IRC log of annotation on 2015-11-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:59:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:59:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-irc
16:04:24 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:05:38 [takeshi]
takeshi has joined #annotation
16:06:23 [davis_salisbury]
davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:06:36 [davis_salisbury]
present+ davis_salisbury
16:06:56 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:07:04 [fjh]
trackbot, start telecon
16:07:05 [azaroth]
Present+ Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young
16:07:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:07:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
16:07:08 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
16:07:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
16:07:09 [trackbot]
Date: 04 November 2015
16:07:19 [azaroth]
Present+ Doug_Schepers
16:07:27 [takeshi]
Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:07:32 [fjh]
Chair: Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch
16:07:39 [bigbluehat]
Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:07:52 [tbdinesh]
Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:08:00 [fjh]
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0005.html
16:08:06 [TimCole]
Present+ Tim_Cole
16:08:16 [fjh]
fjh has changed the topic to: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0005.html see members list for logistics
16:08:29 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
16:08:38 [PaoloCiccarese]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:08:57 [davis_salisbury]
i I have called in, sorry, new computer is wonky
16:08:59 [Jacob]
Jacob has joined #annotation
16:09:10 [azaroth]
Present+ Davis_Salisbury
16:09:16 [fjh]
Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
16:09:23 [davis_salisbury]
having trouble with it, sorry.
16:11:47 [davis_salisbury]
I can give it a shot
16:11:59 [azaroth]
scribenick: davis_salisbury
16:12:22 [davis_salisbury]
Getting started
16:13:08 [davis_salisbury]
Frederick sent an amended version of the minutes
16:13:20 [fjh]
q+ to ask about web platform minutes
16:13:26 [davis_salisbury]
... that Ben is a co-editor and not a chair
16:13:33 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:13:33 [Zakim]
fjh, you wanted to ask about web platform minutes
16:13:59 [davis_salisbury]
Are there additional minutes from the Web Platform meeting?
16:14:22 [davis_salisbury]
They should exist and will be tracked down/
16:14:40 [davis_salisbury]
No more questions about the minutes.
16:14:41 [azaroth]
proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from TPAC approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/25-annotation-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-annotation-minutes.html
16:15:19 [azaroth]
proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from TPAC breakout approved, following change to clarify editor/chair status http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-annotation-minutes.html
16:15:52 [davis_salisbury]
Hi :) Ok now I have to remember what I said. Oh dear... I think the basic idea was to encourage you to find a balance between giving the majority of users (implementors, spec readers, annotators, ...) some sensible default general purpose vocabulary, while also leaving open the option for those "in the know" to make the informed decision to switch to a different vocabulary that more closely suits their needs. At schema.org we're work[CUT]
16:16:09 [davis_salisbury]
trying now, just cut and paste those two above?
16:16:22 [davis_salisbury]
http://www.w3.org/2015/10/25-annotation-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-annotation-minutes.html
16:16:31 [shepazu]
Web Platform WG minutes: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/21-webapps-minutes.html#item06
16:16:54 [davis_salisbury]
TPAC was very productive with alignment and where things are going
16:17:11 [davis_salisbury]
.... Monday mostly talked about FindText
16:17:26 [davis_salisbury]
.... on Tuesday we talked mostly about the model and Protocol
16:17:52 [davis_salisbury]
.... on Wedneseday the break out was fairly well attended, roughly 20 attendees
16:18:05 [davis_salisbury]
.... good feedback generally.
16:18:53 [davis_salisbury]
.... Monday specifically discussed some internationalization issues
16:19:08 [fjh]
q+ to ask whether regex vis edit distance is an open issue or was resolved at F2F, what should we know about this?
16:19:29 [davis_salisbury]
.... also with the Web Platform group discussed the complexity of the FindText API and how to address those concerns
16:20:19 [davis_salisbury]
RESOLUTION: Minutes from TPAC approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/25-annotation-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-annotation-minutes.html
16:20:50 [davis_salisbury]
Doug says that there was not concrete feedback as they had just read the spec before discussing it
16:20:56 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:20:56 [Zakim]
fjh, you wanted to ask whether regex vis edit distance is an open issue or was resolved at F2F, what should we know about this?
16:21:00 [davis_salisbury]
.... Doug will follow up and seek more feedback
16:21:05 [fjh]
do we have an open github issue on regex and findtext
16:21:28 [davis_salisbury]
.... one concrete thing they did give feedback on was serialization.
16:21:32 [fjh]
streaming seems to always be a consideration
16:22:14 [davis_salisbury]
.... they are open to the idea of FindText API generally but whether they are open to this one specifically remains to be seen.
16:23:00 [davis_salisbury]
RESOLUTION: Minutes from TPAC breakout approved, following change to clarify editor/chair status http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-annotation-minutes.html
16:23:40 [davis_salisbury]
Doug has already asked for Dom to have the issues for FindText reflected in the mailing list, which is done
16:24:14 [davis_salisbury]
.... regarding the whether or not we are going to keep the edit distance, Doung does not think that it was seriously looked at by the browser vendors
16:25:02 [davis_salisbury]
.... Doug will follow up with them about which items were serious and which were not. General takeaway was that at a distance was a possible blocker but more feedback is necessary
16:25:47 [davis_salisbury]
Another issue the addition of a paramater that would allow for regions of content to be speced
16:26:01 [davis_salisbury]
.... it would be good to have an issue to cover this issue
16:26:35 [davis_salisbury]
oops. good to create an issue in re media fragments and regions of content
16:26:58 [davis_salisbury]
.... while it is not listed as a specific deliverable it is still related to Robust Anchoring and should perhaps be considered
16:27:10 [fjh]
q+ to ask about Dublin core vs schema.org when appropriate
16:27:14 [davis_salisbury]
..... i.e. find text is not the only thing discussed
16:27:17 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:27:17 [Zakim]
fjh, you wanted to ask about Dublin core vs schema.org when appropriate
16:27:40 [fjh]
s/it would be good to have an issue to cover this issue//
16:27:47 [fjh]
s/oops. //
16:27:59 [davis_salisbury]
Tuesday: group talked with the Social Web WG members present
16:28:21 [davis_salisbury]
.... that discussion revolved somewhat around parts of Activity Streams, like collections
16:28:33 [davis_salisbury]
.... and how we can use the collections formalization
16:28:50 [davis_salisbury]
.... main issue is timing, and their Charter lasts until the end of next year
16:29:04 [davis_salisbury]
.... it is not clear that their work can be referenced by us
16:29:13 [davis_salisbury]
.... in time for our Charter.
16:29:51 [davis_salisbury]
The proposal at the moment is that we should, at the end of the calendar year. accept the status of Activity Streams
16:30:31 [davis_salisbury]
.... we should reference this for now but in the future make a slight change to the context and refer to the full ontology once it is (hopefully) produced
16:31:00 [davis_salisbury]
There was also some discussion around the Protocol and paging, particularly with respect to the overlap with list and choice
16:31:16 [davis_salisbury]
.... and how playlists for annotations would work etc.
16:31:36 [davis_salisbury]
.... there was discussion around Dublic Core vs. schema.org
16:31:55 [davis_salisbury]
..... everyone up the chain was present, including Ivan and Tim BL
16:31:57 [fjh]
q+ was discussion about moving away from dublin core?
16:32:06 [fjh]
q+
16:32:12 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:32:52 [davis_salisbury]
Step 1: can we reference schema.org, which we can
16:33:16 [davis_salisbury]
.... we still have the question about whether to use both but there is no resolution
16:34:18 [davis_salisbury]
Also talked with Dan Brinkley, and the ordering available via schema.org was too complex, better to use Activity Streams
16:34:49 [davis_salisbury]
People who want to propose changes should create issues in github with rationales, otherwise use the original issue
16:35:27 [davis_salisbury]
Doug spoke with Dan about this, and he believes that what we should do is not pick a winner but instead leave open the possibilty of allowing both
16:35:53 [davis_salisbury]
.... it is an interesting approach i.e. not referring to one schema but allowing people to have a choice of vocabularies
16:36:14 [davis_salisbury]
.... a link to the discussion can be posted to track the discussion
16:36:34 [TimCole]
q+
16:36:43 [fjh]
q+ to ask about issue of syncing annotations and offline
16:36:43 [davis_salisbury]
Other topics on Tuesday were logistics related, notably: do we need another fact-to-face meeting
16:37:05 [davis_salisbury]
..... tentative proposal was yes, sometime in March or April in Europe.
