14:30:17 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:30:17 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc
14:30:19 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:30:19 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:30:21 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:30:21 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:30:22 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:30:22 <trackbot> Date: 27 May 2016
14:30:43 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/083301d1b69e$b062d490$11287db0$@illinois.edu
14:30:52 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/083301d1b69e$b062d490$11287db0$@illinois.edu
14:50:53 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:52:03 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0259.html
14:55:05 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:55:36 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:57:29 <TimCole> present+ Tim_Cole
15:01:00 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:02:26 <ShaneM_> ShaneM_ has joined #annotation
15:02:28 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:03:02 <ShaneM_> present+ ShaneM_
15:03:33 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:03:53 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:04:02 <takeshi> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
15:04:06 <TimCole> https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me422bef2c6690852d7d9a2cf39f591b8
15:04:55 <bjdmeest> scribenick
15:04:59 <bjdmeest> scribenick bjdmeest
15:05:16 <azaroth> scribenick: bjdmeest
15:05:32 <bjdmeest> TimCole: agenda: approve minutes of the F2F, talking about issues, and talk about testing
15:05:43 <ivan> Chair: Tim, Rob
15:06:18 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html, https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:23 <ivan> +1
15:06:29 <bjdmeest> TimCole: minutes are in two parts (two days)
15:06:32 <bjdmeest> ... any concerns?
15:06:35 <TimCole> +1
15:06:44 <bjdmeest> +1
15:06:46 <bigbluehat> +1
15:06:47 <azaroth> +1
15:06:48 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:06:51 <ShaneM_> +1
15:07:02 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/17-annotation-minutes.html, https://www.w3.org/2016/05/18-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:12 <TimCole> Topic: Issues
15:07:34 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+label%3Ai18n-review+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:07:37 <bjdmeest> TimCole: Had good meeting with i18n WG yesterday
15:07:53 <bjdmeest> ... We are down to one i18n issue open, #227
15:08:17 <bjdmeest> ... about reference to text encoding
15:08:53 <bjdmeest> azaroth: #227 is also some editorial changes (lowercase/uppercase naming)
15:09:05 <bjdmeest> ... also, the exact normalization that should occur on the text was not clear
15:09:19 <bjdmeest> ... there was general consensus around code points rather than code units
15:09:29 <bjdmeest> ... i18n will provide some text for us to put in the spec
15:09:35 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
15:09:49 <ivan> Present+ Ivan
15:09:52 <bjdmeest> ... regarding the actual normalization, there was no agreement
15:10:07 <ivan> Present?
15:10:08 <bjdmeest> ... i18n will discuss, and get back to us by next week
15:10:12 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
15:10:12 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan
15:10:15 <Zakim> On IRC I see PaoloCiccarese, tilgovi, takeshi, ShaneM_, bjdmeest, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, dwhly, shepazu, ShaneM, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, csarven, bigbluehat,
15:10:15 <Zakim> ... aaronpk, trackbot, stain, rhiaro, nickstenn, timeless
15:10:21 <bjdmeest> ... hopefully, we can easily accept and close
15:10:29 <ivan> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:10:38 <bjdmeest> TimCole: Is there any concern?
15:10:47 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:10:56 <bjdmeest> ... no? So we are in good shape on that issue
15:10:59 <ivan> present+ Doug
15:11:05 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/labels/i18n-review
15:11:12 <ivan> present+ Paolo
15:11:14 <bjdmeest> ... since we only talked to i18n 24h ago, see the link above
15:11:21 <bjdmeest> ... all issues have been moved to editorial action
15:11:52 <bjdmeest> ivan: most of the decided things were already discussed on the mailing list
15:12:06 <bjdmeest> ... mostly, we agreed on what was decided beforehand on the call
15:12:25 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the only significant change was issue #213 (0..1 languages)
15:12:38 <ShaneM> zakim, who is here?
