> ... appendix B says we should define the profile
15:11:45 <fjh> ack fjh
15:11:45 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about publishing FPWD
15:11:55 <TimCole> q+
15:12:03 <bjdmeest> fjh: can we publish a FPWD?
15:12:05 <bigbluehat> implementations needed prior to that? or after? or both? ;)
15:12:13 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:12:19 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the doc is in a good state
15:12:24 <bigbluehat> q+
15:12:34 <bjdmeest> TimCole: worries about implementations
15:12:57 <bjdmeest> ... 4.1.4 (containers and resources): what is covered here?
15:14:06 <bjdmeest> azaroth: 4.1.4 is a way to try to recommend a common practice for e.g. binary sources (images) or CSS style sheets needed by the annotation
15:14:40 <bjdmeest> ... not too strict about the actual implementation
15:14:45 <bjdmeest> ... it could be basic containers
15:14:52 <fjh> q?
15:15:03 <bjdmeest> ... so we could drop 4.1.4 and let implementations deal with previously mentioned situations
15:15:58 <fjh> q?
15:17:00 <bjdmeest> ... basically, 4.1.4 says that it has to be LDP-compliant (e.g. supporting the right verbs)
15:17:07 <fjh> q?
15:17:10 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
15:17:16 <bjdmeest> ... it is an extra container, not a child of the annotation
15:17:32 <bigbluehat> sorry...tech fail...
15:17:34 <bigbluehat> q-
15:17:46 <TimCole> q+
15:17:53 <fjh> s/sorry...tech fail...//
15:18:22 <bjdmeest> bigbluehat: [about FPWD] do we need implementations before or after?
15:18:30 <bjdmeest> fjh: that's not a requirement
15:18:47 <bjdmeest> azaroth: (partial) implementations would be great to refer to
15:19:06 <bjdmeest> ... Stanford has a similar but not conformant implementation
15:19:59 <bjdmeest> ... basics are the same, but details aren't implemented yet, e.g. link headers in responses
15:20:21 <fjh> q+ shall we have a CfC to publish a FPWD after edits to 4.1.4, comment on FPWD
15:20:34 <fjh> q+ CfC for FPWD after edits
15:20:36 <bjdmeest> ... so the small details that don't make them fully interoperable
15:21:07 <fjh> q- CfC
15:21:29 <fjh> q+ to note FPWD CfC after 4.1.4 edits, FPWD goal
15:21:30 <bjdmeest> shepazu: [about implementations] 1: we have a page that lists implementation, not really structured
15:21:44 <fjh> q?
15:21:45 <bjdmeest> ... we should have something like that to inform people
15:22:29 <bjdmeest> ... [for testing those implementations] we have a test suite that has a test report [a grid]: which implementation passes which test
15:22:36 <azaroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/ldpwg/raw-file/default/tests/reports/ldp.html
15:22:47 <bjdmeest> ... it is not mandatory, but there are a couple of good ways to do it
15:22:59 <azaroth> q?
15:23:09 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:23:51 <bjdmeest> TimCole: [regarding implementations] we are 2-3 weeks into having a partial implementation. we need the profile to get it right though
15:24:38 <renoirb> renoirb has joined #annotation
15:25:28 <bjdmeest> ... [regarding a comment on the list about using the same URI as resource]: if you use the same resource identifier, do you have to do that, and how should the system handle that? Do they have to match? should they be stored multiple times?
15:25:51 <bjdmeest> azaroth: that could be implementation-dependent
15:26:22 <bjdmeest> ... if you submit an annotation with a specific resource, the server does have to provide a uri for that resource, but it has to provide a uri for the annotation
15:26:47 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:26:53 <bjdmeest> ... however, it would be good that the resource would have a uri to get the description of that resource
15:27:02 <shepazu> q+
15:27:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: [about TimCole's question about validation] that is not covered yet
15:28:02 <fjh> q- later
15:28:05 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:28:29 <bjdmeest> ... an annotation that doesn't conform to the profile should be rejected, but perhaps it is still LDP-compliant
15:28:49 <bjdmeest> PaoloCiccarese: using the same URI is troublesome
15:29:02 <bjdmeest> ... validating new data compared to the old one is complicated
15:29:20 <bjdmeest> ... we need URIs for specific resources, but it is complicated
15:29:23 <azaroth> q?
15:29:26 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:29:45 <renoirb> renoirb has joined #annotation
15:30:15 <bjdmeest> shepazu: it is important to cover, but maybe we can defer that after the FPWD?
