IRC log of annotation on 2016-03-04
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:44:24 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #annotation
- 15:44:24 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc
- 15:44:26 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:44:28 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 2666
- 15:44:28 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
- 15:44:29 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
- 15:44:29 [trackbot]
- Date: 04 March 2016
- 15:44:51 [ivan]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUEFmryvoUFvg-4O2WfiOwr_0LSi1yJ5fxB20HBdhEeXng@mail.gmail.com
- 15:45:02 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUEFmryvoUFvg-4O2WfiOwr_0LSi1yJ5fxB20HBdhEeXng@mail.gmail.com
- 15:45:14 [ivan]
- Chair: Rob
- 15:46:32 [azaroth]
- azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0005.html
- 15:46:47 [azaroth]
- Present+ Rob_Sanderson
- 15:58:04 [TimCole_]
- TimCole_ has joined #annotation
- 15:58:31 [fjh]
- fjh has joined #annotation
- 15:59:21 [dwhly]
- +Present Dan_Whaley
- 16:00:07 [fjh]
- Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
- 16:00:58 [bjdmeest]
- bjdmeest has joined #annotation
- 16:01:20 [dwhly]
- Present+ Dan_Whaley
- 16:01:21 [bjdmeest]
- Present+ Ben_De_Meester
- 16:02:05 [azaroth]
- Regrets+ Nick_Stenning
- 16:02:07 [TimCole_]
- Present+ Tim_Cole
- 16:02:36 [tilgovi]
- tilgovi has joined #annotation
- 16:04:03 [azaroth]
- scribenick: bigbluehat
- 16:04:07 [tilgovi]
- Present+ Randall_Leeds
- 16:04:09 [azaroth]
- scribe: Benjamin_Young
- 16:04:16 [bigbluehat]
- Present+ Benjamin_Young
- 16:04:18 [ivan]
- Present+ Ivan
- 16:04:31 [takeshi]
- takeshi has joined #annotation
- 16:04:51 [PaoloCiccarese]
- PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
- 16:05:04 [tbdinesh]
- tbdinesh has joined #Annotation
- 16:05:27 [bigbluehat]
- Agenda: announcement, chairs discussion, and a handful of issues https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0005.html
- 16:06:00 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: are there any other issues important to discuss not represented on the agenda?
- 16:06:12 [bigbluehat]
- ...k. we'll run with what we have
- 16:06:17 [bigbluehat]
- ...announcements
- 16:06:23 [dwhly]
- +q
- 16:06:26 [bigbluehat]
- ...other than the chairing conversation are there others?
- 16:06:48 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: at this moment there are 10 people registered with a 'wish to come' to the face to face
- 16:07:03 [bigbluehat]
- ...if there are others who want to come, please register
- 16:07:14 [bigbluehat]
- ...last week I sent a list of hotels
- 16:07:21 [bigbluehat]
- ...they're also linked from the iannotate.org site
- 16:07:23 [takeshi]
- Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
- 16:08:01 [bigbluehat]
- ...make reservations soon to avoid extra expenses
- 16:08:09 [azaroth]
- ack dwhly
- 16:08:36 [bigbluehat]
- dwhly: we have put a program committee together for I Annotate 2016
- 16:08:40 [bigbluehat]
- ...you can see it on the site
- 16:08:50 [bigbluehat]
- ...please send in submissions for talks if you'd like to give one
- 16:08:57 [bigbluehat]
- ...sometime in the next week would be great
- 16:09:01 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:09:21 [bigbluehat]
- ...Rob, it'd be great if you might make a presentation on the face-to-face output
- 16:09:32 [shepazu]
- present+ shepazu
- 16:09:37 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: any other announcements?
- 16:09:58 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: approving minutes from last time
- 16:10:04 [azaroth]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:10:10 [tbdinesh]
- Present+ tb_dinesh
- 16:10:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...any problems with the minutes?
