15:05:06 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:05:06 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/24-annotation-irc
15:05:17 <ShaneM> present+ ShaneM
15:05:35 <azaroth> zakim, start meeting
15:05:40 <azaroth> rrsagent, start meeting
15:05:40 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:05:45 <azaroth> Gah
15:06:19 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
15:06:27 <Janina__> present+ Janina_Sarol
15:06:32 <TimCole_> present+ Tim_Cole
15:06:40 <ivan> present+ ivan
15:06:49 <TimCole_> regrets+ Ben, Jacob
15:07:14 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
15:07:48 <azaroth> zakim, start meeting
15:07:48 <Zakim> I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth
15:09:03 <ShaneM> trackbot, start meeting
15:09:05 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:09:07 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:09:07 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
15:09:08 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:09:08 <trackbot> Date: 24 June 2016
15:09:53 <TimCole_> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:09:57 <TimCole_> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last WG call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html
15:10:09 <TimCole_> Topic: Minutes review
15:10:09 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: any concerns about the minutes?
15:10:09 <azaroth> +1
15:10:14 <bigbluehat> +1
15:10:16 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last WG call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html
15:10:31 <TimCole_> Topic: progress towards CR
15:10:54 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: anyone have a follow-up from the CR call?
15:11:07 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:11:08 <bigbluehat> ivan: there is a minor issue. azaroth do you want to explain?
15:11:26 <azaroth> I created: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/313
15:11:35 <TimCole_> Tag issue: https://github.com/w3ctag/spec-reviews/issues/93
15:11:47 <ShaneM> q+ to say I think we fell off their radar
15:11:50 <bigbluehat> ivan: there is an issue form the TAG which needs addressing with regard to the Protocol
15:12:15 <bigbluehat> azaroth: Erik and Mark do seem to agree on this one.
15:12:24 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: most of these we did look at with Erik's comment
15:12:30 <bigbluehat> ... and we thought it had been resolved
15:12:37 <TimCole_> ack shane
15:12:37 <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say I think we fell off their radar
15:12:38 <bigbluehat> ... so it resurfacing was a bit confusing
15:12:55 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: it looks like they kept kicking the can down the road and it also fell of their radar
15:13:02 <bigbluehat> ... I think we can close the loop with them
15:13:11 <bigbluehat> ivan: azaroth will you contact them? or what should we do?
15:13:21 <bigbluehat> ...I would really like to have this solved
15:13:34 <bigbluehat> ...the fallback is workable...but it is a big hit
15:13:43 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: I was trying to find the docs from our chat with Erik
15:13:45 <bigbluehat> ...but I can find it
15:13:53 <bigbluehat> azaroth: Erik is `dret`
15:14:00 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: "avoid constraining HTTP"
15:14:07 <TimCole_> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/51
15:14:25 <bigbluehat> ...I don't know if Mark looked at that and still had a concern?
15:14:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: we closed issue 51 on September 9th last year
15:14:48 <bigbluehat> ...Mark's comment was in November
15:15:03 <bigbluehat> ...Mark may want more changes along those lines...but it's hard to tell
15:15:26 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: he may not have seen the updates after we made changes that followed handling Erik's comments
15:15:36 <bigbluehat> ...it may be if we show him the latest draft, he'll be fine with it
15:15:45 <bigbluehat> azaroth: ivan from a process perspective
15:15:51 <bigbluehat> ...if we address these issues
15:16:03 <bigbluehat> ...it would be a normative change if we remove normative requirements...
15:16:10 <bigbluehat> ...would we need another call for concensus?
15:16:23 <bigbluehat> s/concensus/consensus
15:16:24 <ShaneM> I recommend we dont borrow trouble.
15:16:27 <bigbluehat> ivan: you mean in the working group
15:16:48 <bigbluehat> ...we should be able to do that via email and not bind it to a telco
15:16:56 <bigbluehat> ...if there are changes you agree with Mark
15:17:04 <bigbluehat> ...and we put it in an email and give it 5 or so days
15:17:09 <bigbluehat> ...and if no answer, then we accept it
15:17:12 <bigbluehat> ...that should be enough
15:17:38 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: anything else to say about the CR call?
