15:39:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:39:37 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc
15:39:39 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:39:39 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
15:39:41 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:39:41 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:39:42 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:39:42 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2015
15:39:49 <ivan> Chair: Frederick
15:43:39 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/166ABA05-5380-41F8-B054-AE0EB92D96B1@fjhirsch.com
15:54:52 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:55:53 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
15:55:55 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:55:57 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:55:57 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:55:58 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:55:58 <trackbot> Date: 18 November 2015
15:56:10 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
15:56:38 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0234.html
15:56:54 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0234.html (see members list for logistics)
15:57:22 <fjh> Regrets+ Rob_Sanderson, Randall_Leeds
15:57:30 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch
15:57:33 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:57:47 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
15:58:12 <fjh> Regrets+ Davis_Salisbury
15:58:26 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:59:56 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
16:03:34 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:04:03 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
16:04:26 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:05:04 <fjh> ScribeNick: TimCole
16:06:04 <fjh> Topic: Model - Activity Streams vocabulary
16:06:24 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:06:41 <TimCole> bigbluehat: AS vocabulary and AS 2.0 spec is still in process, not currently in a place where we can reference in our model
16:07:03 <TimCole> ... discussion on github has been mostly about vocabulary and referencing semantics
16:07:35 <TimCole> ... given our own (Web Anno) deadlines, we may want to do term matching but not referencing or reuse directly in our ontologies
16:07:39 <ivan> q+
16:07:55 <TimCole> ... this way we are not dependent on AS publication schedule for our own publication schedule
16:08:02 <fjh> ack ivan
16:08:16 <TimCole> ... so proposal is not to reference AS vocabulary directly from our own ontologies.
16:08:31 <fjh> q+ to ask if we are choosing a set of terms, our own, then provide a mapping
16:08:46 <TimCole> ivan: is this a postponment or are we just plan not to consider it.
16:08:48 <shepazu> q+
16:09:23 <fjh> ack fjh
16:09:23 <Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask if we are choosing a set of terms, our own, then provide a mapping
16:09:30 <TimCole> bigbluehat: more a postponement.  we can look again and either get it in later or add a separate note at end of WG loop.
16:09:46 <fjh> ack shepazu
16:09:51 <TimCole> fjh: we will use terms we define and then later if we have time provide a mapping to AS.
16:10:02 <fjh> benjamin: correct
16:10:23 <TimCole> shepazu: regardless of schedule, if we try to coordinate terminology, can we do this without slowing us down?
16:10:30 <TimCole> bigbluehat: yes.
16:10:57 <TimCole> shepazu: is discussion just about terminology, or also about structures?
16:11:27 <TimCole> ... there has been some talk in the past about coming up with a serialization of Web annotation within a AS structure
16:11:31 <ivan> present+ dinesh
16:12:30 <TimCole> ... will this idea survive into our new spec? Do we need to abstract model 1 level higher so that the terminology we use for Web annotation could occur in AS structure
16:12:30 <ivan> q+
16:12:33 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: defer defining mapping of Annotation terms with Activity Streams term ot later Note, currently continue with Annotation terms in use
16:12:47 <fjh> q+
16:13:00 <ivan> q-
16:13:02 <fjh> ack ivan
16:13:07 <TimCole> bigbluehat: while we have talked about this a bit, it's not been written up in an issue to date.
16:13:34 <fjh> ack fjh
16:13:34 <ivan> +1
16:13:34 <TimCole> fjh: Doug, could you write this up as a separate issue and proposal.
16:13:38 <TimCole> +1
16:13:39 <bigbluehat> +1
16:13:51 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: defer defining mapping of Annotation terms with Activity Streams term ot later Note, currently continue with Annotation terms in use
16:14:13 <fjh> rrsagent, where am i
16:14:13 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i', fjh.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:14:15 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:14:17 <TimCole> ivan: then can Benjamin close the issue on github?
16:14:22 <bigbluehat> +1
16:14:22 <TimCole> bigbluehat: yes.
16:14:28 <fjh> Topic: 1 or more roles, issue 104
16:14:30 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:14:30 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-14-30
16:14:39 <fjh>  https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/104
16:15:26 <TimCole> bigbluehat: this is about matching roles and motivation, such that you can use multiple roles like you can use multiple motivations
16:15:32 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: adopt 1 or more roles per issue 104 proposal
16:15:32 <ivan> =1
16:15:34 <ivan> +1
16:15:37 <bigbluehat> +1
16:15:38 <TimCole> ... discussion on email list has been positive
16:15:40 <TimCole> +1
16:15:42 <fjh> +1
16:15:49 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:15:49 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-15-49
16:15:49 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: adopt 1 or more roles per issue 104 proposal
16:15:51 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:16:09 <TimCole> ivan: I will close the issue now
16:16:20 <fjh> Topic: Model license property
16:16:28 <fjh> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/100
16:16:34 <shepazu> q+
16:16:38 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: adopt license property per issue 100 proposal
16:16:56 <TimCole> bigbluehat: license proposal had no detractors on github.
16:17:14 <fjh> q?