- 16:10:31 [davis_salisbury]
- davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
- 16:10:35 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/02/26-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:10:37 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: WG Chairing
- 16:10:46 [davis_salisbury]
- Present+ davis_salisbury
- 16:10:51 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: announcement and discussion about working group chairing
- 16:11:31 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: things are busy for fjh and consequently it's hard to do both chairing and keep up with other responsibilities
- 16:11:36 [bigbluehat]
- ...he will still be active in the group
- 16:11:39 [bigbluehat]
- ...but not as a co-chair
- 16:11:49 [shepazu]
- +1 to fjh
- 16:11:50 [bigbluehat]
- ...first of all, we should all thank fjh for his help from the beginning
- 16:11:59 [azaroth]
- Thank you Frederick!
- 16:12:07 [davis_salisbury]
- Thank you!
- 16:12:16 [bigbluehat]
- ...as a replacement for fjh, TimCole_ has accepted the co-chair position
- 16:12:22 [tbdinesh]
- Thank you!
- 16:12:27 [bigbluehat]
- fjh++ :)
- 16:12:44 [bigbluehat]
- ...it has not been more widely announced, as we wanted to tell the WG call first
- 16:12:52 [bigbluehat]
- ...announcement will go out later this week or Monday
- 16:12:56 [fjh]
- Thanks all, congratulations to Tim. I think the group has good chairing going forward!
- 16:13:13 [bigbluehat]
- fjh: just wanted to say congrats Tim and thanks everyone!
- 16:14:00 [bigbluehat]
- TimCole_: the transition should be smooth. I've been here since the beginning, and I'm happy to serve in this capacity
- 16:14:20 [bigbluehat]
- fjh: tnx to ivan shepazu and azaroth and TimCole_ for working through the transition
- 16:14:31 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: my heart felt thanks to you fjh for your dedication and hard work!
- 16:14:33 [fjh]
- Thanks!
- 16:14:33 [bigbluehat]
- ...it's super appreciated
- 16:15:02 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: Issues
- 16:15:19 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: as a note, these issues are the last ones that we have!
- 16:15:33 [bigbluehat]
- ...if we can get through these plus the new one from takeshi, our queue will be clear
- 16:15:44 [bigbluehat]
- ...we'll have to discuss testing, the html serialization, etc.
- 16:15:57 [bigbluehat]
- ...but focusing on the 3 core specifications, this is pretty much it
- 16:16:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...while it's been particularly product to force march through issues, we can reconsider that approach
- 16:16:47 [bigbluehat]
- ...and with TimCole_ as co-chair, it probably makes sense for Tim to take a more active role in the chairing
- 16:16:56 [bigbluehat]
- ...and I would focus more on editorial
- 16:17:02 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110
- 16:17:08 [bigbluehat]
- ...The first issue, is issue 110
- 16:17:38 [azaroth]
- Proposal is: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
- 16:17:43 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: I started this issue....I don't even remember when...based on the recognition
- 16:17:50 [bigbluehat]
- ...that whatever we do here
- 16:18:14 [bigbluehat]
- ...to identify part of a document could be combined with other specifications
- 16:18:23 [bigbluehat]
- ...and would have huge value beyond just annotation
- 16:18:38 [bigbluehat]
- ...if you want to see the use cases, feel free to read through the long discussion
- 16:18:50 [tilgovi_]
- tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
- 16:18:57 [bigbluehat]
- ...this did come in a little bit late, so there's lots of discussion about how to make it happen
- 16:18:59 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:19:03 [bigbluehat]
- ...what we're proposing now is...
- 16:19:12 [bigbluehat]
- ...in terms of the standard, there are very very few changes
- 16:19:18 [bigbluehat]
- ...on the vocab level, very few changes
- 16:19:34 [bigbluehat]
- ...on the vocab level it's mostly resorting how the classes and sub-classes are done
- 16:19:39 [bigbluehat]
- ...so they can be more widely used
- 16:19:59 [bigbluehat]
- ...it's one of the last comments on the issues list
- 16:20:12 [bigbluehat]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
- 16:20:24 [bigbluehat]
- ...there's essentially just some editorial work to be done
- 16:20:54 [bigbluehat]
- ...essentially a cut and paste from the model document
- 16:21:05 [bigbluehat]
- ...but put it in a less-annotation-bound space
- 16:21:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...so others could use them without digging through a recommendation that may not be in their core interest
- 16:21:47 [bigbluehat]
- ...There was a side issue that came up during the discuss
- 16:21:51 [bigbluehat]
- s/discuss/discussion
- 16:22:06 [bigbluehat]
- ...whether it was good to map the selectors into a fragment identifier
- 16:22:10 [bigbluehat]
- ...technically, this is not hard
- 16:22:25 [bigbluehat]
- ...socially, it's very unclear
- 16:22:42 [bigbluehat]
- ...for instance registering a fragment identifier for HTML is not technically possible
- 16:22:49 [bigbluehat]
- ...we would leave that work to future WGs
- 16:22:52 [azaroth]
- +1 to putting it in the note
- 16:23:05 [bigbluehat]
- ...that sums it up. sound right?