15:17:49 <bigbluehat> ivan: no. I have all the documents ready
15:17:57 <bigbluehat> ...there is one we'll have to change slightly, but that's a minor thing
15:18:09 <bigbluehat> ...I'll send out a request to the web master to check them
15:18:26 <bigbluehat> ...some of the issues were taken care of by azaroth
15:18:31 <bigbluehat> ...so I think we're done in this respect
15:18:44 <bigbluehat> ...of course if there's a change in the protocol, then it has to be checked again
15:19:14 <bigbluehat> azaroth: timing wise, I'm on vacation for most of the next couple weeks
15:19:23 <bigbluehat> ...and I am forbidden to be connected from the beach
15:19:45 <bigbluehat> ivan: if this goes wrong, it could push the protocol publication out to august...
15:19:50 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: let's be optimistic
15:19:56 <shepazu> q+
15:19:59 <azaroth> (specifically June 29-July 4)
15:20:05 <bigbluehat> ivan: perhaps you can contact Mark privately first
15:20:24 <bigbluehat> ...we thought this was closed...so some sort of a leeway would be helpful
15:20:32 <bigbluehat> ...try to find out what the minimal amount of change it
15:20:36 <bigbluehat> s/it/is
15:20:43 <bigbluehat> ...and if you can do that today, that would be great
15:20:48 <bigbluehat> azaroth: right. I'll do it right after the call
15:20:59 <TimCole_> Topic: Upcoming meeting schedule
15:21:04 <bigbluehat> ivan: ideally and answer by close of business monday would be helpful
15:21:13 <TimCole_> ack shep
15:22:35 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: there was a question about call timing
15:22:41 <bigbluehat> ...should we meet weekly or adjust the frequency
15:22:55 <bigbluehat> ...this relates to comments from a few people
15:23:06 <bigbluehat> ...who I think are interested in implementing the protocol
15:23:14 <bigbluehat> ...they're not currently members of the WG
15:23:20 <bigbluehat> ...but we want to encourage them to implement
15:23:46 <bigbluehat> ...First question is, should we reduce frequency of the calls during July and August
15:23:56 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: I don't think we should until we're done with testing
15:24:11 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: that was my thought also that we should dedicate our calls completely to testing
15:24:17 <azaroth> +1 to staying weekly until we're no longer dealing with issues
15:24:21 <bigbluehat> ...what is the policy to invite folks to calls no in the WG?
15:24:33 <bigbluehat> ivan: it's totally fine. they don't have a voting right, but if they have input, there's no issue
15:25:23 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: we may just skip next week then and meet again on the 8th
15:26:01 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I would prefer to keep it at full working group every week
15:26:10 <bigbluehat> ...and if people don't show up, then we cancel
15:26:41 <bigbluehat> ...this would be better than explicitly going to ever other week
15:26:54 <bigbluehat> ...it's easier to cancel
15:26:59 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: k. let's stay with every week
15:27:08 <bigbluehat> ...I'll try and get a sense of who's on the calls
15:27:22 <bigbluehat> ...we'll keep the focus on testing and implementing
15:27:42 <bigbluehat> ...that work?
15:27:47 <bigbluehat> azaroth: +1
15:28:00 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: do you want to talk about the issues? or go right to testing?
15:28:04 <TimCole_> Topic: Issues 308 and 309
15:28:06 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if we could chat about the issues, that'd be great
15:28:49 <TimCole_> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/308
15:28:56 <bigbluehat> ...these issues are both by the same person
15:29:05 <TimCole_> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/309
15:29:11 <bigbluehat> ...are there things we could do to not shut down the discussion, but be clearer that they've already been discussed
15:29:13 <bigbluehat> ...and acted on
15:29:29 <bigbluehat> ...they are both marked as `postpone`
15:29:36 <bigbluehat> ivan: right. that's what he's contesting
15:29:41 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: k. then lets discuss that
15:30:37 <bigbluehat> azaroth: 308...
15:30:43 <bigbluehat> ...should we ask for specific improvements?
15:31:18 <bigbluehat> ivan: I don't completely understand what he's wanting
15:31:26 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I haven't quite sorted it either
15:31:38 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: it looks like things we've already decided upon
15:31:53 <bigbluehat> ...the type vs. format thing has been discussed before
15:32:07 <bigbluehat> ...they confuse people who are not familiar with Dublin Core
15:32:22 <bigbluehat> ...this has been a confusion for greater than 15 years...
15:32:31 <bigbluehat> ...I don't think we can fix it with an editorial change
15:32:43 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I don't think there's a solution that will make him happy
15:33:10 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: anyone else have thoughts?
15:33:15 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: can you explain the last line you said?
15:33:26 <bigbluehat> ...it seems its mostly a change in terminology
15:33:29 <bigbluehat> ivan: right. all of them are
15:33:45 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: he claims at one point that information is redundant
15:33:53 <bigbluehat> ...azaroth you said ExternalResource is wrong?
15:34:02 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yeah...I don't believe his example is correct
15:34:14 <bigbluehat> ...because you could do text inline as a TextualBody...and may not be external
15:34:21 <bigbluehat> ...so I believe its correct as it stands
15:34:41 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: I think he's making a distinction between embedded and external resource handling
15:34:47 <bigbluehat> ...but I think that's the distinction he wants
15:35:02 <bigbluehat> ...I don't think that's really crucial
15:35:33 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: this has been discussed elsewhere
15:35:41 <bigbluehat> ...I think we should go ahead with it as is
15:36:05 <bigbluehat> ...we're doing what people have been doing with this issue for years
15:36:21 <bigbluehat> ...do we need a vote?
15:36:26 <bigbluehat> azaroth: TimCole_ can you leave a comment
15:36:29 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: sure
15:36:50 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: so. 309
15:36:50 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/309#issuecomment-227387975
15:37:15 <bigbluehat> azaroth: one request: can we add example extensions to the body
15:37:32 <bigbluehat> ...we could make the prose a little clearer, perhaps, but you could do these extensions anywhere
15:37:44 <bigbluehat> ...so my suggestion is not
15:37:54 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:38:06 <TimCole_> ack paolo
15:38:11 <bigbluehat> ...and with the other, there doesn't seem to be a need that isn't addressed by what we've already discussed
15:38:13 <bigbluehat> ivan: agreed.
15:38:24 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: I'm reading his comments now
15:38:51 <bigbluehat> ...it seems he's wanting TargetResource to be renamed to ExternalResource so it's consistent with their meeting
15:39:01 <bigbluehat> ...but I certainly agree with azaroth that if you want to extend something, then just extend it
15:39:05 <bigbluehat> ...we don't need to provide examples
15:39:10 <bigbluehat> ...and can't for all the cases
15:39:52 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yeah. ExternalResource is really just Resource
15:40:03 <bigbluehat> ...and you'd talk about it the same way you would any other resource
15:40:23 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: for right now, I don't think there's anything we could change to make this clearer
15:41:17 <bigbluehat> azaroth: getting another example from them might be helpful, but I don't think there is one that would make this compelling enough to change
15:41:31 <bigbluehat> ...and considering the protocol in the mix, it supports Turtle which doesn't have named graphs
15:41:59 <bigbluehat> ivan: if named graphs is the need here, then we could require support for named graphs via Trig--which is standard now as of the latest RDF spec
15:42:06 <bigbluehat> ...and we could require that
15:42:12 <bigbluehat> ...but we're at feature freeze
15:42:27 <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: with regard to named graphs, there's really no way around wanting these
15:42:31 <bigbluehat> ...you need them.
15:42:38 <bigbluehat> ...but I completely understand the feature freeze
15:42:51 <bigbluehat> ...and the idea of moving from Turtle to Trig would be nice
15:42:57 <bigbluehat> ...framing could be another one.
15:43:05 <bigbluehat> ivan: named graphs in JSON-LD are doable, but very ugly
15:43:38 <bigbluehat> ...and if we want to push them back into the spec and keep it accessible to web developers, then it'd take far too long
15:43:46 <bigbluehat> ...so version 2. Postpone.
15:44:01 <bigbluehat> azaroth: given that it's JSON-LD, they can use the `@graph` stuff and extend it however they'd like
15:44:08 <bigbluehat> ...it just won't be interoperable
15:44:23 <bigbluehat> ivan: I would advise you to either rename the issue
15:44:36 <bigbluehat> ...so it's clear that we'd need to incorporate named-graphs into the specs
15:44:46 <bigbluehat> ...and it's clear what we're postponing and discussing
15:46:16 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'm noticing bigbluehat is asking for changes on the protocol document
15:46:29 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there's an example that's wrong or the text is wrong
15:46:38 <bigbluehat> ...in response to creating a resource
15:47:10 <bigbluehat> ...right now the examples in response to creating an annotation refer to the container
15:47:57 <bigbluehat> ...Link headers refer to the request IRI
15:48:01 <TimCole_> scribenick: TimCole
15:48:24 <TimCole_> bigbluehat: I think the example is correct, but not the prose
15:48:35 <TimCole_> ... so the prose needs to be updated.
15:48:51 <TimCole_> ... these errors are coming to the surface as I do testing
15:49:20 <TimCole_> ivan: so the protocol is in a slight delay, but can you please handle today, so that what goest to Mark and Webmaster is final
15:49:43 <TimCole_> ... please generate final doc in both main directory and admin
15:50:03 <TimCole_> azaroth: Benjamin and I will resolve after the call
15:50:16 <TimCole_> ivan: wants to make sure what he puts up is final.
15:50:28 <azaroth> q?
15:50:33 <TimCole_> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:50:46 <TimCole_> Topic: Testing
15:51:06 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: sadly, I don't think I'll be around for the next call
15:51:12 <bigbluehat> ...I send in my availability
15:51:33 <bigbluehat> ivan: wasn't there some sort of thing you needed from us?
15:51:52 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: yes. in order to get this into WPT it needs peer reviewed
15:52:14 <bigbluehat> ...we need others besides bigbluehat to take a look
15:52:22 <bigbluehat> ...so its clear that the WG aggrees
15:52:25 <bigbluehat> ...with this approach
15:52:34 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: for time frame?
15:52:38 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: two weeks ago.
15:52:48 <bigbluehat> ...in that we can do any actual testing until it's done
15:52:59 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: we are still working on the tests
15:53:08 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: right, but we need the testing framework up and running
15:53:23 <bigbluehat> ...and all the tests have to go through review also
15:53:40 <ShaneM> https://github.com/w3c/web-platform-tests/pull/3173
15:53:50 <ShaneM> this is the PR that we need peers to comment upon
15:54:16 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: I'm still working through the $ref bits in ajv
15:54:39 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: thanks for the email this morning. I think it's fine to go ahead...
15:54:48 <bigbluehat> ...actually I've been doing meeting since I saw it
15:54:58 <bigbluehat> ...it looks like you want to pull in pre-defineds
15:55:00 <bigbluehat> ...which is fine
15:55:07 <bigbluehat> ...I'll add that to the code and update the pull request
15:55:16 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: at that point, I'm fine with it
15:55:30 <bigbluehat> ...there were some questions about v5
15:55:38 <bigbluehat> s/v5/JSON Schema version 5
15:55:49 <azaroth> +1 to using v4
15:56:01 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: I'd thought I'd handled this in email, but I thought I'd recommended sticking with v4
15:56:11 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I'm looking at mixing this into my python implementation
15:56:28 <bigbluehat> ...and the JSON Schema validator I'm using only supports v4
15:56:41 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: it's not been clear until now that the PR is ready for review
15:56:48 <bigbluehat> ...but it seems like it is, so we'll work harder to get you the review
15:56:59 <bigbluehat> ...assuming you get comments back from the WG
15:57:05 <bigbluehat> ...when do you think we can get this merged?
15:57:13 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: well, it's ready to be reviewed
15:57:21 <bigbluehat> ...but I've never done this before
15:57:34 <bigbluehat> ...so I'm not sure what the process is or how quickly the owners of the code will act
15:57:45 <bigbluehat> TimCole_: I'm sorry for the lack of the response from the WG
15:57:53 <bigbluehat> ...but if you can ask again, hopefully you'll hear back
15:58:13 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:13 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/24-annotation-minutes.html ivan
15:58:21 <TimCole_> scribenick: TimCole
15:58:38 <TimCole_> bigbluehat: finishing out basic protocol testing
15:58:58 <TimCole_> ... server will give you a container and let you run tests
15:59:10 <TimCole_> ... container will time out after suitable interval
15:59:23 <TimCole_> ... will come with some html to get you started
15:59:36 <TimCole_> ... once it's in place will need peer review
16:00:55 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:00:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/06/24-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:13:13 <ivan> ivan has joined #annotation
16:26:10 <azaroth> web-annotation/admin/TR/annotation-protocol/Overview.html
18:02:39 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
18:38:31 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation