IRC log of annotation on 2016-03-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:43:46 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:43:46 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-irc
15:43:48 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:43:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
15:43:50 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:43:51 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:43:51 [trackbot]
Date: 11 March 2016
15:44:23 [ivan]
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0045.html
15:44:43 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
15:44:54 [azaroth]
trackbot, start meeting
15:44:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:44:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
15:44:58 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:44:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:44:59 [trackbot]
Date: 11 March 2016
15:45:11 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:45:20 [azaroth]
Chair: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole
15:45:31 [azaroth]
Regrets+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:56:08 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
15:57:08 [Jacob]
Jacob has joined #annotation
15:57:46 [bigbluehat]
Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:58:02 [Jacob]
Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:58:22 [TimCole]
Present+ Tim_Cole
15:58:35 [azaroth]
azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Mar/0045.html
16:01:16 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:01:50 [dwhly]
Present+ Dan_whaley
16:02:03 [tbdinesh]
Present+ TB_Dinesh
16:02:29 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
16:02:55 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:03:15 [ivan]
Present+ Ivan
16:03:21 [bjdmeest]
Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:03:25 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Scribe selection, agenda, announcements?
16:03:43 [azaroth]
scribenick: Jacob
16:03:43 [TimCole]
scribenick: Jacob
16:04:12 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Meeting time
16:04:21 [Jacob]
Topic: next meeting time
16:04:23 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
16:04:47 [Jacob]
TimCole: us/canada time is going to be the same and europe 1 hour earlier
16:04:50 [tilgovi]
Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:05:06 [Jacob]
ivan: european time will be one hour earlier for the next two weeks
16:05:13 [takeshi]
takeshi has joined #annotation
16:05:24 [Jacob]
... not sure about how this affects Japane (maybe takeshi can say)
16:05:42 [takeshi]
Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:05:57 [tbdinesh]
we wil all be 1hr earlier.. which is not bad
16:06:04 [Jacob]
TimCole: everyone on the call is now aware, this is the plan for the next two weeks, will be noted in the next couple of agendas
16:07:02 [Jacob]
takeshi: no daylight saving time in japan, so will be starting at midnight until the fall. will be better (than 1 AM)
16:07:13 [Kyrce]
Kyrce has joined #annotation
16:07:19 [Jacob]
Topic: Minutes approval
16:07:20 [TimCole]
https://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html
16:07:39 [Jacob]
TimCole: any objections, corrections etc.?
16:07:46 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:07:49 [TimCole]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html
16:07:56 [azaroth]
+1
16:08:05 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/03/04-annotation-minutes.html
16:08:32 [Jacob]
TimCole: ivan you mentioned a concern about the next topic now, waiting for some feedback from the w3c
16:08:44 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Issue: IRI / URI / URL
16:08:44 [PaoloCiccarese]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:09:05 [Jacob]
ivan: feedback is 'yes, it's a mess', so for moving on let's proceed, can look again if the masses desire
16:09:26 [Jacob]
azaroth: proposal is that we should follow the specs we're building on
16:09:28 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/183
16:09:40 [shepazu]
q+
16:09:41 [Jacob]
... as takeshi notes json-ld and ttl use iri's
16:10:12 [Jacob]
... the proposal is to use iri's, will put an explanation in the introduction(?) that explains what that means
16:10:30 [Jacob]
TimCole: is the concern that iri's require more escaping (of characters)
16:10:55 [TimCole]
q?
16:11:11 [Jacob]
azaroth: as ivan says it's a mess; in recent specs though uri is not really used, is usally url or (more recently) iri
16:11:34 [TimCole]
ack shep
16:11:42 [Jacob]
... iri gives a nice algorithm to conform with (voice fades out...)