- 16:23:09 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: yes.
- 16:23:17 [ivan]
- q?
- 16:23:24 [bigbluehat]
- ...it's basically a best practices document about how to use our work outside of annotation
- 16:23:33 [azaroth]
- ack shepazu
- 16:23:34 [bigbluehat]
- ...the changes come in at the vocab level rather than the model
- 16:23:49 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: while I agree that this could theoretically be useful outside of annotation
- 16:23:58 [bigbluehat]
- ...unless there's really compelling need outside of the group
- 16:24:02 [bigbluehat]
- ...we should do the minimum
- 16:24:13 [bigbluehat]
- ...I don't hear people clamoring to reuse this stuff
- 16:24:26 [bigbluehat]
- ...most people are not going to use more than CSS selectors for their stuff
- 16:24:51 [bigbluehat]
- ...without wider review, then I don't think it makes sense to spend much time on this
- 16:25:09 [TimCole_]
- q+
- 16:25:18 [bigbluehat]
- ...until we have more outside attention on it, I think we should do any substantial work on this...
- 16:25:31 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: since the work is minimal, then I don't think we disagree
- 16:25:53 [bigbluehat]
- ...as for the use cases, on the one hand, there was one big one
- 16:26:01 [bigbluehat]
- ...that certainly was a big use case (by Jacob, I think)
- 16:26:14 [bigbluehat]
- ...when I talked to epub and publishing groups, they would very much like something like this
- 16:26:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...the combination of all these is very powerful
- 16:26:24 [azaroth]
- I suggest not going through the use cases, if Doug is willing to accept that they exist, across communities
- 16:26:32 [bigbluehat]
- ...the current way of selecting things within an eboook is pretty ugly
- 16:26:54 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: I just don't think this is a high priority issue
- 16:27:04 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: than I propose we go along with what's been proposed--which is minimal
- 16:27:10 [ivan]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
- 16:27:26 [bigbluehat]
- ...this is the comment for the specific proposal https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/110#issuecomment-188963956
- 16:27:38 [azaroth]
- ack TimCole_
- 16:27:44 [bigbluehat]
- ...let's go along with that, and coming up with a NOTE is typically not disturbing to the working group
- 16:28:04 [bigbluehat]
- TimCole_: I support the proposal, with the understanding that we should highlight that there's potential for future development here
- 16:28:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...the one class of use cases that are compelling involve multiple selectors
- 16:28:28 [bigbluehat]
- ...that's hard to do in any of the current mish-mash environments
- 16:28:45 [bigbluehat]
- ...applying a sequence or a variation of selectors is currently tricky
- 16:28:49 [bigbluehat]
- ...that's not for us to solve now
- 16:29:01 [bigbluehat]
- ...but noting that it would be good ground for the future seems prudent
- 16:29:01 [uskudarli]
- uskudarli has joined #annotation
- 16:29:05 [shepazu]
- (at this point, use cases are less important than specific requests and commitment from implementers to actually implement these outside of Web Annotations)
- 16:29:09 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:29:22 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: any further thoughts?