15:30:52 <bjdmeest> TimCole: I am a little concerned that errors are not covered in the current doc
15:31:20 <fjh> q?
15:31:45 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I can add a section about error-handling
15:31:46 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:31:46 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to note FPWD CfC after 4.1.4 edits, FPWD goal
15:32:00 <bjdmeest> ... about using the same URIs: that can be deferred
15:32:42 <bjdmeest> fjh: FPWD gets IP things taken care of, gives visibility, but it is still a draft
15:32:56 <bjdmeest> ... so it is worth moving to a FPWD
15:33:28 <bjdmeest> ... 4.1.4 needs fixing, authentication and authorization documentation is fine as they are?
15:33:51 <bjdmeest> azaroth: agree with 4.1.4 fixing, no auth*, and error-section
15:34:32 <bjdmeest> fjh: can we do a CfC on the list? (agreeing via the list) CfC would be appropriate for this, after the edits are done
15:34:37 <Jacob> +1 for CfC
15:34:38 <bjdmeest> azaroth: CfC would be great
15:35:05 <bigbluehat> q+
15:35:15 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
15:35:18 <shepazu> +1
15:35:21 <bjdmeest> ... by the end of week, the adjustments could be made
15:35:40 <bjdmeest> bigbluehat: [about crystalization] does that need attention?
15:36:56 <bjdmeest> fjh: we will launch thus a 1-week CfC
15:37:08 <bjdmeest> ... +1 in the mailing etc would be great
15:39:00 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: WG agrees that after Rob updates Protocol editors draft to clarify 4.1.4 and add material on errors, 1 week CfC to publish FPWD, then publish FPWD if no CfC issues
15:39:22 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: WG agrees that after Protocol editors draft updated to clarify 4.1.4 and add material on errors, 1 week CfC to publish FPWD, then publish FPWD if no CfC issues
15:39:42 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: WG agrees that after Protocol editors draft updated to clarify 4.1.4 and add material on errors, 1 week CfC to publish FPWD, then publish FPWD if no CfC issues
15:39:42 <azaroth> +1
15:39:58 <fjh> Topic: Copy Edit Use Case
15:40:31 <bjdmeest> fjh: i.e., based on motivation, updates to edit could be made very easy
15:41:25 <bjdmeest> shepazu: main issue: suggesting an edit as an annotation, and the author could click 'accept', and the software does the edit automatically
15:42:33 <bjdmeest> ... thus, should motivation then be attached to the body, or to the entire annotation?
15:43:08 <shepazu> q+ to ask if the motivation isn't sufficient for the role?
15:43:10 <bjdmeest> fjh: if we include multiple bodies (e.g., a suggested edit and a comment), how do we convey the role of each body?
15:44:00 <bjdmeest> ... it is easy if there is only one body, it becomes complicated when there are multiple bodies
15:44:00 <Jacob> Aren't those really different annotations?
15:44:04 <fjh> q?
15:44:11 <Jacob> Feels like we are eating the cake and still trying to have it?
15:44:13 <TimCole> q+
15:44:57 <bjdmeest> ... If you have multiple annotations instead of one annotation with two bodies, these annotations are no longer linked
15:45:00 <fjh> doug has example in email that shows how two bodies are related even though different motivations
15:45:09 <bjdmeest> ... e.g., a pull request with a comment (cfr. github)
15:45:12 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:45:12 <Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to ask if the motivation isn't sufficient for the role?
15:45:18 <RayD> q+
15:45:23 <Jacob> Unless you were annotating the annotation but I can see the efficiency argument
15:45:40 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I don't see why the motivation cannot indicate the role
15:45:55 <shepazu> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Jun/0107.html
15:46:02 <chrisbirk> Isn't the comment an annotation on the edit?  You can suggest an edit without a motivating comment
15:46:28 <Jacob> Exactly chrisbirk
15:46:34 <bjdmeest> ... [see mail conversation]: motivation is commenting in first body, and motivation is editing in second body
15:46:39 <fjh>  "body": [
15:46:40 <fjh>      {
15:46:41 <fjh>        "@id": "http://example.org/body1"
15:46:43 <bjdmeest> ... so editing motivation can be intercepted by software
15:46:43 <fjh>        "motivation": "oa:commenting",
15:46:44 <fjh>        "value" : "'Change' is a bit dry, why don't you punch it up a bit?",
15:46:46 <fjh>      },
15:46:47 <fjh>      {
15:46:49 <fjh>        "@id": "http://example.org/body2"
15:46:50 <fjh>        "motivation": "oa:editing",
15:46:51 <fjh>        "value" : "transformation",
15:46:52 <fjh>      }
15:47:25 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the reason why motivation cannot be in the body: motivation is about the annotation, not about the body, so the annotation motivation would be commenting and editing at the same time
15:48:38 <fjh> q?