15:12:38 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Ben_De_Meester, Doug, Paolo
15:12:41 <Zakim> On IRC I see PaoloCiccarese, tilgovi, takeshi, bjdmeest, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, dwhly, shepazu, ShaneM, ben_thatmustbeme, Loqi, csarven, bigbluehat, aaronpk,
15:12:41 <Zakim> ... trackbot, stain, rhiaro, nickstenn, timeless
15:12:43 <bjdmeest> ... we accepted to add an extra `processingLanguage` attribute
15:12:47 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
15:12:51 <ShaneM> present- ShaneM_
15:13:16 <azaroth> Accepted proposal: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/213#issuecomment-221098949
15:13:20 <bjdmeest> ... That's the easiest way to escape the conundrum we had
15:13:49 <bjdmeest> ivan: unless Adisson comes with a change for #227 (and we have to change a bit), we have closed all i18n issues
15:13:54 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:14:20 <bjdmeest> azaroth: the specs in github are updated, so they are waited to be published, for the issues to be closed
15:14:31 <ShaneM> I am so sorry I raised that
15:14:45 <bjdmeest> ivan: this discussion about URI vs IRI vs ... keeps on going
15:15:14 <bjdmeest> ... personally, at this point, keeping what we have, and maybe add something like what Shane referred to (cfr RDFa doc), is perfectly fine
15:15:30 <ShaneM> The RDFa text is fine - and I liked Richard's comment
15:15:47 <bjdmeest> TimCole: is that already an editor action?
15:15:49 <bjdmeest> azaroth: yes
15:16:16 <bjdmeest> ivan: so the resolution is that we keep IRI, but add the text that Shane mentioned
15:17:02 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction
15:17:09 <azaroth> +1
15:17:10 <bjdmeest> +1
15:17:11 <takeshi> +1
15:17:12 <ivan> +1
15:17:14 <ShaneM> +1
15:17:16 <TimCole> +1
15:17:20 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:17:20 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:17:29 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction
15:17:46 <TimCole> Topic: More issues
15:17:48 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aopen+-label%3Ai18n-review+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:18:15 <bjdmeest> TimCole: these are the remaining open issues (6)
15:18:50 <bjdmeest> azaroth: we can quickly agree with #240, #230, and #228
15:18:57 <bjdmeest> TimCole: so about #240
15:19:03 <bjdmeest> ... pretty straightforward
15:19:12 <ivan> Issue #240, Remove purpose=commenting requirement from bodyValue
15:19:16 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/240
15:19:36 <TimCole> q?
15:19:47 <bjdmeest> azaroth: at F2F and iAnnotate, we heard a lot about the purpose 'tagging' for textualBody
15:20:31 <bjdmeest> TimCole: so only for plain text string
15:20:45 <azaroth> Link: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#string-body
15:20:46 <bjdmeest> ... nothing can be on that, so we assigned a purpose
15:21:06 <bjdmeest> azaroth: specifically, we remove the fifth bullet from https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#string-body
15:21:52 <shepazu> s/Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction/Use IRI in Protocol with explanation in the terminology section to explain the distinction, specifically this text from RDFa Core https://www.w3.org/TR/rdfa-syntax/#h-note1/
15:21:55 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Remove the requirement that purpose of bodyValue be interpreted as commenting, as can use the motivation of the Annotation without ambiguity
15:22:03 <ivan> +1
15:22:10 <azaroth> +1
15:22:10 <TimCole> +1
15:22:11 <bjdmeest> +1
15:22:16 <takeshi> +1
15:22:16 <ShaneM> +0
15:22:20 <bigbluehat> +1
15:22:31 <shepazu> +0
15:22:36 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:22:41 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Remove the requirement that purpose of bodyValue be interpreted as commenting, as can use the motivation of the Annotation without ambiguity
15:22:44 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:22:44 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-22-44
15:23:23 <bjdmeest> ivan: ok, issue closed
15:23:39 <TimCole> topic: issue 230
15:23:46 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/230
15:23:52 <bjdmeest> ivan: this is about reverting a resolution we made
15:24:14 <TimCole> this issues is about our namespace url
15:24:16 <bjdmeest> ... that resolution was based on the fact that W3C would encourage HTTPS for voc-docs
15:24:18 <shepazu> q+
15:24:36 <bjdmeest> ... that was wrong, there has been an official declaration on the mailing list
15:24:44 <csarven> Present+ csarven
15:24:46 <TimCole> ack shepazu
15:24:59 <bjdmeest> ... so we don't have to change OA to WA, I propose to close #230 without further action
15:25:28 <bjdmeest> ivan: that official statement was very long discussed
15:25:48 <bjdmeest> ... I will try and find the rationale
15:25:58 <bjdmeest> TimCole: so we stick with OA?