16:17:15 <TimCole> ... proposal is just to use dc property to provide link to license
16:17:30 <fjh> I suggest editorial discretion for placing in document
16:17:48 <fjh> ack shepazu
16:17:48 <TimCole> ... so we just need to focus on the license key to use on annotation and objects within the annotation
16:19:06 <TimCole> shepazu: concerned that multiple role may complicate things, e.g., you have to process more than a single value, now have to process a structure
16:19:26 <TimCole> ... will encourage user agents to make multiple roles, etc.
16:19:45 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: adopt license property per issue 100 proposal
16:19:50 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:19:50 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-19-50
16:19:53 <fjh> Topic: back to roles
16:21:00 <TimCole> bigbluehat: would vote to defer multiple role discussion to later call to give time for Doug to raise concerns about multiple roles
16:21:29 <TimCole> ivan: multiple roles issue has been re-opened
16:22:03 <fjh> RESOLUTION: keep role issue per 104 open to give more time to discuss concerns about structure
16:22:11 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: keep role issue per 104 open to give more time to discuss concerns about structure
16:22:16 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:22:16 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-22-16
16:22:34 <fjh> Topic: issue 96
16:22:43 <fjh> ) https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96
16:22:43 <fjh> modified property, make RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96 proposal (if agreed etc)
16:22:52 <fjh> s/) //
16:22:54 <TimCole> fjh: issue 96 ties into another issue
16:22:55 <shepazu> q+
16:23:48 <TimCole> bigbluehat: discussion around modify went beyond what the property should be to talk about how to handle issues around annotations moving around (issue 21)
16:24:04 <fjh> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21
16:24:16 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:24:20 <TimCole> bigbluehat: propose for issue 96 whether we should include a modify property as a should in the model
16:24:26 <bigbluehat> ack shepazu
16:24:44 <TimCole> shepazu: still reading through this issue
16:25:28 <TimCole> bigbluehat: summarizing: we have a created property on Annotation, proposal is to add an additional property to express last modified date in order to record changes
16:25:45 <TimCole> shepazu: effectively date created and date modified
16:26:10 <TimCole> bigbluehat: standard date format, as used in html 5
16:26:57 <TimCole> bigbluehat: my proposal would defer to later call the discussion about annotations that have been moved and how to associate replies and so on as annotations move
16:27:28 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96
16:27:33 <TimCole> shepazu: okay, fine with proposal to add date modified and defer movement of annotations
16:27:51 <ivan> +1
16:27:53 <bigbluehat> +1
16:28:05 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:28:31 <fjh> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:28:39 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96
16:28:42 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
16:28:42 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-28-42
16:29:29 <TimCole> paolo: reason why these got conflated is because once you allow last-modified it does open up multiple related issues
16:30:21 <TimCole> ... so consider a case where annotation is created offline on reader, then it gets transfered to my desktop, then I edit the annotation, then I put it on the Web so how is this handled as to created / modified.
16:30:34 <ivan> q+
16:30:58 <TimCole> ... there now may be multiple copies of the annotation, different even though they appear to have the same URI.
16:30:59 <shepazu> q+
16:31:16 <fjh> Topic: Annotation updated timestamp/alsoKnownAs,  `id` / `uuid`, alsoKnownAs, offline annotations
16:31:43 <TimCole> ivan: we are on a new topic -- these need to be in a new issue(s)
16:32:31 <TimCole> ... the whole issue of how identifiers interact with date modified, while important to talk about is separate from what key we use for date modified.
16:32:53 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:32:54 <TimCole> ... there is a concern that this could inflate to a long, range-14 issue
16:33:01 <ivan> ack ivan
16:33:12 <fjh> ack shepazu
16:33:38 <TimCole> shepazu: note, it's useful to think about what updated means in the context of the scenario Paolo raised
16:34:00 <fjh> we probably should start with looking at offline annotations, how to identify and relate to online annotations
16:34:02 <TimCole> ... does updated mean that the annotation published somewhere else or does it mean that the content of the annotation changed?
16:34:07 <fjh> this should be its own issue
16:34:16 <TimCole> ... personally I think it should be more about the latter
16:34:27 <fjh> semantics are at the application layer?
16:34:33 <fjh> q?
16:34:34 <ivan> +1 to doug
16:34:54 <TimCole> ... and the issue of 2 people refering to the same URI but meaning different annotations is probably not something this WG can solve
16:35:23 <TimCole> paolo: it has to be crystal clear what we mean when we change the date modified
16:35:28 <fjh> versioning is another issue, e.g. what happens if a typo if fixed in an annotation
16:36:07 <ivan> q+
16:36:12 <ivan> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:36:13 <TimCole> ... if you take an annotation that exists and it's not your annotation, you should not change it and then republished with the same URI - bad practice
16:36:38 <TimCole> ... so we should provide guidance like this explicitly when defining purpose and use of date published
16:36:50 <TimCole> shepazu: totally agree
16:37:05 <fjh> use case for discussion - annotation sharing
16:37:05 <TimCole> ... this has relevance for how we talk about sharing in our specs
16:37:23 <bigbluehat> let's make more issues ^_^
16:37:31 <fjh> ack ivan
16:37:34 <fjh> q+
16:37:43 <TimCole> ivan: wondering how best to move forward on this
16:38:20 <TimCole> ... if my understanding of what Paolo is saying, then we probably need some non-normative text in spec (since we can't check it)
16:38:33 <TimCole> ... could Paolo come up with samples of what that text might look like
16:38:55 <TimCole> paolo: yes, that's an appropriate way to go, but may need to resolve issue 21 first?
