Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

04 Nov 2015

See also: IRC log


davis_salisbury, Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch, Paolo_Ciccarese, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, Doug_Schepers, Takeshi_Kanai, TB_Dinesh, shepazu, Davis_Salisbury, Jacob_Jett
Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch


<fjh> trackbot, start telecon

<trackbot> Date: 04 November 2015

<fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0005.html

<inserted> note - all comments from Rob unless noted

Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements

<azaroth> scribenick: davis_salisbury

Frederick sent an amended version of the minutes

scribe: that Ben is a co-editor and not a chair

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about web platform minutes

Are there additional minutes from the Web Platform meeting?

shepazu: They should exist and will be tracked down/

No more questions about the minutes.

<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

<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

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]

trying now, just cut and paste those two above?

http://www.w3.org/2015/10/25-annotation-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2015/10/26-annotation-minutes.html

<shepazu> Web Platform WG minutes: http://www.w3.org/2015/10/21-webapps-minutes.html#item06

TPAC was very productive with alignment and where things are going

scribe: Monday mostly talked about FindText
... on Tuesday we talked mostly about the model and Protocol
... on Wedneseday the break out was fairly well attended, roughly 20 attendees
... good feedback generally.
... Monday specifically discussed some internationalization issues
... also with the Web Platform group discussed the complexity of the FindText API and how to address those concerns

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

Doug says that there was not concrete feedback as they had just read the spec before discussing it

<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?

scribe: Doug will follow up and seek more feedback

<fjh> do we have an open github issue on regex and findtext

scribe: one concrete thing they did give feedback on was serialization.

<fjh> streaming seems to always be a consideration

scribe: they are open to the idea of FindText API generally but whether they are open to this one specifically remains to be seen.

RESOLUTION: Minutes from TPAC breakout approved, following change to clarify editor/chair status http://www.w3.org/2015/10/28-annotation-minutes.html

Doug has already asked for Dom to have the issues for FindText reflected in the mailing list, which is done

scribe: 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
... 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

Another issue the addition of a paramater that would allow for regions of content to be speced


good to create an issue in re media fragments and regions of content

scribe: while it is not listed as a specific deliverable it is still related to Robust Anchoring and should perhaps be considered
... i.e. find text is not the only thing discussed

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about Dublin core vs schema.org when appropriate

Tuesday: group talked with the Social Web WG members present
... that discussion revolved somewhat around parts of Activity Streams, like collections
... and how we can use the collections formalization
... main issue is timing, and their Charter lasts until the end of next year
... it is not clear that their work can be referenced by us
... in time for our Charter.

The proposal at the moment is that we should, at the end of the calendar year. accept the status of Activity Streams

scribe: 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

There was also some discussion around the Protocol and paging, particularly with respect to the overlap with list and choice

scribe: and how playlists for annotations would work etc.
... there was discussion around Dublic Core vs. schema.org
... everyone up the chain was present, including Ivan and Tim BL

Step 1: can we reference schema.org, which we can

scribe: we still have the question about whether to use both but there is no resolution

Also talked with Dan Brinkley, and the ordering available via schema.org was too complex, better to use Activity Streams

People who want to propose changes should create issues in github with rationales, otherwise use the original issue

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

scribe: it is an interesting approach i.e. not referring to one schema but allowing people to have a choice of vocabularies
... a link to the discussion can be posted to track the discussion

Other topics on Tuesday were logistics related, notably: do we need another fact-to-face meeting

scribe: tentative proposal was yes, sometime in March or April in Europe.

Tim: required clarity in re paging in Protocol or also in how we model it

The particular issue discussed was in order to have ordering you need to have a list item that asserts the position in the list

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
... there were essentially two different methods shown

<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about issue of syncing annotations and offline

For about an hour we tried to talk through some of the open issues, and Issue 21 was specifically discussed

<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?

scribe: a few comments were added [sorry having trouble keeping up with this one]

How can a third party merger two conversations? Strong use cases for having an equivalence notion between annotations

<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

The discussion in the hallway was to suggest that an annotation came from a particular URI

Right now the use cases were deemed strong enough and should be added back

scribe: and Rob thinks that they would not require that much work

Doug understood that the group considered that a UUID could be used to resolve this via being created on the client side

The proposal is essentially that we allow a property on an annotation called via that would be a use of the IANA via operation

scribe: the value of that property could be an IRI that was a UUID

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.

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

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

scribe: officially the Charter ends in October
... 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

Frederick Ivan and Rob have been discussing how to make progress

scribe: how do we make a sustainable march forward with recommendations and work to get what we want done

We should put this on the agenda for the next call

Doug: the impression was that this group would be re-chartered, and that that would be the expectation
... the idea was that we were in good shape and that the idea was overall to re-charter instead of getting an extension

The discussion was around the risk of not getting re-chartered

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

Tim: how much do we need to get done to reach the stage in regards to testing?

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?

This was discussed somewhat at TPAC but no real resolutions were reached

scribe: we must have a full test suite at least but we don't necessarily need it to go into CR
... as long as we are solid then we will have the first few months of CR to work on it
... 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

fjh: 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
... any progress will help going into CR

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.

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

Hopefully we are now up to speed in re the TPAC discussions and we can now make progress on the issues

Thanks, I will try to work on it for next time.

Other Business

<fjh> Thanks for scribing Davis


Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.135 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/11/04 20:44:29 $