15:26:05 <bjdmeest> ... from discussions I had, that seems a good idea
15:26:07 <TimCole> q?
15:26:49 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Maintain the use of .../ns/oa# as the namespace, including the use of http and not https
15:26:53 <azaroth> +1
15:26:57 <ivan> -> Discussion on SemWeb mailing list, thread starting at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2016May/0082.html
15:27:00 <ivan> +1
15:27:01 <TimCole> +1
15:27:03 <bjdmeest> +1
15:27:04 <shepazu> -0
15:27:08 <ShaneM> +1
15:27:08 <bigbluehat> +1
15:27:12 <takeshi> +1
15:27:16 <ivan> -> see also https://www.w3.org/blog/2016/05/https-and-the-semantic-weblinked-data/
15:27:28 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:27:32 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Maintain the use of .../ns/oa# as the namespace, including the use of http and not https
15:27:54 <TimCole> Topic: issue 228
15:28:08 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/228
15:28:09 <bjdmeest> azaroth: about testing of the protocol
15:28:37 <TimCole> q+
15:28:50 <bjdmeest> ... for several sections, there isn't any guidance on the status codes, e.g., we didn't mention status code 200 for successful actions
15:28:55 <TimCole> ack tim
15:29:08 <bjdmeest> ... this is just an issues about adding those codes
15:29:56 <bjdmeest> azaroth: these codes would make it a more useful spec
15:30:13 <bjdmeest> ... if you don't support PUT, you should return 405
15:30:34 <bjdmeest> ... however, if you don't support anything, you can just always return 405, and have a compliant server
15:30:55 <bjdmeest> TimCole: so not a matter of compliance testing, but some guidance on successful implementations
15:31:00 <bjdmeest> azaroth: yes
15:31:23 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Add successful HTTP status codes for the different operations in the protocol document
15:31:29 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:31:33 <azaroth> +1
15:31:34 <ivan> +1
15:31:36 <bjdmeest> +1
15:31:37 <TimCole> +1
15:31:39 <bigbluehat> +1
15:31:41 <tilgovi> +1
15:31:42 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:31:45 <takeshi> +1
15:31:46 <ShaneM> +1
15:32:03 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:32:03 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-32-03
15:32:05 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Add successful HTTP status codes for the different operations in the protocol document
15:32:46 <TimCole> Topic: issue 231
15:32:57 <bjdmeest> azaroth: a proposal of a new feature
15:32:58 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/231
15:33:01 <TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/231
15:33:29 <bjdmeest> ... we noticed that we didn't have any a11y information
15:33:44 <bjdmeest> ... also, we looked at the IDPF use of AO
15:33:49 <ShaneM> note that I have appointed myself the A11Y liason for this group.
15:34:02 <bjdmeest> ... they added an a11y feature
15:34:14 <ivan> q+
15:34:17 <bjdmeest> ... similar to our construct for audience
15:34:47 <bjdmeest> ... [see the example in the issue]
15:35:02 <bjdmeest> ... this adds a new cross domain key
15:35:12 <bjdmeest> ... we adopt an existing pattern
15:35:12 <TimCole> ack ivan
15:35:15 <TimCole> q+
15:35:33 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:35:39 <bjdmeest> ivan: IDPB and EPUB WG have a strong set of a11y requirements
15:35:51 <bjdmeest> ... they work with schema.org to enlarge it for a11y
15:36:06 <TimCole> ack tim
15:36:10 <bjdmeest> ... this is a fairly stable and well managed set of terms on schema.org, that we can rely on
15:36:29 <bjdmeest> TimCole: there are a lot of properties that might be useful for a body or target
15:37:00 <bjdmeest> ... in general, we said: if you have a vocabulary for this, use it, but we don't put a lot of those in
15:37:19 <bjdmeest> ... are there other vocabularies out there, that we can use?
15:37:24 <ivan> q+
15:37:27 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:37:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:37:36 <bjdmeest> azaroth: a11y is a core feature we should support (just as i18n)
15:37:43 <shepazu> q+
15:37:47 <bjdmeest> ... another is rights/license
15:37:53 <bjdmeest> ... they all seem pretty fundamental
15:37:55 <ivan> ivan- later
15:38:05 <TimCole> q?
15:38:09 <bjdmeest> ... if we can get all people to do one thing, we achieve interoperability
15:38:14 <TimCole> ack shep
15:38:29 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I strongly support this extra key
15:38:39 <bjdmeest> ... this is not domain-specific, but functionality-specific
15:38:52 <bjdmeest> ... if we don't include it, people will do it differently, or people won't do it at all
15:39:10 <bjdmeest> ... included, it is more probably it will be filled in
15:39:40 <bjdmeest> ... also, there is the matter that annotations can be used specifically for a11y
15:40:03 <bjdmeest> ... we have already seen people annotating images and videos to add text descriptions
15:40:12 <TimCole> ack ivan
15:40:16 <bjdmeest> ... there is already a bunch of use cases that would benefit from this
15:40:20 <tilgovi> Is this only about using annotation to add accessibility features, or also about making annotations accessible?
15:40:25 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION:  Add accessibilityFeature as a property in the model for body and target resources
15:41:18 <bjdmeest> tilgovi: is this about adding a11y features to the target, or adding a11y to the annotation themselves?
15:41:54 <ivan> +1
15:42:06 <bjdmeest> azaroth: what it does, is showing the existing a11y features of the body or target
15:42:24 <TimCole> +1
15:42:28 <bjdmeest> +1
15:42:40 <ShaneM> +1
15:42:40 <shepazu> if don't have+1
15:42:41 <azaroth> And the proposed description: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#accessibility-of-content
15:42:42 <tilgovi> +1
15:42:47 <shepazu> +1
15:43:15 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION:  Add accessibilityFeature as a property in the model for body and target resources
15:43:15 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:43:15 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-irc#T15-43-15-1
15:45:39 <bjdmeest> ivan: let's try and resolve the issue antoine raised via mail, so the editors can have a reviewable version by the end of the week
15:45:50 <ivan> Antoine's thread starts at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016May/0275.html
15:45:54 <bjdmeest> azaroth: they want to use annotations to assess the quality of something
15:46:05 <bjdmeest> ... they don't want to subclass (that's where motivations are for)
15:46:19 <bjdmeest> ... currently, there is no good fitting existing motivation
15:46:34 <bjdmeest> ... the reviewing description isn't fitting, because it is too restrictive
15:46:47 <bjdmeest> ... it currently implies rather being a comment, than an assessment
15:47:29 <bjdmeest> ... the proposal would be to generalize `reviewing` a bit, to `assesing`
15:48:14 <ivan> q+
15:48:22 <bjdmeest> TimCole: when reading the thread, I thought to add a motivation, you suggest replacing one
15:48:26 <TimCole> ack ivan
15:48:32 <shepazu> (I think this reveals the underlying problem with motivations in that they are not generalized and don't derive from functional aspects on behaviors)
15:48:56 <bjdmeest> ivan: the way it comes up, is that there is a document published by another WG, for assessing quality on data
15:49:14 <csarven> (Sorry not in the call) If parts of assessment of the quality is coming from a controlled vocabulary, oa:classifying might help a little.
15:50:28 <TimCole> q?
15:50:43 <bjdmeest> ... the other WG should define an extension, but the current way the extension works, is that the spec says you SHOULD use SKOS-ish things to use a more specific motivation of already existing defined motivations
15:51:04 <bjdmeest> azaroth: this is an opportunity to fix the too narrow description of the reviewing motivation
15:51:17 <bjdmeest> TimCole: so, maybe, we should change the SHOULD to MAY?
15:51:29 <bjdmeest> ivan: I think the SHOULD is fine (it's not a MUST)
15:51:30 <shepazu> (I appreciate the acknowledgment, but this is a specific patch, not a systemic examination of criteria for inclusion and broad applicability)
15:51:52 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Rename "reviewing" to "assessing" and broaden the description
15:51:53 <bjdmeest> ... in this case, we can solve this one
15:52:03 <ivan> +1
15:52:10 <TimCole> +0
15:52:10 <azaroth> +1
15:52:17 <bjdmeest> +1
15:52:17 <tilgovi> +0
15:52:19 <shepazu> (this seems like it's catering to a particular scholarly community, not a real solution)
15:52:21 <shepazu> -0
15:52:27 <csarven> -0
15:52:32 <ShaneM> +1
15:53:03 <fjh> -0
15:53:26 <bjdmeest> azaroth: assessment is also about reviewing, about assessing video bitrate, etc.
15:53:41 <shepazu> (correction noted, it's data not scholarly, but this still feels arbitrary)
15:54:13 <shepazu> q+
15:54:17 <bjdmeest> ... some community that wants to do reviewing, can make a skos:narrower `assessment`
15:54:36 <TimCole> ack shep
15:54:46 <csarven> "assessing" sounds more specific than "reviewing"
15:54:51 <bjdmeest> azaroth: let's, by wednesday next week, make sure we have agreement on this using github-issue tracker
15:55:23 <csarven> Generally, one reviews, then assesses
15:55:34 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I don't think it's worth delaying this
15:55:53 <bjdmeest> ... instead, we go ahead, I don't see a change in the outcome
15:56:48 <bjdmeest> RESOLUTION: Rename "reviewing" to "assessing" and broaden the description
15:57:25 <bjdmeest> azaroth: I will create the issue and describe the resolution
15:57:56 <bjdmeest> TimCole: we still have the HTML serialization as an editor-action
15:58:11 <bjdmeest> ivan: we will have to look at the postponed at some time
15:58:24 <bjdmeest> ... the HTML note is not for version 2, it is something we intend to do
15:58:41 <bjdmeest> shepazu: I think it is correct to be an editor-action
15:59:26 <ivan> Topic: Testing
15:59:34 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:59:38 <bjdmeest> ShaneM: infrastructure is in place
16:00:04 <bjdmeest> ... I'm going to work with the WPT to get the base infrastructure into the WPT
16:00:19 <bjdmeest> ... once that's done, we'll start rolling tests in
16:00:20 <shepazu> q+
16:00:33 <TimCole> ack shep
16:01:23 <bjdmeest> shepazu: so, you are still committed to do the testing framework, help with the initial tests, and then step away?
16:01:46 <bjdmeest> ShaneM: I won't be stepping away, but I don't plan to actually author test, I'll show up whenever you want
16:02:48 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:02:57 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:02:57 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:02:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, ShaneM_, Takeshi_Kanai, Randall_Leeds, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Ben_De_Meester, Doug, Paolo, Paolo_Ciccarese,
16:03:00 <Zakim> ... Dan_Whaley, csarven, Frederick_Hirsch
16:03:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:03:06 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:03:06 <RRSAgent> I see no action items