15:48:39 <bjdmeest> shepazu: can't we say that the editing motivation restricts the useful value as being the value of the body? so only the body with motivation editing will be used by the client
15:48:59 <bjdmeest> azaroth: imagine using images: replace this image with that image
15:49:07 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:49:59 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:50:01 <bjdmeest> ... because of the open world assumption, we need a divider between the body and the annotation, to see what the role of the image is
15:50:10 <davis_salisbury> +1 to more discussion
15:50:47 <bjdmeest> TimCole: [about problems of where to put the motivation] e.g. multiple bodies and targets: motivation applies to what?
15:50:47 <fjh> q+ to ask for a concise problem statement re motivations
15:50:56 <shepazu> q+
15:51:05 <bjdmeest> ... what about not just editing, but e.g. and XSL for an XML file?
15:51:48 <azaroth> ack RayD
15:52:37 <bjdmeest> RayD: when you have a edit and a comment within one annotation: how about submitting the comment as an annotation on an editing annotation?
15:52:39 <PaoloCiccarese> q-
15:52:53 <chrisbirk> That's what I was trying to say
15:52:55 <Jacob>  RayD, this is exactly what was suggested when this issue was discussed in times past
15:53:11 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:53:11 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask for a concise problem statement re motivations
15:53:20 <Jacob> No, anno b (commenting) annotates anno a (editing some target)
15:53:34 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:54:23 <bjdmeest> shepazu: there are a number of scenarios where we want to edit something etc... let's make the simple things simple
15:54:46 <bjdmeest> ... difficult cases could e.g. have different motivations ('copy-edit'?)
15:54:48 <azaroth> +1 to extending motivation list; potentially in different namespaces
15:55:40 <fjh> let's take this to the list
15:55:48 <bjdmeest> ... e.g. motivation is editing, and there is another chain of resolution: it is not what we are trying to solve here
15:56:13 <bjdmeest> ... if such an annotation is not well-formed: the author could decline that edit
15:56:16 <TimCole> But do these simple use cases require motivations on the body? Isn't it simpler to keep the motivation on the annotation and comment on the proposed edit in separate annotations?
15:56:31 <bjdmeest> fjh: let's move this to the list
15:56:35 <fjh> Topic: Testing
15:57:02 <bjdmeest> shepazu: [about testing ontologies] we should reach out to other WG with experience
15:57:13 <bjdmeest> ... protocol should be testable, RangeFinder API as well
15:57:30 <azaroth> TimCole: I think (agree with fjh)  we should see on the list how people feel about 1 vs multiple annos.
15:57:34 <chrisbirk> yep
15:57:35 <bjdmeest> ... we should start making tests (once we have a FPWD)
15:58:18 <bjdmeest> ... e.g. use LDP test as a base for our tests
15:58:28 <azaroth> Yup. The link I sent before to the LDP implementation report has the test suite
15:58:30 <bjdmeest> chrisbirk: Chris from Open ??? Foundation
15:58:38 <chrisbirk> OpenGov Foundation
15:58:38 <bjdmeest> ... as invited expert
15:58:48 <bigbluehat> s/???/OpenGov/
15:58:56 <azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/ldp-testsuite/
15:59:14 <bjdmeest> shepazu: next thing for spec is testing it
15:59:23 <azaroth> +1 to testing :)
15:59:27 <bjdmeest> ... you find next problems that you otherwise cannot find
15:59:45 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
15:59:54 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:59:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:22:26 <fjh> Present+ Chris_Birk
16:23:20 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:23:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/17-annotation-minutes.html fjh
17:14:42 <shepazu> does someone have time to help me interpret some turtle?  (as the saying goes, "if you give a man a turtle, he links for a data; if you teach a man to turtle, he links data until he goes quietly insane")
17:18:04 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
17:54:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
18:12:35 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:28:36 <ivan> ivan has joined #annotation
18:39:54 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:43:39 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
19:10:18 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
21:35:46 <renoirb_> renoirb_ has joined #annotation
22:05:18 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
22:16:19 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
22:54:50 <tilgovi_> tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
22:56:38 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #annotation