16:39:24 <TimCole> ivan: it may be just as valid to come up with the text first to provide a framework for how we address issue 21.
16:39:50 <TimCole> ... this may help keep us from going into an infinite loop over issue 21.
16:39:56 <TimCole> paolo: oaky.
16:39:56 <bigbluehat> +1 to getting it all written up somewhere soon
16:40:03 <TimCole> s /oaky/okay/
16:40:25 <fjh> ack q?
16:40:27 <fjh> q-
16:40:35 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:40:50 <TimCole> fjh: how does this all relate to the offline / online issues when creating annotations?
16:40:54 <fjh> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:41:06 <TimCole> bigbluehat: yes, we need to address this
16:41:11 <bigbluehat> agree with where PaoloCiccarese is heading ;)
16:41:19 <bigbluehat> it's shepazu's "sharing" scenarios also
16:41:30 <bigbluehat> "movement of annotations around (and off/on) the Web"
16:41:57 <TimCole> paolo: but I also think about annotation storage, repositories, but once in storage someone can now re-publish and do things with these annotations
16:42:19 <bigbluehat> +1 to what PaoloCiccarese just said
16:42:32 <fjh> q+
16:42:34 <TimCole> ... so this is where problem of identity comes in and where being explicity about what can be  / should be done with annotations that have been aggregated / stored.
16:42:45 <TimCole> shepazu: yes, this is an important issue.
16:43:20 <TimCole> paolo: saying that offline / online is not a complete characterization.
16:44:21 <fjh> online annotations can also go offline, be collected etc, leading to similar issues
16:44:23 <TimCole> ... once annotations that have been online go into storage they may not be retrievable and if I do things to the annotation while in storage (url is now uri) and then republish, I may create problems
16:44:33 <TimCole> ... so this is more than just update / modify
16:45:11 <TimCole> shepazu: it's deeper than just sharing, we need to address (at least talk about these scenarios)
16:45:20 <fjh> number of possibilites where URL cannot be used, purchased annotations, collected etc
16:45:28 <TimCole> ivan: can anything be put into the standard that would normatively control what's allowed?
16:46:37 <TimCole> paolo: not a lot without becoming infinitely complex, but we still need to address in a non-normative way
16:46:53 <shepazu> q+
16:46:56 <fjh> q-
16:47:04 <TimCole> ivan: for example this is main reason why provenance model is so complex
16:47:16 <TimCole> paolo: yes, this was my experience on Domeo
16:47:35 <fjh> ack shepazu
16:47:47 <TimCole> ... when you consider semantics it gets even more complex
16:48:11 <TimCole> ... happy to cut the normative part as thin as possible, but having non-normative will help
16:48:15 <fjh> +1
16:48:44 <TimCole> shepazu: would like to add that just because we can't control what someone does out in the wild, doesn't mean we can't make the spec on this normative
16:49:06 <fjh> doug makes valuable point that conformance target could be authoring tool
16:49:08 <TimCole> ... it's a conformance criteria on the authoring tool (rather than just the model itself)
16:49:24 <fjh> q?
16:49:27 <TimCole> ... it will help people know (or be told) that they are doing it wrong.
16:49:58 <TimCole> ivan: the example for what you suggest is the normative text on how you are supposed to use the data- attributes in HTML 5
16:50:10 <TimCole> ... I think these are normative, but may not be testable.
16:50:19 <TimCole> paolo: I would be okay with that approach.
16:50:28 <fjh> +1 to doug
16:51:05 <TimCole> shepazu: we have different conformance criteria for different agents, so we should be okay as long as we make clear conformance is on the authoring agents.
16:51:24 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
16:51:31 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 11 Nov approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/att-0203/minutes-2015-11-11.html
16:52:47 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 11 Nov approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/att-0203/minutes-2015-11-11.html
16:52:52 <fjh> Topic: Meetings
16:53:58 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: No call next 25 Nov (US Thanksgiving)
16:54:06 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: No call next 25 Nov (US Thanksgiving)
16:54:35 <fjh> Topic: Other Business
16:54:59 <TimCole> shepazu: talking with browser vendors about potential implementation of our data model
16:55:04 <fjh> Doug, Ivan can help with call after next week
16:55:11 <TimCole> ... also reaching out to content vendors
16:55:15 <TimCole> q+
16:55:25 <fjh> ack TimCole
16:55:52 <TimCole> adjourn
16:55:56 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:56:30 <ivan> Present+ takeshi
16:56:39 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:56:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:56:55 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:56:55 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:56:55 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been shepazu, Frederick_Hirsch, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Paolo_Ciccarese, dinesh, takeshi
16:57:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:57:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:57:04 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:57:04 <RRSAgent> I see no action items