14:26:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:26:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-annotation-irc
14:26:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:26:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:26:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:26:58 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:26:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:26:59 <trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015
14:27:46 <ivan> zakim, this is WebEx code 645 413 954 password annotation URL: https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me422bef2c6690852d7d9a2cf39f591b8
14:27:46 <Zakim> got it, ivan
14:44:20 <chrisbirk> chrisbirk has joined #annotation
14:47:03 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:49:48 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
14:50:28 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
14:50:30 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:50:32 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:50:32 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:50:33 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:50:33 <trackbot> Date: 02 September 2015
14:51:04 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0000.html
14:51:07 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0000.html
14:51:37 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:51:48 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:53:35 <fjh> Regrets+ Ben_De_Meester, Doug_Schepers, TB_Dinesh
14:53:58 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:54:19 <fjh> note from Rob on Agenda item 4, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0015.html
14:57:04 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:57:07 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:57:21 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
14:57:30 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:13 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
14:58:19 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
14:58:37 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
14:58:58 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
15:01:16 <fjh> Regrets+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:01:46 <Matt_Haas> Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
15:02:59 <Matt_Haas> present+ Matt_Haas
15:03:01 <fjh> ScribeNick: fjh
15:03:13 <ivan> present+ ivan
15:03:37 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:03:42 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:03:45 <fjh> otation/2015Sep/0015.html
15:03:55 <fjh> note from Rob on Agenda item 4, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0015.html
15:06:31 <fjh> fjh: updated wiki with how to handle issues, see https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0052.html
15:06:56 <fjh> ... issues should include proposal for resolution, and possibly test cases
15:07:32 <fjh> ... minor issues like typo can be fixed by editor and acknowleded others require discussion and CfC, managed by chairs
15:07:39 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:07:56 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 19 August approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/att-0302/minutes-2015-08-19.html
15:08:00 <fjh> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 19 August approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/att-0302/minutes-2015-08-19.html
15:08:08 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:08:14 <fjh> Topic: Data Model Changes for Roles, 3.1
15:08:20 <fjh> Section 3.1 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0211.html
15:08:21 <fjh> CfC: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Aug/0211.html
15:08:24 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:08:46 <fjh> azaroth: CfC completed yesterday
15:09:07 <fjh> q+
15:10:01 <fjh> results summary https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0038.html
15:10:03 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:11:55 <TimCole> q+
15:12:01 <Jacob> It means that motivatedBy is a property of things conforming to the Specific Resource class, right?
15:12:04 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:12:15 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: changes in section 3.1 of http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html adopted via CfC
15:13:54 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: changes in section 3.1 agreed see http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#proposed-model-revision  per CfC conclusion
15:14:23 <fjh> RESOLUTION: changes in section 3.1 agreed see http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#proposed-model-revision  per CfC conclusion
15:14:28 <fjh> q?
15:15:12 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:16:04 <fjh> action: azaroth to update editors draft to reflect changes per 3.1
15:16:05 <trackbot> Created ACTION-27 - Update editors draft to reflect changes per 3.1 [on Robert Sanderson - due 2015-09-09].
15:16:14 <fjh> rrsagent, where am I
15:16:14 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am I', fjh.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:16:23 <fjh> rrsagent, where am I?
15:16:23 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-annotation-irc#T15-16-23
15:16:37 <fjh> Topic: Data Model Further Considerations (section 3.2)
15:16:38 <azaroth> Options: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0015.html
15:17:35 <fjh> azaroth: two options outlined, see link, each with tradeoffs
15:17:50 <fjh> ... first is more verbose but more consistent
15:18:12 <fjh> ... second is more compact and easier to follow but more flexible and possibly inconsistent
15:18:34 <fjh> note - I will not transcribe what is in the linked email
15:19:45 <TimCole> q+
15:19:47 <ivan> q+
15:19:53 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:20:01 <fjh> azaroth: concern is need for code to test structure when it is not consistent
15:20:21 <fjh> TimCole: re optimization, local application can use profile of interoperability standard, allowing optimizations
15:20:48 <fjh> ... but if wider interoperability can lose optimizations, but if local can get optimizations
15:20:56 <fjh> ... this trade off allows keeping simple cases simple
15:20:58 <azaroth> ack Ivan
15:21:20 <azaroth> q+ to note profiles are like micro specifications
15:21:37 <fjh> ivan: prefer to make life for users easier even if harder for application developers
15:22:09 <fjh> ... example is where can put text re role, came up in email, definitely support simple way
15:22:12 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:22:12 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note profiles are like micro specifications
15:22:51 <fjh> azaroth: responding to Tim, have seen such patterns, like micro specs, overall spec needs to be constrained
15:23:09 <fjh> ... might impact interoperability, need to be careful
15:23:22 <fjh> ... want to limit where roles are placed
15:23:36 <fjh> ... image with id, bad to put role on that image, for example
15:24:41 <fjh> TimCole: looking at option 1 vs option 2, limitied where role can be put, small number ok
15:24:58 <fjh> ... key question is whether on annotation as well as bodies and targets.
15:25:13 <fjh> q+ to ask for specific response re option 1 vs option 2
15:25:25 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:25:25 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask for specific response re option 1 vs option 2
15:25:43 <fjh> cannot find window so asking about straw poll and option choices
15:25:54 <Jacob> basically everything that could be the object of a hasBody/hasTarget predicate but excluding the annotation node itself. I am +1 for that idea.
15:26:02 <fjh> yes
15:26:18 <fjh> q?
15:26:24 <fjh> s/yes//
15:26:33 <fjh> s/cannot find window so asking about straw poll and option choices//
15:26:47 <fjh> ivan: are there other consequences apart from what you listed in response to Doug
15:26:59 <fjh> azaroth: haven't worked through all examples
15:27:27 <TimCole> motivation on multiplicity classes not thoroughly discussed in current document
15:27:46 <fjh> q+
15:27:50 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:27:51 <Jacob> ditto the relationship between specific resources and multiplicity nodes
15:29:45 <fjh> fjh: should we review the individual points in 3.2 for which there was a straw poll on the list as well as option 1 and option 2
15:30:01 <azaroth> Straw Poll: Option 1 (Verbose, Consistent, Structured)
15:30:03 <fjh> azaroth: lets start with options since it informs individual points
15:30:07 <azaroth> +1
15:30:10 <TimCole> -0.5 option 1
15:30:13 <davis_salisbury> +1
15:30:15 <bigbluehat> +1
15:30:17 <Jacob> -0
15:30:46 <fjh> +1
15:31:02 <RayD> +1
15:31:03 <Matt_Haas> +1
15:31:13 <takeshi> +0.5
15:31:14 <ivan> 0
15:31:37 <TimCole> +1 option 2
15:31:38 <azaroth> Straw Poll : Option 2 (Compact, Flexible, Less Structured)
15:31:41 <ivan> +1
15:31:42 <Jacob> +1
15:31:43 <azaroth> -0
15:31:49 <RayD> 0
15:31:51 <bigbluehat> 0
15:32:05 <davis_salisbury> 0
15:32:07 <fjh> 0
15:32:11 <Kyrce> 0
15:32:12 <takeshi> 0
15:33:25 <Jacob> Looking ahead, it seems like ultimately adopting option 1 will require a larger reworking of section 5 of the spec.
15:33:48 <ivan> q+
15:33:52 <TimCole> q+
15:33:53 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:34:27 <fjh> ivan: repeat that need to have simple text with role, do not want that to be more complex
15:35:33 <fjh> azaroth: keep motivation on annotation as well as roles on body/text
15:35:38 <fjh> ivan: not sure what you are saying
15:36:49 <ivan> body: { text: 'asfasdfas', role: 'editing' }
15:37:07 <fjh> ivan: I want what I put in chat as example
15:37:32 <ivan> body : { content: {text: 'adfasd'}, role: editing}
15:37:44 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:37:48 <fjh> ivan: do not want to be forced to say this more complicated one
15:38:12 <fjh> TimCole: we have conflation here,
15:38:25 <fjh> ... like what Ivan pointed out
15:38:48 <fjh> ... for embedded text, also for composite bodies
15:39:45 <fjh> ... because SpecificResources can appear in multiplicity class need to handle that
15:40:25 <fjh> ... example role on composite, could have role on specficResources within as well? hence limiting to specificResource might not help
15:40:44 <fjh> ... complex in abstract, so suggest we make examples
15:40:48 <fjh> +1 to examples
15:41:02 <azaroth> +1 to examples too happy to do them
15:41:03 <fjh> doug asked for that as well
15:41:21 <fjh> TimCole: come back to it with concrete serializations in mind
15:41:35 <fjh> +1 to option 2 now, given reminder from Ivan and Tim
15:41:51 <ivan> q+
15:42:09 <fjh> azaroth: do we need examples of multiplicity constructs
15:42:34 <fjh> TimCole: yes need to think about them, e.g. role on choice not on bodies within choice, role should be consistent
15:44:57 <RayD> q+
15:45:09 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:45:20 <fjh> azaroth: not making it more complex given that multiplicity is already complex
15:45:40 <fjh> ivan: multiplicity construct may become alternative to what we have now (?)
15:45:57 <fjh> ... lets solve other issues first then revisit multiplicity construct
15:46:02 <Jacob> So eliminate section 5 of the existing doc?
15:46:10 <fjh> q+
15:47:20 <fjh> Jacob, I think the answer is no, that is not what I heard
15:47:22 <azaroth> ack RayD
15:47:57 <fjh> RayD: thought Tim said for choice, should be disallowed on individual parts not for other multiplicity items
15:48:34 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:50:12 <fjh> fjh: not removing section 5, suggest we attempt to include definition of roles for multiplicity as Tim suggested, examples would be very helpful
15:51:12 <fjh> Topic: Section 3.2 review
15:51:13 <fjh> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#further-considerations
15:51:28 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#require-the-use-of-specificresource-for-bodies
15:51:37 <fjh> azaroth: need role on SpecificResource
15:51:48 <fjh> no disagreement
15:51:52 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#require-the-use-of-specificresource-for-targets
15:52:40 <TimCole> 0 for role on targets
15:52:48 <ivan> 0 too
15:52:51 <fjh> azaroth: targets 3.2.2
15:52:55 <Jacob> +.5 for targets
15:52:57 <RayD> q+
15:53:04 <azaroth> ack RayD
15:53:10 <fjh> RayD: what is question
15:53:23 <fjh> ... do we need roles on targets?
15:53:51 <fjh> azaroth: yes
15:53:53 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#allow-hasrole-on-new-embeddedtextualbody-class
15:54:40 <ivan> +1
15:54:42 <Jacob> +1
15:54:44 <fjh> azaroth: 3.2.3 allow role for embeddedContent
15:54:45 <fjh> +1
15:54:48 <TimCole> +1 for role on Embedded Content
15:55:01 <RayD> +1
15:55:15 <fjh> azaroth: skkp 3.2.4 renaming
15:55:16 <ivan> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/roles.html#remove-motivatedby-completely
15:55:24 <RayD> -1
15:55:26 <fjh> azaroth: 3.2.5 not allow motivation on annotation
15:55:35 <ivan> -1
15:55:35 <TimCole> +0.5 for role on Annotation if meaning is made clear
15:55:44 <Jacob> -0.5 ...might need this to link roles to literal bodies
15:55:50 <fjh> -1 I think, can be different meaning, so should have motivation on annotation as well
15:56:00 <TimCole> q+
15:56:04 <RayD> q+
15:56:09 <fjh> s/I think,//
15:56:50 <fjh> azaroth: propose Ray, Tim and Ivan produce examples that mirror 3.1.* showing where body or target is not specific resource
15:56:56 <fjh> ivan: what are you asking?
15:57:26 <fjh> ivan: issue is 3.2.5 is whether we need separate notion, role or motivation, for annotation as a whole vs roles on invidual bodies
15:57:38 <fjh> ... seems a positive to have for annotation as a whole
15:57:44 <fjh> +1 to Ivan's statement
15:58:04 <fjh> azaroth: those in favor of having in more locations, come up with examples
15:58:26 <fjh> azaroth: then can compare
15:58:52 <azaroth> q?
15:58:57 <fjh> TimCole: can help with this, not all of 3.1 to 3.11 may be sensible for on annotation as a whole
15:59:18 <fjh> RayD: if you dont allow motivvation at annotation level, then cannot have annotation on literal body
15:59:31 <fjh> s/motivvation/motivation/
15:59:45 <fjh> s/dont/don't/
15:59:49 <Jacob> i.e., completely anonymous literals
16:00:40 <TimCole> This is why we need to discuss and develop examples
16:00:45 <azaroth> Yep
16:00:56 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:01:18 <fjh> fjh: insert before CfC proposed resolution:
16:01:20 <Jacob> +1 to Ray
16:01:49 <fjh> fjh: we had support to resolve CfC with one concern expressed by non-member who said they did not want to hold up work
16:01:55 <Jacob> Not clear to me when motivations on annotation and bodies will really differ? Isn't it just more specific info than what might appear at the anno level?
16:02:11 <fjh> rob: another member of group did not object, representing same org, so ok
16:02:22 <fjh> fjh: so we can go ahead and make progress
16:02:49 <fjh> azaroth: please send example to list or add to github document directly
16:02:54 <fjh> s/example/examples/
16:02:59 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:03:22 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:03:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:51:58 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
17:15:59 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
17:29:04 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
19:02:21 <Kyrce> Kyrce has joined #annotation
20:02:13 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
23:01:55 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation