IRC log of annotation on 2016-06-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:33:20 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:33:20 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc
14:33:22 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:33:22 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #annotation
14:33:24 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
14:33:24 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:33:25 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:33:26 [trackbot]
Date: 03 June 2016
14:33:38 [ivan]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu
14:33:45 [ivan]
ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu
14:33:58 [ivan]
Chair: Tim and Rob
14:34:11 [ivan]
Regrets+ Ben, Dan
14:44:23 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
14:45:37 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:54:30 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:06 [ShaneM]
I have a client with a crisis this morning. regrets.
14:58:52 [ShaneM]
oh - I see the agenda is largely about testing. hmm. I will figure something out so I can call in when that topic starts up.
14:59:22 [ivan]
wait: webex seems to be unaccessible, meaning that we may have to cancel the call! !@#$%^&*
14:59:44 [bigbluehat]
which might be fine for ShaneM it sounds
15:00:12 [azaroth]
It gets stuck at 98% for me
15:00:13 [azaroth]
:(
15:00:21 [Loqi]
it'll be ok
15:00:47 [uskudarli]
uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:01:06 [Jacob]
Jacob has joined #annotation
15:01:14 [Kyrce]
Kyrce has joined #annotation
15:02:45 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:03:14 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
15:03:45 [Jacob]
present+ Jacob_Jett
15:03:51 [ivan]
present+ ivan
15:03:56 [bigbluehat]
present+ Benjamin_Young
15:04:41 [Kyrce]
present+ Kyrce_Swenson
15:05:06 [tilgovi]
Present+ Randall_Leeds
15:05:14 [TimCole]
present+ Tim_Cole
15:06:15 [TimCole]
scribenick: Jacob
15:06:39 [TimCole]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:45 [TimCole]
Topic: Minutes
15:06:59 [Jacob]
TimCole: any remarks about the minutes from last week?
15:07:09 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
15:07:22 [TimCole]
Topic: Progress to CR
15:07:25 [azaroth]
Regrets+ TB_Dinesh, Ben_De_Meester, Dan_Whaley
15:07:48 [Jacob]
... Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts, progress has been posted
15:08:57 [Jacob]
azaroth: update-- two issues opened by Europeana folks, normalization discussion needs to agreed upon, other than these, other issues have been closed
15:09:32 [Jacob]
... should be able to quickly close the remaining issues
15:09:37 [Jacob]
... ready to go to CR
15:09:46 [Jacob]
... vocab still needs some examples added
15:10:02 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227
15:10:46 [Jacob]
... recommendation from internationalization group was that the normalization para be removed unless specific requirements make it necessary
15:11:00 [TimCole]
q?
15:11:12 [ivan]
q+
15:11:20 [TimCole]
ack iv
15:11:26 [Janina_]
Janina_ has joined #annotation
15:11:34 [Jacob]
... normalizations might be applied due to our requirements but not necessary to mention internationalization
15:11:57 [Jacob]
ivan: propose to close the issue as they (internationalization folks) have suggested
15:12:02 [TimCole]
Proposal: for #227 remove paragraph on normalization and close (move to editorial)
15:12:22 [azaroth]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
15:12:48 [Jacob]
azaroth: want to look at the 2nd para after the table
15:13:54 [Jacob]
... can try to lop the paragraph into two in order to separate the normalization from the part describing selection
15:14:22 [tilgovi]
Mostly just removing the DOM Strings part, then? And splitting the rest around it?
15:14:56 [Jacob]
... suggesting splitting the para so that the first part discusses normalization and then rephrase the second para so that it doesn't discuss normalization at all
15:16:00 [TimCole]
applications SHOULD implement the DOM String Comparisons method. This allows the Selector to be used with different encodings and user agents and still have the same semantics and utility.
15:16:06 [Jacob]
... so first 2 sentences become a para, next sentence is deleted [?], and remainder of paragraph has all mentions of normalization removed
15:16:15 [TimCole]
Note that this does not affect the state of the content of the document being annotated, only the way that the content is recorded in the Annotation.
15:16:38 [Jacob]
TimCole: suggest we preserve the sentences above and delete everything else
15:17:08 [Jacob]
... so that no one thinks that the underlying content should be changed
15:18:17 [Jacob]
... opinions? ok, with removing the paragraph altogether, but also ok with preserving stuff about string comparisons as long as we don't provide details on how those comparisons are to be made
15:18:39 [Jacob]
azaroth: will make quick changes now, then ...[garbled]
15:18:55 [Jacob]
... come back to issue before end of call
15:20:32 [Jacob]
ivan: need to close remaining issues, then make a resolution to freeze features, give WG a week to review the documents, so that they can note any glaring problems, with the goal to officially request to go to CR by the end of next week
15:20:59 [Jacob]
TimCole: so ok to vote next week so long as WG has been notified to review the documents by the end of today
15:21:04 [Jacob]
ivan: yes
15:21:24 [Jacob]
TimCole: plans for testing, need to be finalized by next week?
15:21:51 [shepazu]
q+
15:21:54 [Jacob]
ivan: documents, pubs must be ready, call with director must be set up, that period should be used 100% on testing
15:22:19 [Jacob]
... so if possible plans for testing should be finalized by next week
15:22:34 [azaroth]
Okay, new version at: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
15:22:43 [Jacob]
... plans must be written down, as agreed in Berlin
15:22:44 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:23:06 [TimCole]
ack doug
15:24:12 [ShaneM]
present+ ShaneM
15:25:05 [TimCole]
q?
15:25:14 [TimCole]
ack shep
15:25:39 [Jacob]
TimCole: link posted to issues not yet marked postponed or editorial
15:25:51 [Jacob]
... most recent issue is for resource previews in annos
15:26:14 [Jacob]
ivan: let's close issue 227, rob has made the changes
15:26:50 [Jacob]
azaroth: moved selection to preceeding para, deleted everything else except the dom string mention
15:26:57 [tilgovi]
q+
15:26:58 [TimCole]
q?
15:27:14 [TimCole]
ack tilgovi
15:28:35 [Jacob]
tilgovi: dom string comparison recommendation was one of things called out by the internationalization folks as something causing problems
15:28:53 [Jacob]
... should not introduce normalizations there
15:29:00 [Jacob]
TimCole: so drop the mention
15:29:25 [Jacob]
azaroth: should we go ahead and delete the subsequent para which mentions the dom apis
15:29:57 [tilgovi]
Shouldn't that next para read "Text Quote"?
15:30:03 [tilgovi]
It says Position.
15:30:53 [Jacob]
TimCole: deletion doesn't change the substance of the section, just means we aren't giving any help to implementers
15:31:24 [Jacob]
tilgovi: would leave in the DOM api's para, otherwise people will use the selector api
15:32:09 [Jacob]
TimCole: my sense is that the less we say, the better; whole thing is in flux (as discussed in Berlin)
15:32:10 [TimCole]
q?
15:32:24 [tilgovi]
Fine for me.
15:33:03 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of the normalization routine
15:33:18 [TimCole]
+1
15:33:20 [Jacob]
+1
15:33:21 [azaroth]
+1
15:33:28 [ivan]
_+1
15:33:28 [ivan]
+1
15:33:40 [bigbluehat]
+1
15:33:48 [tilgovi]
+1
15:33:53 [Kyrce]
+1
15:34:00 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of the normalization routine
15:34:08 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:34:08 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-34-08
15:34:16 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
15:34:41 [ivan]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
15:35:32 [Jacob]
ivan: is #249 postponed?
15:35:42 [Jacob]
TimCole: should be marked editor action or closed
15:35:49 [azaroth]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose
15:36:17 [TimCole]
q?
15:36:39 [Jacob]
azaroth: #257 -- want to include info in the anno that allows the client to display a snippet or preview to the end user
15:37:17 [Jacob]
... ivan has suggested this be postponed, [rob] agrees, don't know what clients actually need to do this yet
15:37:30 [Jacob]
ivan: not sure it even needs to be in the model at all
15:37:41 [Jacob]
TimCole: doesn't need to be in v.1 of the model
15:37:51 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources
15:38:08 [ivan]
+1
15:38:11 [azaroth]
+1
15:38:12 [TimCole]
+1
15:38:14 [Jacob]
+1
15:38:22 [tilgovi]
+1
15:38:23 [bigbluehat]
+1
15:38:35 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources
15:38:44 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:38:44 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-38-44
15:38:48 [Jacob]
... that leaves us with #247
15:39:16 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:39:32 [Jacob]
azaroth: can add a sentence saying that if you have contradictory information from external resources, believe the external resources and not the annotation
15:40:04 [PaoloCiccarese]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:40:06 [Jacob]
... e.g., external resource claims target is html, and anno claims something different, believe that it is html
15:40:11 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
15:40:34 [Jacob]
TimCole: discussion?
15:40:45 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the resource should be considered authoritative, not the Annotation's properties
15:40:48 [Kyrce]
+q
15:40:57 [azaroth]
ack Kyrce
15:40:59 [TimCole]
ack kyrce
15:41:13 [Jacob]
Kyrce: is this a question of content of the resource or its format?
15:41:23 [Jacob]
azaroth: not content, just its metadata
15:41:28 [ivan]
+1
15:42:08 [Jacob]
+1
15:42:09 [TimCole]
+1
15:42:10 [Kyrce]
+1
15:42:14 [azaroth]
+1
15:42:14 [bigbluehat]
+1
15:42:26 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the resource should be considered authoritative, not the Annotation's properties
15:42:38 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:42:38 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc#T15-42-38
15:42:49 [TimCole]
q?
15:43:00 [Jacob]
TimCole: that seems to be it; 2 issues for testing and 2 issues for pending
15:43:01 [azaroth]
Yay! :D
15:43:02 [Loqi]
woot
15:43:05 [azaroth]
Thank you all :)
15:43:19 [Jacob]
ivan; all done, as testing issues don't need to be addressed at this time
15:43:41 [ivan]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
15:44:04 [Jacob]
... everything else is editor's actions
15:44:23 [Jacob]
... my impression is that all of them have been addressed but they need to be closed
15:45:30 [Jacob]
ivan: features freeze, call for one week review, then CR next week
15:46:09 [ivan]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)
15:46:17 [azaroth]
+1
15:46:18 [PaoloCiccarese]
+1
15:46:21 [ivan]
+1
15:46:22 [TimCole]
+1
15:46:23 [Jacob]
+1
15:46:23 [bigbluehat]
+1
15:46:24 [Kyrce]
+1
15:46:30 [Jacob]
TimCole: discussion?
15:46:46 [ShaneM]
+1
15:46:48 [tilgovi]
+1
15:46:51 [Jacob]
RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)
15:47:09 [TimCole]
Topic: Testing
15:47:29 [Jacob]
... will take the testing issues out of order and start with the new one
15:47:50 [Jacob]
... ivan noted a need for interoperability testing
15:48:38 [Jacob]
ivan: yes, would be nice to demo interoperability via server, in practice -- 1 client pushes an anno into a server and another client fetches that anno and displays it in its own way
15:48:50 [TimCole]
q+
15:48:54 [ShaneM]
hmm.... I don't think that is a CR requirement.
15:49:04 [Jacob]
... whether we have enough implementations to do that, don't know, but would be a good extra
15:49:53 [Jacob]
TimCole: like this idea in general, but concerned that the implementations don't have much overlap w/r/t domain, community, or topicality
15:50:17 [TimCole]
ack ti
15:50:27 [Jacob]
... e.g., emblem annotation are kind of unique, is testing if they're interoperable artificial?
15:50:53 [Jacob]
ivan: understand, shouldn't be a formal active criteria, but would be very nice to demonstrate
15:51:08 [azaroth]
q+
15:51:17 [TimCole]
ack aza
15:51:18 [Jacob]
... if it can be done, it will strengthen the interoperability of the standard
15:51:27 [ShaneM]
protocol testing should ensure that each client sends and retrieves annotations correctly...
15:52:14 [Jacob]
azaroth: seems like we should try to have 2 clients and 2 servers where client 1 makes a anno on server 1, copy it to server 2 and have it read by client 2
15:53:48 [Jacob]
ivan: testing a singular implementation for the protocol is not the same as testing across multiple clients
15:54:24 [Jacob]
ShaneM: however, if have multiple clients and they all pass the protocol tests, then hasn't interoperability been tested?
15:54:52 [Jacob]
ivan: need a server independent from the clients
15:55:02 [Jacob]
ShaneM: assuming this for protocol tests
15:55:18 [Jacob]
ivan: discussed in Berlin to use scenarios
15:56:04 [Jacob]
ShaneM: the web platform test infrastructure is a server, so be pointing the protocol tests at that server, then an independent server will have been provided to/for them
15:56:55 [Jacob]
TimCole: to be clear, the protocol requires accepting/responding to LDP exchanges, so it didn't seem clear to us that that capacity existed at this tinme
15:57:15 [Jacob]
ShaneM: the platform is capable of modeling any protocol that is desired
15:57:53 [azaroth]
ShaneM++
15:57:54 [Loqi]
ShaneM has 2 karma
15:58:00 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM+++++++
15:58:01 [Loqi]
ShaneM has 3 karma
15:58:31 [Jacob]
TimCole: sounds like we have a better way to do protocol testing than we thought in Berlin
15:59:22 [Jacob]
... seems that we still need to test if anno looks the same in two different implementation environments, e.g., Rob's implementation v Europeana implementation
16:00:31 [Jacob]
ShaneM: protocol test is next for me, sounds like vocab/model tests are there, so will move on to implementing protocol tests
16:00:59 [Jacob]
TimCole: have built some schemas to test the model, is the infrastructure to trigger a run in place?
16:01:50 [Jacob]
ShaneM: will post the instructions for how to do the testing to the lists
16:02:15 [Jacob]
TimCole: will spend next friday on discussing testing after taking the CR vote
16:02:30 [Jacob]
ivan: everyone should take some time to read through the documents
16:02:51 [Jacob]
TimCole: will be very good, many small typos lurking
16:03:00 [Jacob]
...adjourn
16:04:31 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:04:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:04:40 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
16:04:40 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:04:40 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, shepazu, Jacob_Jett, ivan, Benjamin_Young, Kyrce_Swenson, Randall_Leeds, Tim_Cole, ShaneM, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:04:48 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:04:48 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:04:49 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:04:49 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items