- 16:30:18 [bigbluehat]
- ...since GitHub allows issues to be edited, I'll restate the resolution here
- 16:31:10 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: In vocab, split SpecificResource into Annotation / non Annotation specific classes, Selectors and States as associated with the non Annotation specific class; describe the usage in a Note
- 16:31:15 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:31:17 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:31:18 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:31:19 [TimCole_]
- +1
- 16:31:24 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:31:43 [davis_salisbury]
- +1
- 16:31:46 [tbdinesh]
- +1
- 16:31:47 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 16:31:59 [shepazu]
- -0
- 16:32:20 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLUTION: In vocab, split SpecificResource into Annotation / non Annotation specific classes, Selectors and States as associated with the non Annotation specific class; describe the usage in a Note
- 16:32:21 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:32:21 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-32-21
- 16:32:25 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/154
- 16:32:41 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: the next issue is around extension
- 16:32:52 [bigbluehat]
- ...the bulk of the content has already been done
- 16:32:58 [bigbluehat]
- ...we allow for multiple @context's in the text
- 16:32:59 [shepazu]
- *I don't think this should have been prioritized, since it doesn't change our implementations behavior)
- 16:34:02 [bigbluehat]
- ...we will liberally crib from the extension section from the ActivityStreams document
- 16:34:18 [bigbluehat]
- ...to help folks looking to extend the model a place to find this content
- 16:34:26 [bigbluehat]
- ...in general, how does that seem?
- 16:34:52 [TimCole_]
- +1 to having extension section in vocab
- 16:34:53 [bigbluehat]
- ...The vocabulary section seems to be the right place to do it
- 16:35:00 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:35:02 [bigbluehat]
- ...how do we feel about those things?
- 16:35:14 [shepazu]
- s/TOPIC:/TOPIC: Extension Capacity /
- 16:35:52 [bigbluehat]
- ...k. we can turn that into an editorial issue and review that once it's done
- 16:35:59 [bigbluehat]
- ...and...I seem to have confused two issues
- 16:36:13 [bigbluehat]
- ...there's also an issue of I18N of values in an annotation
- 16:36:19 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: let's close this one firt
- 16:36:23 [bigbluehat]
- s/firt/firt
- 16:36:30 [bigbluehat]
- s/firt/first
- 16:36:40 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: Add extension section to vocab not model, proposing the use of multiple json-ld contexts
- 16:36:43 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:36:44 [shepazu]
- (extensions are fine, but let's not pretend we haven't committed the spec to JSON-LD / RDF already)
- 16:36:46 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:36:47 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 16:36:47 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:36:52 [TimCole_]
- +1
- 16:36:54 [shepazu]
- + 0
- 16:36:55 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:36:57 [davis_salisbury]
- +1
- 16:37:03 [tbdinesh]
- +1
- 16:37:13 [tilgovi]
- +1
- 16:37:22 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:37:22 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-37-22
- 16:37:46 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLUTION: Add extension section to vocab not model, proposing the use of multiple json-ld contexts
- 16:38:04 [azaroth]
- I18n issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/154#issuecomment-191421726
- 16:38:40 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: currently, the model only has the text of the Body for humans to read--and we have I18N support here already
- 16:38:55 [bigbluehat]
- ...so my thinking is that this is an extension problem--not a model problem
- 16:39:33 [bigbluehat]
- ...it would be sufficient to say, this is an extension issue and we use JSON-LD for extension, so do it that way
- 16:39:37 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:39:42 [azaroth]
- ack ivan
- 16:39:43 [bigbluehat]
- ...or we can recommend a patter, and give the rationale for that
- 16:40:12 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: if we push it on the JSON-LD side, then implementations may miss it because they'll be focused on the model document
- 16:40:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...or we are completely silent on it
- 16:40:27 [bigbluehat]
- ...we don't have any 3rd choice, I think
- 16:40:30 [TimCole_]
- q+
- 16:40:33 [azaroth]
- ack TimCole_
- 16:40:41 [bigbluehat]
- ...if we point people to JSON-LD the ground seems a bit shaky
- 16:40:53 [bigbluehat]
- TimCole_: ivan how is this being address by other groups?
- 16:41:03 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: we had that in the CSV metadata
- 16:41:13 [bigbluehat]
- ...which defines a JSON format which is JSON-LD compatible
- 16:41:20 [azaroth]
- Activity Streams does the map version: https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#naturalLanguageValues
- 16:41:35 [bigbluehat]
- ...we essentially adopted one specific approach in the equivalent "model" type document
- 16:41:54 [bigbluehat]
- TimCole_: the patterns that azaroth indicated, would we put that in vocab? and then model would talk about it?
- 16:42:10 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: no, the 'label' bit was from the example use case given
- 16:42:30 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: oh. well that's....since we don't have a label, then we don't need this
- 16:42:34 [shepazu]
- +1 to ivan
- 16:42:34 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: right. it's only for extension
- 16:42:47 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: then it's irrelevant
- 16:43:06 [bigbluehat]
- ...we talk about extension, then specific implementations would do it that way
- 16:43:26 [bigbluehat]
- ...they can use that by whatever means, and they would document how to use those extensions, and this thing here would be part of that extension documentation
- 16:43:31 [bigbluehat]
- ...but not part of our document in any way
- 16:43:54 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:43:55 [bigbluehat]
- TimCole_: the only concern I have is that there may be multiple I18N extensions
- 16:44:06 [azaroth]
- ack shepazu
- 16:44:07 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: that's a common problem with extensions--it's just how it is...
- 16:44:24 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: sorry, I was taking myself off the queue, I was agreeing with ivan
- 16:44:41 [bigbluehat]
- ...we at least avoid name space collisions by using JSON-LD
- 16:44:53 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: I'm putting in a proposal that we'll remain silent on it
- 16:45:00 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: Remain silent about i18n of extension properties, as it is covered by JSON-LD already
- 16:45:02 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:45:03 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:45:06 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:45:06 [davis_salisbury]
- +1
- 16:45:08 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:45:09 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 16:45:14 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 16:45:17 [tbdinesh]
- +1
- 16:45:36 [shepazu]
- (it's not "covered by JSON-LD already", it's simply not addressed)
- 16:46:00 [shepazu]
- (it's lumped in with any other extensions)
- 16:46:10 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:46:10 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-46-10
- 16:46:16 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLUTION: Remain silent about i18n of extension properties, as it is covered by JSON-LD already
- 16:46:22 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/174
- 16:46:44 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: you still have editorial work to do for extensions, yeah?
- 16:46:47 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: definitely
- 16:46:56 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: I'll leave the issue opent hen
- 16:47:01 [bigbluehat]
- s/opent hen/open then
- 16:47:09 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: 174 is a protocol need
- 16:47:27 [bigbluehat]
- ...a relationship to go into the link headers for HTTP response to point to a service where you can send annotations to
- 16:47:46 [bigbluehat]
- ...in order to have a readable relation--called a "rel type"--we need to register it with IANA
- 16:47:46 [shepazu]
- s/TOPIC:/ TOPIC: Document annotation service endpoint rel /
- 16:47:52 [bigbluehat]
- ...in order to do that, we have to have a URI
- 16:48:16 [bigbluehat]
- ...currently, it's in the name space of the vocabulary
- 16:48:53 [bigbluehat]
- ...are there any objections to putting the concept of the service into the vocabulary which otherwise serves the model
- 16:49:02 [bigbluehat]
- ...to avoid creating a namespace just for this piece
- 16:49:04 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:49:09 [azaroth]
- ack shepazu
- 16:49:31 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: I don't have objections to it
- 16:49:40 [bigbluehat]
- ...I was reading a document that was using the `oa` namespace
- 16:49:55 [bigbluehat]
- ...our spec is different than Open Annotation
- 16:50:06 [bigbluehat]
- ...there are people using it for the last year or two
- 16:50:15 [bigbluehat]
- ...since we changed that, shouldn't we change the namespace?
- 16:50:24 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: this was handled in issue #53
- 16:50:28 [azaroth]
- github: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/53
- 16:50:31 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: when was that resolved
- 16:50:54 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: can we close the current 174
- 16:51:08 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: I've no objection to the current issue
- 16:51:29 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: Use the ontology namespace for the prefix of the annotation service "rel" for link header references
- 16:51:37 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:51:39 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:51:40 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:51:45 [davis_salisbury]
- +1
- 16:51:58 [Tbdinesh_]
- Tbdinesh_ has joined #Annotation
- 16:52:03 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:52:36 [TimCole_]
- +1
- 16:52:41 [fjh]
- +1
- 16:52:41 [bjdmeest]
- +1
- 16:52:44 [Tbdinesh_]
- +1
- 16:52:48 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLUTION: Use the ontology namespace for the prefix of the annotation service "rel" for link header references
- 16:52:49 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: IRI vs URI - https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/183
- 16:52:49 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:52:49 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-irc#T16-52-49-1
- 16:53:52 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: there's a motion with the WhatWG to use URL even "over" URI or IRI
- 16:54:08 [bigbluehat]
- ...takeshi is correct that the identifiers in JSON-LD and Turtle are expressed as IRI
- 16:54:17 [bigbluehat]
- ...should we then follow those specs?
- 16:54:31 [bigbluehat]
- ...or should we use URI or URL (following WhatWG)
- 16:54:52 [bigbluehat]
- ...the reasoning is that developers may not know when to use % encoded content
- 16:54:56 [bigbluehat]
- ...using IRI makes that clear
- 16:55:26 [bigbluehat]
- takeshi: my understanding is that in the serialization process, we definitely need to transform the model into the serialization format
- 16:55:37 [bigbluehat]
- ...since both the JSON-LD and Turtle use IRI
- 16:55:39 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:55:51 [bigbluehat]
- ...that resource identifiers in the model would become an IRI regardless
- 16:55:52 [shepazu]
- (note that it's not just naming, it's parsing and processing, which is a non-trivial distinction for interop)
- 16:56:15 [azaroth]
- ack ivan
- 16:56:20 [shepazu]
- (changing away from HTML5 URL would be going against the future trend)
- 16:56:22 [bigbluehat]
- ...it would be very helpful to make it clear
- 16:57:03 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: since a URI is a subset of an IRI, then it's perhaps OK to leave it at URI
- 16:57:10 [bigbluehat]
- ...my point is more practical
- 16:57:36 [bigbluehat]
- ...what do you do if you have serialized selectors?
- 16:57:42 [bigbluehat]
- ...will your implementation handle that correctly?
- 16:58:00 [bigbluehat]
- ...will it fail because it is turning a IRI into a URI?
- 16:58:08 [bigbluehat]
- ...with all the dashes, etc.
- 16:58:14 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:58:15 [takeshi]
- q+
- 16:58:18 [azaroth]
- ack takeshi
- 16:58:19 [bigbluehat]
- ...that should be one of the directing issues
- 16:58:22 [shepazu]
- (I think I agree with Ivan)
- 16:58:55 [bigbluehat]
- takeshi: so. when I put JSON-LD into a data store, some are transformed
- 16:59:02 [azaroth]
- +1 to takeshi
- 16:59:03 [bigbluehat]
- ...it becomes very difficult to mix and match
- 16:59:16 [bigbluehat]
- ivan: your implementation accepts IRIs
- 16:59:31 [bigbluehat]
- ...what is the practice out there--say at hypothes.is?
- 16:59:34 [bigbluehat]
- ...that's what I don't know
- 16:59:45 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: does the HTML5 spec address this? or punt?
- 17:00:25 [bigbluehat]
- ...it would be a shame to switch to something that's on it's way out
- 17:00:37 [azaroth]
- https://url.spec.whatwg.org/
- 17:00:39 [bigbluehat]
- ...if it's not addressed in that spec, then I think we should avoid it
- 17:00:48 [tilgovi]
- q+
- 17:01:13 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: they reference 3987 which is IRIs
- 17:01:14 [tilgovi]
- From that spec
- 17:01:20 [bigbluehat]
- ...but they don't say anything about it
- 17:01:24 [tilgovi]
- "Standardize on the term URL. URI and IRI are just confusing."
- 17:01:59 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: this is the important bit https://url.spec.whatwg.org/#idna
- 17:02:08 [bigbluehat]
- ...which defines the encoding for this "new" URL term
- 17:02:09 [tilgovi]
- q-
- 17:02:31 [shepazu]
- http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr46/#ToASCII
- 17:02:51 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: so we are past time
- 17:02:57 [bigbluehat]
- shepazu: can we come back to this next week?
- 17:03:22 [bigbluehat]
- azaroth: please way in on the issue in the meantime
- 17:04:30 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 17:04:30 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html ivan
- 17:04:39 [ivan]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 17:04:39 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 17:04:39 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sandersion, Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, Jacob_Jett, shepazu, davis_salisbury, Paolo_Ciccarese,
- 17:04:42 [Zakim]
- ... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley, Susan, Uskudarli, !, Nick_Stenning, Suzan_Uskudarli, 0
- 17:04:47 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 17:04:47 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
- 17:04:48 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 17:04:48 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items