16:12:04 [Jacob]
shepazu: the direction of other w3c specs in the future seems to be url
16:12:21 [takeshi]
q+
16:12:25 [Jacob]
... shouldn't dwell on this but should have space to revisit on we move to CR and get feedback
16:12:36 [TimCole]
ack take
16:12:37 [Jacob]
... feedback may indicate that the decision needs to be revisited
16:12:56 [Jacob]
takeshi: found that each browser deals with urls differently
16:13:05 [azaroth]
s/(voice fades out...)/unicode and transformation back to percent encoded form/
16:13:07 [Jacob]
... will summarize the differences on github
16:13:17 [azaroth]
+1 to Takeshi :)
16:13:24 [TimCole]
q?
16:13:30 [Jacob]
... will need that information in the document
16:13:36 [shepazu]
+1 to takeshi
16:13:46 [TimCole]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Go with IRI, make necessary changes in docs, revisit when more information
16:13:54 [azaroth]
+1
16:14:00 [tbdinesh]
+1
16:14:03 [tilgovi]
+0
16:14:04 [takeshi]
+1
16:14:06 [ivan]
+1
16:14:09 [Jacob]
+1
16:14:12 [PaoloCiccarese]
+0
16:14:31 [Jacob]
TimCole: should we change to editorial for now or close
16:14:37 [Jacob]
azaroth: change to editorial
16:14:39 [bigbluehat]
+1
16:14:52 [bjdmeest]
+1
16:14:52 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Go with IRI, make necessary changes in docs, revisit when more information
16:14:53 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:14:53 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-irc#T16-14-53
16:15:10 [TimCole]
Topic: Issue 184 https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/184
16:15:26 [davis_salisbury]
davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
16:15:35 [davis_salisbury]
Present+ davis_salisbury
16:15:38 [Jacob]
TimCole: linking collections to target
16:15:48 [Jacob]
azaroth: this came up in another community using annotations
16:16:23 [Jacob]
... if you have a collection of annotations that is a list, even if you have a queryable endpoint, it remains complex to find the targets in the collection
16:16:36 [Jacob]
... suggested inclusion of a list of included targets
16:16:45 [mete_pinar]
mete_pinar has joined #annotation
16:17:02 [Jacob]
... would allow consumers the ability to decide if the collection is something they want to consume or skip over
16:17:21 [Kyrce]
Present+ Kyrce_Swenson
16:17:29 [Jacob]
... wanted to raise it since it came up in the aaa community
16:17:41 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
16:17:53 [TimCole]
ack paolo
16:17:58 [Jacob]
TimCole: reason to do is if this a common enough use case to be needed in the core
16:18:24 [Jacob]
PaoloCiccarese: can we add things to the collections?
16:18:48 [Jacob]
... not sure who would use this right now
16:18:50 [TimCole]
q?
16:19:13 [Jacob]
azaroth: at the moment have extensions and vocab, so could add it as an example to the extensions doc
16:19:14 [shepazu]
s/aaa community/IIIF community/
16:20:00 [Jacob]
TimCole: proposing a resolution calling this use case out as an example, can be revisited
16:20:11 [TimCole]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add an informative note in extension section calling this use case as an example, if need be later would be revisited.
16:20:17 [PaoloCiccarese]
+1
16:20:19 [azaroth]
+1
16:20:21 [Jacob]
+1
16:20:27 [davis_salisbury]
+1
16:20:30 [ivan]
+1
16:20:33 [takeshi]
+1
16:20:44 [Kyrce]
+1
16:20:56 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Add an informative note in extension section calling this use case as an example, if need be later would be revisited.
16:20:58 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:20:58 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-irc#T16-20-58
16:21:30 [Jacob]
TimCole: last two discussions will probably take around 20 minutes each
16:21:39 [TimCole]
Topic: Conformance https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/165
16:22:18 [Jacob]
ivan: only started the conformance discussion from an editorial point of view
16:22:38 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
16:23:06 [Jacob]
... two or three meetings ago, related to selectors, question came up as to whether every conformant implementation of the model is supposed to implement selectors or not
16:23:32 [Jacob]
... easy from the spec point of view to say, must implement everything in the model, but not so easy in practice
16:24:17 [PaoloCiccarese]
q-
16:24:17 [Jacob]
... need to identify groups of features in the model and define conformance levels for each group
16:24:23 [shepazu]
q+
16:24:40 [Jacob]
... for example two levels, basic and full, then decide what basic must implement
16:24:51 [Jacob]
... a traditional approach to conformance
16:25:01 [Jacob]
... the danger and complication is that this affects testing
16:25:08 [Jacob]
... need separate tests fro each profile
16:25:22 [Jacob]
... so defining and specifying them now is important
16:25:42 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
16:25:45 [Jacob]
TimCole: resource issue of who will identify and break the features into categories and then the testing
16:25:49 [TimCole]
ack shep
16:26:21 [Jacob]
shepazu: idea of profiles is not how modern specs work
16:26:54 [Jacob]
... specs that are browser-facing do not use profiles
16:27:08 [Jacob]
... tend to define a global spec and then extend with additional specs
16:27:16 [bigbluehat]
in JavaScript & HTML focused browser bits?
16:27:20 [Jacob]
... profiles not being done, might be done in other domains
16:27:23 [bigbluehat]
or also in document formats?
16:27:29 [uskudarli]
uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:27:45 [Jacob]
... skeptical that profiles will be helpful, leads to incompatibility by design
16:28:05 [ivan]
q+
16:28:33 [azaroth]
q+ to note https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#profiles
16:28:41 [Jacob]
... are we talking about a client that generates an annotation, a server that interprets an annotation, etc. -- conformance would be helpful and reasonable for behavior categories
16:28:51 [bigbluehat]
As long as a "level 1" client can consume a "level 2" document without breaking, what's the issue?
16:29:09 [bigbluehat]
I can open HTML5 documents in Navigator 2.0 and still read it ^_^
16:29:16 [TimCole]
ack paolo
16:29:24 [Jacob]
TimCole: so more about if/how we break down features
16:29:57 [Jacob]
PaoloCiccarese: there are core things that I have to implement and maybe some things that I don't need
16:30:25 [Jacob]
... if I implement the basic level, then a la carte several optional ones
16:31:24 [ivan]
q?
16:31:25 [Jacob]
... is it better to have a basic core and then optional extra features that we'd be happy if everyone implemented
16:31:40 [bigbluehat]
no. it's just well designed :)
16:32:10 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:32:15 [Jacob]
shepazu: how we figure what needs to be in or out of the core can be based on implementations
16:32:58 [Jacob]
ivan: to be clear, not married to profiles idea, but the approach suggested by Paolo is even worse
16:33:19 [Jacob]
... don't want to have to test across multiple browsers (like with html 5)(
16:33:39 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
16:33:46 [TimCole]
ack azaroth
16:33:46 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to note https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS/#profiles
16:34:01 [Jacob]
... defining what we expect from them as a behavior, if we don't want profiles, would be fine with a single core model
16:34:17 [shepazu]
q+
16:34:25 [shepazu]
q+ to address CSS
16:34:31 [Jacob]
azaroth: wanted to point out the profiles are being used in CSS
16:34:35 [TimCole]
ack paolo
16:34:52 [Jacob]
PaoloCiccarese: not a new concept, have discussed this many, many times in the CG
16:34:59 [azaroth]
And also at the Santa Clara TPAC
16:35:10 [Jacob]
... called it extnesions and then not extensions, and went back and forth
16:35:20 [uskudarli]
uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:35:34 [Jacob]
... in our case we don't have a minimum bar, we just say this is the spec, and not everyone implements everything
16:36:18 [Jacob]
TimCole: recalling from the CG, not all implementors want to implement every selector and say that they implement some of the basic ones but not the more exotic ones
16:36:39 [ivan]
q?
16:36:43 [TimCole]
ack shepazu
16:36:43 [Zakim]
shepazu, you wanted to address CSS
16:36:52 [Jacob]
PaoloCiccarese: something like this, was related to collections of selected and recall that the CG had multiple levels
16:37:48 [Jacob]
shepazu: regarding css, it's an older spec, started before modern practices took hold
16:38:11 [Jacob]
... is also extremely large, is nearly impossible to implement every combination
16:38:33 [Jacob]
... many of its issues are related to differences in platforms (e.g., mobiles, etc.)
16:39:01 [TimCole]
q?
16:39:08 [Jacob]
... reason for css profiles are due to hardware considerations and not software related
16:39:43 [ivan]
q+
16:39:49 [Jacob]
... in the case of the json-ld that we have, think that breaking it down would undercut its implementation
16:40:13 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:40:26 [Jacob]
ivan: don't see a reason to cut the spec into sub-pieces
16:40:49 [Jacob]
... propose we say that conformant implementations must implement what is there
16:40:53 [azaroth]
q+
16:41:01 [Jacob]
... not so huge as to need a piecemeal approach
16:41:41 [Jacob]
... will likely need other types of conformance criteria, e.g., for server, client, etc. behaviors
16:41:49 [Jacob]
... a different dimension
16:41:56 [TimCole]
ack azaroth
16:42:09 [Jacob]
shepazu: agree, should be separated according to class of agent rather than portion of model
16:43:18 [Jacob]
azaroth: so if have an annotation client that only works for images (e.g., flickr), does that implementation need to implement the css and text selectors to be conformant, or does it only need to implement the svg (and other image specific) selectors in order to conform
16:43:20 [ivan]
q+
16:43:27 [azaroth]
q+
16:43:37 [Jacob]
shepazu: need to functionally break it down around what it is doing
16:43:46 [Jacob]
... is the client generating annotations
16:44:02 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:44:19 [Jacob]
ivan: seems like the issues are around selectors
16:44:28 [Jacob]
... doesn't seem like the basic model is at issue
16:44:47 [Jacob]
... can have performance criteria based on the media types that the particular implementation handles
16:44:58 [Jacob]
... e.g., only images and not other media types
16:45:22 [Jacob]
... may mean that selectors x, y, z, are not relevant to the implementatoin
16:45:32 [Jacob]
... need a way to describe that
16:45:41 [Jacob]
... it becomes a dimension of conformance criteria
16:46:12 [Jacob]
... similar to css in that the criteria are around specific media types
16:46:17 [TimCole]
ack azaroth
16:46:29 [Jacob]
... whereas a general purpose client would need to implement everything
16:46:58 [Jacob]
azaroth: need to clarify section 4
16:47:08 [TimCole]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Conformance section will be boilerplate adding notes that conformance for selectors will depend on media types and for rest on class of agent (server, client, ...)
16:47:50 [ivan]
q+
16:47:58 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:48:09 [Jacob]
ivan: think that we should be a little more precise than just notes
16:48:31 [azaroth]
+1 to Ivan
16:48:53 [Jacob]
... have some well-defined lists or tables that e.g., say what selectors need to be implemented in relation to which media types
16:49:23 [TimCole]
q?
16:49:23 [davis_salisbury]
+1
16:49:25 [ivan]
Proposed Resolution: Conformance section will be defined by listing the required selector/states per media types for various classes of agents (server, client)
16:49:36 [TimCole]
+1
16:49:36 [azaroth]
+1
16:49:39 [ivan]
+1
16:49:40 [bjdmeest]
+1
16:49:45 [PaoloCiccarese]
+1
16:49:46 [davis_salisbury]
+1 again thanks
16:49:47 [Jacob]
+1
16:49:48 [takeshi]
+1
16:49:49 [tbdinesh]
+1
16:49:51 [shepazu]
0
16:49:53 [Jacob]
Resolution: Conformance section will be defined by listing the required selector/states per media types for various classes of agents (server, client)
16:49:59 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
16:49:59 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-irc#T16-49-59
16:50:09 [Jacob]
TimCole: should be able to change this to editorial
16:50:31 [Jacob]
... will post a new issue so that those not on call will be able to think about this
16:50:35 [shepazu]
(I'm still concerned that this means we're begging for lack of interoperability)
16:50:49 [Jacob]
ivan: need a clear proposal about what these categories are
16:51:11 [Jacob]
... leave issue as is, someone come up with a clear proposal moving forward
16:51:37 [Jacob]
TimCole: will leave open and wait for the editors to come back with more concrete text
16:51:46 [Jacob]
azaroth: or anyone else as well
16:51:54 [TimCole]
Topic: Testing
16:52:07 [shepazu]
q+
16:52:30 [TimCole]
ack shepazu
16:52:35 [Jacob]
TimCole: need someone other than the spec writers to help or take lead on testing
16:54:01 [Jacob]
shepazu: will need another testing lead (old one has switched jobs)
16:54:19 [Jacob]
TimCole: any volunteers?
16:54:28 [shepazu]
s/will need another testing lead (old one has switched jobs)/will need another testing lead/
16:55:40 [ivan]
q+
16:55:45 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:55:54 [Jacob]
... what else are folks concerned about that need to be on upcoming agendas?
16:56:05 [Jacob]
ivan: when can we push out the next release of the document
16:56:35 [Jacob]
... document must go through a bunch of horizontal reviews at w3c
16:56:42 [Jacob]
... need feedback from other groups
16:56:53 [Jacob]
... conformance doesn't seem very simple
16:57:10 [Jacob]
... should we try to get the documents out quickly by leaving conformance open for now?
16:57:46 [Jacob]
azaroth: most of the remaining issues that aren't marked as postpone are either done or will be closed through call actions
16:57:56 [shepazu]
(conformance is the most important part of a spec… I'm confused what Ivan is suggesting)
16:58:04 [Jacob]
... should go ahead and try to push out the docs as soon as possible
16:58:27 [Jacob]
TimCole: only one I'm concerned about is issue #19/#119
16:58:42 [Jacob]
... those are already marked as postpone
16:58:49 [Jacob]
... do we need to resolve first?
16:59:04 [Jacob]
azaroth: those are both big, time-consuming questions
16:59:29 [Jacob]
TimCole: comfortable leaving those for later, how those get addressed may ultimately be controversial
16:59:48 [Jacob]
ivan: both issues have not discussed in many months (since like December)
17:00:03 [Jacob]
... not sure that they will be properly closed
17:00:13 [shepazu]
s/#19/#19 (Client can't determine if user has authorization to modify annotation)/
17:00:44 [shepazu]
s/#119/#119 (How do we model "groups" in the Annotation model?)/
17:01:07 [Jacob]
... need feedback from other groups
17:01:23 [Jacob]
... good to have a document that says the technical design is done
17:02:23 [azaroth]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/
17:03:04 [Jacob]
azaroth: should be able to get model, protocol, and vocab docs in order, however vocab docs only has a few diagrams so will remove the existing ones and add diagrams later
17:03:27 [Jacob]
... will take them out for the near term publication and then put them in for CR
17:03:58 [Jacob]
ivan: should put in an editorial note rather than remove the existing diagrams
17:04:56 [Jacob]
azaroth: cfc via email to try and publish it by next Thursday?
17:05:01 [Jacob]
ivan: if possible, will be great
17:05:13 [Jacob]
... but moratorium begins soon
17:05:49 [Jacob]
... more comfortable to aim for publication in 3 weeks or so rather than next week
17:05:57 [Jacob]
TimCole: adjourn
17:06:20 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:06:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:06:37 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
17:06:37 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:06:37 [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,
17:06:40 [Zakim]
... Ben_De_Meester, Chris_Birk, TB_Dinesh, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Dan_Whaley, Susan, Uskudarli, !, Nick_Stenning, Suzan_Uskudarli, 0, Kyrce_Swenson
17:06:45 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:06:45 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/03/11-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
17:06:46 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:06:46 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items