16:37:09 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
16:37:47 [davis_salisbury]
Tim: required clarity in re paging in Protocol or also in how we model it
16:38:14 [davis_salisbury]
The particular issue discussed was in order to have ordering you need to have a list item that asserts the position in the list
16:39:24 [davis_salisbury]
Tim: in some of the examples on the site, a list is provided with a property as to whether it was ascending or descending, which was confusing
16:39:56 [davis_salisbury]
.... there were essentially two different methods shown
16:41:12 [azaroth]
ack fjh
16:41:12 [Zakim]
fjh, you wanted to ask about issue of syncing annotations and offline
16:42:05 [davis_salisbury]
For about an hour we tried to talk through some of the open issues, and Issue 21 was specifically discussed
16:42:12 [Jacob]
Could someone explain exactly what the itemListOrder predicate accomplishes? Is this something a client is expected to consume and exploit to apply some sorting algorithm on the client-side? Doesn't that conflate content and presentation?
16:43:19 [davis_salisbury]
..... a few comments were added [sorry having trouble keeping up with this one]
16:43:54 [davis_salisbury]
How can a third party merger two conversations? Strong use cases for having an equivalence notion between annotations
16:44:35 [fjh]
which ATOM item is this? is this a layer of functionality that this group needs to work on, or is it for v.next or later
16:44:42 [davis_salisbury]
The discussion in the hallway was to suggest that an annotation came from a particular URI
16:45:22 [davis_salisbury]
Right now the use cases were deemed strong enough and should be added back
16:45:37 [davis_salisbury]
..... and Rob thinks that they would not require that much work
16:46:08 [davis_salisbury]
Doug understood that the group considered that a UUID could be used to resolve this via being created on the client side
16:46:45 [davis_salisbury]
The proposal is essentially that we allow a property on an annotation called via that would be a use of the IANA via operation
16:47:01 [davis_salisbury]
.... the value of that property could be an IRI that was a UUID
16:47:28 [fjh]
q?
16:48:09 [azaroth]
q?
16:48:16 [davis_salisbury]
The containing element is a little bit weak possibly, but the overall semantics seem correct. We should have a longer discussion leading to a former proposal for a future call.
16:48:56 [davis_salisbury]
The other logistical question: what can we get done before the end of our Charter. Also, by when do we need to to do this
16:49:35 [davis_salisbury]
We should of course focus on the model and FindText and try to get all of these in a solid state by April so that overall timing works out
16:49:49 [davis_salisbury]
.... officially the Charter ends in October
16:50:23 [davis_salisbury]
.... but we want to make sure that we get what we want into the process by April so that we do not run the risk of having the Charter shut down and our hard work wasted
16:50:42 [davis_salisbury]
Frederick Ivan and Rob have been discussing how to make progress
16:50:55 [shepazu]
q+
16:51:11 [davis_salisbury]
.... how do we make a sustainable march forward with recommendations and work to get what we want done
16:51:19 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
16:51:21 [davis_salisbury]
We should put this on the agenda for the next call
16:51:49 [davis_salisbury]
Doug: the impression was that this group would be re-chartered, and that that would be the expectation
16:52:17 [davis_salisbury]
.... the idea was that we were in good shape and that the idea was overall to re-charter instead of getting an extension
16:52:38 [davis_salisbury]
The discussion was around the risk of not getting re-chartered
16:53:01 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
16:53:01 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:53:15 [TimCole]
q+
16:53:20 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
16:53:23 [davis_salisbury]
There is every intention to re-charter but was must show that we are making good progress or we run that risk, i.e., we need to make sure we prove that we are doing good work and making progress
16:53:38 [davis_salisbury]
Tim: how much do we need to get done to reach the stage in regards to testing?
16:53:41 [Jacob]
Present+ Jacob_Jett
16:54:04 [davis_salisbury]
We talked about it, and there were a lot of changes to the data model, but are we close enough to being stable for testing?
16:54:32 [davis_salisbury]
This was discussed somewhat at TPAC but no real resolutions were reached
16:54:54 [davis_salisbury]
..... we must have a full test suite at least but we don't necessarily need it to go into CR
16:55:12 [davis_salisbury]
.... as long as we are solid then we will have the first few months of CR to work on it
16:55:35 [davis_salisbury]
..... we don't want to go into CR without a plan though as we don't want to get to CR and risk not getting the test done
16:56:22 [davis_salisbury]
For testing we don't necessarily need a big bang i.e. some things can be done now that we know are fairly stable. Anyone chomping at the bits to do testing should go ahead and do it
16:56:32 [davis_salisbury]
..... any progress will help going into CR
16:56:43 [fjh]
s/For testing/fjh: For testing/
16:57:04 [azaroth]
q?
16:57:08 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
16:57:11 [davis_salisbury]
Doug: there was a discussion about client-side testing, and a testing methodology, that would be easy to maintain. Hopefully this will be started sooner rather than later.
16:57:46 [fjh]
s/i I have called in, sorry, new computer is wonky//
16:57:54 [fjh]
s/having trouble with it, sorry.//
16:58:00 [fjh]
s/I can give it a shot//
16:58:16 [davis_salisbury]
One more thing: we had a slot for some implementation demonstrations. Takeshi showed off some progress for enabling annotations on a reader. Benjamin did a demo as well, some others
16:58:22 [fjh]
s/Getting started//
16:59:12 [davis_salisbury]
Hopefully we are now up to speed in re the TPAC discussions and we can now make progress on the issues
16:59:15 [fjh]
s/They should/shepazu: They should/
16:59:56 [fjh]
i/Agenda Review/note - all comments from Rob unless noted/
17:00:30 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:00:30 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-minutes.html fjh
17:00:49 [davis_salisbury]
Thanks, I will try to work on it for next time.
17:01:07 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
17:01:26 [fjh]
Topic: Other Business
17:01:44 [fjh]
Thanks for scribing Davis
17:01:49 [fjh]
Topic: Adjourn
17:01:54 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
17:01:54 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-minutes.html fjh
17:51:01 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:24:22 [timbl]
timbl has joined #annotation
18:32:26 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
18:57:20 [kevinmarks]
kevinmarks has joined #annotation
19:29:36 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #annotation
19:55:14 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
19:56:59 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
20:20:57 [tilgovi]
I don't want to clutter up issue #96 (https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96) with a meta-discussion
20:21:21 [tilgovi]
So maybe someone here can explain to me the value of adding things to the data model that are optional and elsewhere modeled
20:21:36 [tilgovi]
Why do we say anything about creation time at all, for instance?
20:23:05 [tilgovi]
Or, as sort of an interesting inquiry, what would be the most minimal data model possible for annotations that left it open to implementors to choose from other vocabularies as needed and evolve best practices outside the web annotations data model spec document
20:41:05 [m4nu]
m4nu has joined #annotation
21:41:28 [bigbluehat]
tilgovi: I think a good bit of these things are for "JSON developers"
21:41:44 [bigbluehat]
RDF people obviously already know they can model the entire world, given the appropriate vocabulary ;)
21:42:03 [bigbluehat]
for the JSON folks, we're giving them "prebaked" mappings to URLs that have meaning--whether they know it or not ;)
21:42:48 [bigbluehat]
if that target audience knew there was such a thing as a "vocabulary" (and that they were in effect limitless), then we'd really only be specifying a very few things
21:43:27 [bigbluehat]
...and perhaps azaroth's new "RDF-y" model document will focus on those bits...and the JSON-LD focused one I'm making will simply call out these additional keys in usage scenarios (as it mostly does now...)
21:52:02 [tilgovi]
I think I am +1 on splitting model and vocabulary
21:52:17 [tilgovi]
Maybe even a best practices or example library separate from both
21:52:46 [bigbluehat]
the JSON-LD doc is 1 of (probably) a handful of "serialization" docs...technically
21:52:54 [bigbluehat]
but in this case we plan to lead with that do--for most developers
21:53:04 [bigbluehat]
and reference the model and/or vocabulary docs from that
21:53:13 [tilgovi]
Because it's a little strange to me to see the data model document cluttered with creator, creation time, generator, etc and see discussions on the issues about updated time, license and more
21:53:28 [tilgovi]
Or maybe, it's not strange
21:53:30 [tilgovi]
but it is noisy
21:53:47 [tilgovi]
it obscures the simplicity of what annotation may be at its core
21:53:50 [azaroth]
The model would still need to reference those things, but separate from the annotation specific ontology
21:53:57 [azaroth]
IMO
21:54:15 [azaroth]
Here is what we define: (bla bla bla) ; Here are other things that we recommend you use too: (bla bla bla)
21:55:06 [azaroth]
But if the community turns around and says screw dublin core, we're all in on schema.org, that shouldn't affect what we've done beyond updating the context for JSON-LD
21:55:17 [bigbluehat]
and from the serialization document perspective, I'd like to hand people a "what we expect you to record" sort of document
21:55:25 [bigbluehat]
even if...at it's core...there's not very much
21:55:58 [azaroth]
And the counterpoint is that if you don't say "you should give this information" then no one will, or there won't be sufficient convergence to make the annotations useful in practice
21:56:28 [azaroth]
E.g. if there isn't an agreed upon way to assert the creator of an annotation, then spam filtering, reputation modeling, author search (etc) all go out the window
21:56:42 [azaroth]
and those are valuable to enable from v1.0 I think
21:56:51 [bigbluehat]
...or all become extremely custom
21:57:02 [bigbluehat]
and if that's "just JSON", then we've no sure way to map it back to anything meaningful
21:57:48 [azaroth]
Yup :) The goal is interoperability of systems, not defining a custom format. We just have to make it look like we're defining a custom format some of the time :/
21:58:55 [azaroth]
</wall-o-text>
21:59:06 [bigbluehat]
hehe
21:59:18 [bigbluehat]
tilgovi: you're spot on that there is (deliberately) not much "going on" in this model
21:59:24 [bigbluehat]
and that the core bits are Selector's and such
22:00:15 [azaroth]
bigbluehat: so ... annotates ...
22:00:46 [azaroth]
I agree with Ivan and Jacob that it doesn't directly help anyone.
22:01:04 [azaroth]
OTOH from a *protocol* perspective, re-invigorating the rel type would be valuable
22:01:26 [tilgovi]
"if the community turns around and says screw dublin core, we're all in on schema.org, that shouldn't affect what we've done beyond updating the context for JSON-LD"
22:01:28 [bigbluehat]
yeah. it's mostly the rel value I think has...value
22:01:46 [tilgovi]
And if we just didn't talk about these things because their tangential to some more core aspect of annotation then there wouldn't be a need to update any context
22:01:51 [tilgovi]
*they're
22:02:17 [bigbluehat]
except that if we don't define them in a context, then every other developer will have to too
22:02:18 [azaroth]
tilgovi: True enough, but see the text wall regarding interop
22:02:32 [bigbluehat]
the tl;dr is that "graph know how" becomes a requirement to successfully be that flexible
22:02:40 [bigbluehat]
...which is why RDF exists in the first place
22:02:50 [azaroth]
If we're opinionated that there should be a way everyone does something, we should say so.
22:02:57 [bigbluehat]
and why JSON can safely be considered insufficient for modeling the world's hive mind ;)
22:03:04 [tilgovi]
I'm not sure we really know what our interop goals are. I mean, is being able to, say, sort the annotations by creation time something that we really care about interop on?
22:03:27 [azaroth]
Yes
22:03:28 [bigbluehat]
it was for RSS and Atom fwiw
22:03:37 [azaroth]
And harvesting. And search.
22:03:51 [bigbluehat]
regardless of that use case, I think we're (still) not wanting to require understanding RDF.
22:04:02 [azaroth]
Otherwise you would get all of the annotations in a container in some random order when you ask for them via the protocol
22:04:18 [bigbluehat]
if folks knew that (in its fullest) and had the proper tooling in their server and client, then all these specs (AS2, etc) would be *much* smaller
22:04:19 [tilgovi]
I don't see the problem with that for any use case I have
22:04:29 [tilgovi]
Especially if the annotation is separate from the body
22:04:48 [tilgovi]
The body we're not specifying its shape and as a user I may really want to be sorting on the creation time of the body
22:04:56 [bigbluehat]
tilgovi: I will say that getting a date-sorted list back from http://hypothes.is/api/search is pretty handy :)
22:05:06 [tilgovi]
Not when some crawler indexed my comment as an "oa:commenting" annotation
22:05:19 [bigbluehat]
tilgovi: true that.
22:05:43 [azaroth]
How would the crawler know if the annotation is new or stale?
22:05:48 [tilgovi]
although, that's oa:generated
22:05:57 [tilgovi]
not oa:created
22:05:57 [bigbluehat]
but the door's been (deliberately) left open to *anything* being a body of annotation
22:06:04 [bigbluehat]
and not all those things have created time
22:06:08 [bigbluehat]
known...or recorded
22:06:15 [tilgovi]
I guess what's really stressing me out is that I don't see the applications that create annotations
22:06:29 [bigbluehat]
?
22:06:35 [bigbluehat]
you built at least 2 of them :)
22:06:38 [tilgovi]
I see the applications that create bodies which may or may not explicitly reference targets and annotations as objects that a crawler might infer for some purpose of normalization and indexing
22:06:54 [tilgovi]
Yeah, but Hypothesis co-creates the annotation and the body
22:07:00 [tilgovi]
Hypothesis hasn't even disentangled the two, yet
22:07:04 [bigbluehat]
right, and most people will do the same
22:07:04 [tilgovi]
Because it has zero compelling reason to
22:07:22 [azaroth]
I think that shims will create just annotations
22:07:33 [tilgovi]
And the target used to be part of the same object with the body and all the other metadata but I separated that partly just to align with the spec as a gesture of interest
22:07:36 [bigbluehat]
however, I'd still like to be able to say: {"body": "http://twitter.com/....blah", "target":"http://w3.org/"}
22:07:52 [azaroth]
For example, something that mapped youtube comments into oa:Annotations wouldn't create either the target (the video) of the comment
22:08:19 [azaroth]
And for the foreseeable future, there'll be a lot of those systems out there
22:08:25 [bigbluehat]
we need a format (and have one, I think) that can be used to map existing resources into an "annotation space"
22:08:34 [bigbluehat]
which is not something we'd have the other way 'round
22:08:46 [azaroth]
along the same lines as ... that system tantek used for facebook / twitter from blog post
22:08:56 [bigbluehat]
bridgy
22:08:58 [azaroth]
voila
22:10:10 [azaroth]
To me, so long as we don't *require* features, and each feature can be justified and demonstrated (a requirement for TR anyway), having them in the specs is better than silence
22:10:15 [azaroth]
As you can just ignore them
22:10:26 [azaroth]
Don't need created time, then don't put it in
22:10:30 [azaroth]
:)
22:10:36 [azaroth]
Enjoy!
22:10:41 [bigbluehat]
will do.tnx!
22:10:56 [bigbluehat]
one parting thought
22:11:05 [bigbluehat]
tilgovi: it would be good if you narrowed in on the *required* bits
22:11:12 [bigbluehat]
and let us know what we've over spec'd there
22:11:23 [azaroth]
+1
22:11:30 [bigbluehat]
k...i'm done for now. :)
22:11:32 [bigbluehat]
l8rs!
22:12:36 [tilgovi]
The only things I care about are selecting and relating. I've been told that relating is off the table, so all I care about are the selectors.
22:14:11 [tilgovi]
I'm pretty sure that if I were to write any of the applications I have in my head that could be considered related, somehow, to "annotation", I would be adding unmotivated complexity by instantiating an oa:Annotation class at all.
22:14:44 [azaroth]
All of your use cases have exactly one body and target?
22:14:47 [tilgovi]
Unless it's just functioning as a simpler way than a named graph to hold some provenance about a relation.
22:15:09 [azaroth]
And the creator of the relationship is always the same as the creator of the body?
22:15:29 [tilgovi]
Well, I don't actually like the body multiplicity.
22:15:33 [tilgovi]
So 1->n
22:15:50 [tilgovi]
No, definitely not that the creator of the relationship is necessarily the same as the creator fo the body.
22:16:05 [tilgovi]
That's why I said "unless it's just functioning ... to hold some provenance about a relation"
22:16:13 [tilgovi]
But if I can't actually state the relation than that's right out.
22:16:16 [azaroth]
Ahh, I see
22:16:26 [tilgovi]
*then
22:17:00 [azaroth]
Yeah, Annotation mostly functions in that role -- a node to hang provenance about the relationship(s) off -- and indeed without explicitly recording a particular predicate
22:17:19 [tilgovi]
Yep. And that's what's so strange to me.
22:17:25 [tilgovi]
It's a place to put metadata about a thing but not the thing itself.
22:17:30 [tilgovi]
The thing itself is absent.
22:17:39 [azaroth]
I totally sympathize, btw, as I tried to promote that pattern several times in OAC and CG days
22:17:50 [tilgovi]
I can say why, the motivation, I have this metadata but not what it does.
22:17:59 [azaroth]
Yep
22:18:31 [tilgovi]
Didn't we have a proposal, maybe from Ray, about ... I can't remember the term .... the intention of the annotation to induce some mutation or change
22:18:39 [azaroth]
Who: creator. When: created. Why: motivation. What: body ??? target
22:19:11 [tilgovi]
Like some expected result of processing it.
22:20:16 [tilgovi]
Because I totally empathize with that
22:20:35 [tilgovi]
And boiling it down to some very simple RDF building block
22:20:58 [tilgovi]
I often find myself imagining that what I want out of annotations is to say, "Here I am, here's when I said X, and my intention is that you adopt X into your knowledge graph"
22:21:00 [azaroth]
Yup. The building block that we ended up choosing was skos:Concept, and thus oa:Motivation
22:21:16 [azaroth]
What about a graph body?
22:21:21 [tilgovi]
Yeah
22:21:26 [tilgovi]
Graph body makes tons of sense to me.
22:21:31 [tilgovi]
We left it behind, didn't we?
22:21:41 [azaroth]
with a specific motivation so you can reliably process it
22:22:02 [azaroth]
We took named graph bodies out of scope because they're not standardized beyond JSON-LD
22:22:18 [azaroth]
But if the graph is serialized, then it's just like any other body
22:22:28 [tilgovi]
I'm not sure I would care about the motivation, specifically because, as has been said in the recent discussion, the motivation is vague and tries to model knowledge that is private to the user.
22:22:59 [azaroth]
eg: {type: Annotation, body: {"content": "<subject> <predicate> <object> .", "format": "text/turtle"}, "target": "..."}
22:23:03 [tilgovi]
yep
22:23:05 [tilgovi]
I could do that.
22:23:26 [azaroth]
The role slot would be where I'd put it, to distinguish the graph from other commentary along with it
22:23:27 [tilgovi]
But at that point why wouldn't I just publish that graph directly
22:23:32 [azaroth]
You could :)
22:23:37 [azaroth]
eg...
22:23:42 [azaroth]
(sorry for json wall coming)
22:23:44 [azaroth]
{
22:23:45 [tilgovi]
hehehe
22:23:48 [azaroth]
"type": "Annotation",
22:23:58 [tantek]
tantek has joined #annotation
22:23:59 [azaroth]
"body": [ {
22:24:16 [azaroth]
"id": "uri-for-graph",
22:24:25 [tilgovi]
I would just s/body/@graph/ there and let the graph be the annotation
22:24:36 [azaroth]
"content": "<a> <b> <c> .",
22:24:46 [tilgovi]
which brings me back to skepticism about the purpose of an Annotation class at all
22:24:58 [azaroth]
"role": "my:motivationHere"
22:25:31 [azaroth]
}, {"type": "TextualBody", "role": "commenting", "content": "Here I justify why <a> <b> <c> holds"} ]
22:26:04 [azaroth]
Agreed, you could definitely just use a graph
22:26:25 [azaroth]
I know people who are doing pretty much exactly that
22:26:50 [tilgovi]
And if I have the capability to publish RDF datasets like that, I'm not sure why I would publish that justifying comment as an Annotation either.
22:26:52 [azaroth]
This project: http://www.culturesofknowledge.org/
22:27:23 [azaroth]
E.g. the highlighted pilot project
22:27:38 [tilgovi]
I would just publish my reasoning as the object of some justification/comment relation to the graph
22:28:04 [tilgovi]
So, I guess I can yet see value in Annotation, the class, and maybe motivation
22:28:36 [tilgovi]
But it does seem to be way more about normalizing/collecting/modeling a bunch of activities, must of which would have no need to be represented this way in their application domain
22:29:24 [azaroth]
I don't disagree :)
22:29:41 [tilgovi]
Excellent.
22:29:59 [tilgovi]
I feel like I've been heretical, but I might just be talking to a different purpose.
22:30:18 [tilgovi]
And forgetting that Annotation is deliberately kind of "above" all these things
22:30:44 [tilgovi]
motivation definitely still feels very weird to me, though, especially motivation but not relation
22:30:51 [azaroth]
Heresy has its place too. It's good to stir things up, but also good to let the result solidify into something that's hopefully better
22:31:11 [tilgovi]
And even weirder still the argument against relation being that we couldn't possibly know the relation the user intended
22:31:34 [tilgovi]
Because to me, the relation is a thing the application intends to create, and so we can assume that the user is either using it to create those relations (or misusing it)
22:32:06 [tilgovi]
A motivation is something which necessarily blocks on the user choosing a motivation else is taking a guess at what is private, subjective knowledge.
22:32:16 [tilgovi]
An application knows what relation it's making, but not why the user is asking it to do so.
22:32:37 [tilgovi]
I can make an application that is for making comments, and therefore publishes data with a "comment" relation between some subjects and objects
22:32:56 [tilgovi]
But whether the user intends to mock, explain, describe, spread disinformation, joke, define, etc I wouldn't have any idea
22:33:33 [tilgovi]
At best I could say they are motivated by commenting, but I still don't understand why an equally vaguely defined "comment" predicate wouldn't be simpler and more direct.
22:34:22 [azaroth]
I think the concern is the misusing it. Or that in order to unblock, the application will mostly just guess
22:34:38 [tilgovi]
Yeah. I hear you.
22:34:47 [tilgovi]
I think I'd just rather applications guess at their own purpose than guess at mine.
22:34:56 [azaroth]
So being anything more definite than the high level, fuzzy and cross-domain motivations we have, should be specified by applications directly
22:35:12 [azaroth]
When they do know the intent of the user and can be more concrete about them
22:35:37 [tilgovi]
I still don't think that answers my question about why equally fuzzy and high level relations are worse.
22:35:47 [azaroth]
It doesn't :)
22:36:01 [tilgovi]
:)
22:36:05 [azaroth]
The answer is unsatisfying, even to me
22:36:19 [tilgovi]
That's great. I'll think more about it, undoubtedly.
22:36:26 [tilgovi]
But for now I have to run.
22:36:32 [azaroth]
Which is that without named graphs, there needs to be an annotation node.
22:36:35 [azaroth]
for that provenance
22:36:43 [azaroth]
:(
22:36:54 [azaroth]
:( re annotation node for provenance
22:36:55 [tilgovi]
Thanks, Rob.
22:37:03 [azaroth]
No probs. Talk to you later :)
22:37:05 [tilgovi]
Right. Seems sad to me, too.
22:37:38 [tilgovi]
I haven't got a solution that seems to fit the requirements, though.
23:36:46 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation