IRC log of annotation on 2016-08-05

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:53:58 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:53:58 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:54:04 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #annotation
14:54:09 [azaroth]
rrsagent, start meeting
14:54:09 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:54:13 [azaroth]
trackbot, start meeting
14:54:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:54:17 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
14:54:17 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:54:18 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:54:18 [trackbot]
Date: 05 August 2016
14:54:48 [azaroth]
azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda:
15:01:32 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:02:00 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:02:00 [ShaneM]
present+ ShaneM
15:02:50 [azaroth]
Chairs: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole
15:02:51 [bjdmeest]
Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:02:55 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:03:07 [TimCole]
Present+ Tim_Cole
15:03:14 [tbdinesh]
Present+ tbdinesh
15:03:18 [takeshi]
takeshi has joined #annotation
15:04:22 [azaroth]
scribenick: bigbluehat
15:05:27 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: going over the agenda
15:05:36 [bigbluehat]
...there's been a flurry of i18n discussion
15:05:41 [bigbluehat]
...we'll get some updates on testing
15:05:47 [bigbluehat]
...if there are any demos, it'd be great to see them
15:06:03 [bigbluehat] there anything anyone would like to add?
15:06:17 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: I have a couple questions for clarification about model testing
15:06:28 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: k. we'll run with what we have
15:06:31 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Minutes Approval
15:06:45 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
15:06:52 [TimCole]
15:06:55 [bigbluehat]
15:06:55 [azaroth]
15:07:00 [takeshi]
15:07:07 [bigbluehat]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
15:07:20 [tbdinesh]
15:07:22 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:07:23 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: any announcements?
15:07:32 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Issues
15:07:42 [azaroth]
I18n issue:
15:07:45 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: we have one major issue
15:07:58 [bigbluehat]
...hopefully people have been keeping up a little
15:08:08 [bigbluehat]
...there was some discussion in the Social Web WG
15:08:14 [bigbluehat]
...about how to resolve their I18N issues
15:08:30 [bigbluehat]
...there was some suggestion that they consider how we solved our I18N issues
15:08:42 [bigbluehat]
...they disagreed, and have told us we shouldn't do it that way either
15:09:12 [bigbluehat]
...there are three folks from social and one person from Europiana who feel we need to change our approach
15:09:23 [bigbluehat]
...there are also two subsidiary issues that have come out of it
15:09:37 [bigbluehat] that proposes getting rid of textDirection and instead use Unicode characters
15:09:51 [bigbluehat]
...and 337 around the carnality of processingLanguage
15:10:04 [bigbluehat]
...We have to address them. the question is how.
15:10:13 [TimCole]
15:10:23 [bigbluehat]
...We did talk to the I18N folks, and this approach was OK with them.
15:10:33 [bigbluehat]
...reversing them would be tricky as they've not been marked at risk
15:10:50 [bigbluehat]
...and in my opinion we have not seen information that proves they are actually not useful
15:10:57 [bigbluehat]
...we could change how we've described them
15:11:10 [bigbluehat]
...but we did go around several times with the I18N folks to come to the descriptions that we do have
15:11:16 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
15:11:16 [ivan]
15:11:51 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: one thing that got mentioned, is the assumption that we are specifying client behaviours as well as the data structures
15:12:08 [bigbluehat]
...the issue of context arose around formatted language hints
15:12:15 [bigbluehat]
...that an annotation creation agent could add about a resource
15:12:28 [bigbluehat]
...that might be useful
15:12:41 [bigbluehat]
...and that allowing multiple languages listed made it less useful
15:12:52 [bigbluehat] we added processingLanguage and textDirecton to help
15:13:14 [bigbluehat]
...but then we've also stated that if the actual resource states something different, that these can be considered as overridden
15:13:21 [bigbluehat]
...and these properties are meant to be used as hints
15:13:45 [bigbluehat]
...since we're not specifying client behavior, I don't think we should put anything heavier in place
15:14:15 [bigbluehat]
...I'd propose some editorial revisions that clarify the intended use, and clarify that we don't know how they'll be used, but that we wanted them there as we felt they were useful
15:14:55 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: format and language we can specify them on the annotation that the client can expect these things, but we can't guarantee
15:15:08 [bigbluehat]
...maybe the name has changed or whatever else
15:15:12 [bigbluehat]
...this is true with everything on the Web
15:15:19 [bigbluehat]
...the canonical source is authoritative
15:15:24 [bigbluehat]
...and it seems like a general principle
15:15:26 [PaoloCiccarese]
15:15:28 [bigbluehat] Section 2
15:15:38 [PaoloCiccarese]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:15:40 [bigbluehat]
...saying we're not trying to be authoritative
15:16:03 [bigbluehat] can add information as it's helpful, but if it's contradicted by the source, then you should believe that source
15:16:03 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:16:43 [bigbluehat]
ivan: I'm not deep into these topics, but we did have a very long discussion with the real experts
15:17:11 [bigbluehat]
...and with all my respect for the detractors, we've made our decisions with the input of these experts
15:17:20 [bigbluehat]
...and with that as background, we should not remove them
15:17:33 [bigbluehat]
...unless they I18N folks ask that after all they would rather we remove them
15:17:46 [bigbluehat] long as the I18N experts maintain their advice, we should keep things as they are
15:17:56 [tbdinesh]
15:18:06 [azaroth]
15:18:06 [bigbluehat]
...I am not sure what exactly what the editorial explanation like comments that we got
15:18:34 [bigbluehat]
...until now the only thing I see as a cursory reading is additional technical discussion
15:18:54 [bigbluehat]
...and doesn't seem to result in a "please put this content in this place in this way" sort of change
15:19:10 [bigbluehat]
...and it's really just too late for this sort of editorial usage commentary to be added to the spec
15:19:42 [bigbluehat]
...So, unless the I18N experts suggest we change them, we should make a resolution that we intend to keep them based on their input
15:20:00 [ShaneM]
15:20:02 [tbdinesh]
Unicode indicator will override. so not contradicting anything
15:20:06 [bigbluehat]
...and that it's just too late in the process to add the commentary
15:20:21 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Unless the i18n group advise otherwise, the WG will not remove textDirection and processingLanguage from the model
15:20:27 [PaoloCiccarese]
15:20:29 [azaroth]
15:20:32 [tbdinesh]
15:20:43 [TimCole]
15:20:48 [ivan]
15:20:50 [bigbluehat]
15:20:53 [takeshi]
15:20:57 [bjdmeest]
15:20:58 [ShaneM]
15:21:18 [PaoloCiccarese]
15:21:35 [bigbluehat]
PaoloCiccarese: so. I have a question.
15:21:41 [bigbluehat]
...say they don't come back to us about it
15:22:08 [bigbluehat]
...and that in a few months they come back and say that we should change these?
15:22:15 [bigbluehat]
ivan: this can happen to any feature in the document
15:22:22 [ShaneM]
Errata is a way to capture information
15:22:41 [bigbluehat] is a matter of at some point in time we'll have to figure out an errata mechanism
15:23:03 [bigbluehat]
...if it happens at all, it would be handled as an errata
15:23:10 [TimCole]
15:23:12 [tbdinesh]
how can it be an errata. its a MAY
15:23:15 [TimCole]
ack PaoloCiccarese
15:23:25 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: are their any other thoughts?
15:23:27 [bigbluehat]
RESOLUTION: Unless the i18n group advise otherwise, the WG will not remove textDirection and processingLanguage from the model
15:24:27 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: the other one ivan proposed seem to say if we could come up with something better we would
15:24:45 [bigbluehat]
ivan: yeah. we've mostly already said this via other comments
15:25:04 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: correct, we've said essentially "if anyone has other commentary, we're happy to hear it."
15:25:18 [ShaneM]
as long as the change is non-normative!
15:25:19 [bigbluehat]
ivan: right, as long as we've stated that we're here and accepting input
15:25:41 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: WG is happy to improve the text of the textdirection, processinglanguage descriptions with clear input as to what those changes should be
15:25:52 [bigbluehat]
15:25:55 [ivan]
15:26:00 [tbdinesh]
15:26:01 [TimCole]
15:26:03 [azaroth]
(and indeed, any other text in any of the documents!)
15:26:04 [azaroth]
15:26:26 [bjdmeest]
15:26:48 [takeshi]
15:26:55 [ShaneM]
15:26:58 [takeshi]
15:26:59 [PaoloCiccarese]
15:26:59 [bigbluehat]
RESOLUTION: WG is happy to improve the text of the textdirection, processinglanguage descriptions with clear input as to what those changes should be
15:27:04 [azaroth]
ack takeshi
15:27:38 [bigbluehat]
takeshi: I noticed that processingLanguage does not state what values should be used
15:27:44 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: yes. you are 100% correct.
15:28:11 [bigbluehat]
takeshi: to make things administratively right, let's get that added as a GitHub issue
15:28:21 [bigbluehat] it has a place, and the editors can handle it
15:28:30 [bigbluehat]
...because we need to have documentation for all our changes
15:28:34 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Clarify that the value of processingLanguage SHOULD be bcp47, as per language.
15:28:43 [TimCole]
15:28:45 [azaroth]
15:28:46 [bjdmeest]
15:28:47 [takeshi]
15:28:48 [tbdinesh]
15:28:51 [PaoloCiccarese]
15:28:55 [bigbluehat]
15:29:37 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: do people think we should invite the I18N folks to the meeting next week?
15:29:41 [uskudarli]
uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:30:05 [bigbluehat]
ivan: probably, we should show public support--again--to say we support their input
15:30:36 [bigbluehat]
RESOLUTION: Clarify that the value of processingLanguage SHOULD be bcp47, as per language.
15:30:44 [azaroth]
trackbot, pointer
15:30:44 [trackbot]
Sorry, azaroth, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:30:52 [azaroth]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:30:52 [RRSAgent]
15:31:52 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: I will make an issue that says that our content is based on the input of the I18N group
15:31:55 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Testing
15:32:31 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: one key piece to discuss is testing the value of properties even if the property is optional
15:32:36 [bigbluehat]
...including format and language
15:32:43 [bigbluehat]
...there is an ever increasing number of media types
15:32:53 [bigbluehat]
...and there's on the order of 8k languages and sub features on those
15:33:00 [bigbluehat]
...that also in theory could be tested with a JSON Schema
15:33:05 [bigbluehat]
...but that seems like massive overkill
15:33:16 [bigbluehat]
...and seems impossible to maintain
15:33:22 [bigbluehat]
...given the ongoing addition to both lists
15:33:35 [bigbluehat] perhaps we can test the shape of the strings
15:34:05 [TimCole]
15:34:05 [ShaneM]
15:34:06 [bigbluehat]
...using the list of top-level media types followed by a slash followed by some other characters
15:34:15 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
15:34:23 [bigbluehat] probably sufficient for media type
15:34:46 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: I agree that if the feature is optional, we won't try to be perfectly rigorous, but we will try to warn if the shape is wrong
15:34:52 [bigbluehat]
...that seems better than not testing at all
15:35:19 [bigbluehat]
...the perfect solution would need to use an outside services
15:35:38 [bigbluehat]
...we can continue to test the MUST requirements more rigorously
15:36:02 [bigbluehat]
...the other issue that came up was that if testing the value it's possible to add some more clarity to what the value should be
15:36:06 [ShaneM]
it means we need a separate assertion
15:36:13 [bigbluehat]
...there were a couple of other things
15:36:29 [bigbluehat]
...there are situations where we reference external vocabularies
15:36:38 [bigbluehat]
...two keys on Annotation:
15:36:48 [bigbluehat]
...audience and accessibility
15:36:48 [azaroth]
15:36:54 [azaroth]
(and following section)
15:36:57 [bigbluehat]
...the audience one should be from the namespace
15:37:21 [bigbluehat]
...these come from the classes
15:37:29 [azaroth]
^schema:(.+)$ ?
15:37:50 [bigbluehat]
...right. as azaroth says you can check that the value starts with `schema`
15:38:06 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: a follow-up question. Does the spec hard code the prefix?
15:38:08 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: yes.
15:38:11 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: excellent
15:38:27 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: k. that sounds easy and we don't need to look up the actual classes
15:38:44 [bigbluehat]
...and then the last question
15:39:03 [bigbluehat]
...we do have a few situations where it "should be exactly 1 but may be 0 or more."
15:39:32 [bigbluehat] seems worth checking these
15:39:55 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: thinking about. it's not a fail regardless
15:40:02 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: seems like a warning if there's 0 or more than 1
15:40:06 [bigbluehat]
...and fine if there's only 1
15:40:21 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: we have syntax for this in our assertion structure
15:40:32 [bigbluehat]
...the tests can still continue even if this check fails
15:40:59 [bigbluehat]
...what we need to do is make sure the message that comes out with the failure states that it's a suggested feature and not an actual failure
15:41:12 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: could you clarify the "succeed and continue" situation?
15:41:23 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: "succeed and continue" is not the result, it's the expected result?
15:41:51 [bigbluehat] if the thing worked, continue. which is what you'd expect it to do
15:42:11 [bigbluehat]
...I think we should just play with the combinations and see what we get
15:42:25 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: I'd like a message to come out in the results which is a warning, but that the process does continue
15:42:31 [bigbluehat]
...and its still marked as valid
15:42:52 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: unfortunately WPT has no method for outputting a message when things are successful
15:43:18 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: so passing the test is fine, but if you didn't pass the test, then we could "succeed and continue"
15:43:24 [bigbluehat]
...we'll try that see if that's what we need
15:43:32 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: right. that'd be the approach I'd suggest
15:43:48 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: we also have definitional schemas and other schemas that can be used as test scripts
15:43:55 [bigbluehat]
...we should be able to try and run some test scripts next week
15:44:04 [bigbluehat]
...and we'll be working on section 4 and section 5
15:44:17 [bigbluehat]
...the goal being to have all the schemas built next week
15:44:30 [bigbluehat]
...and perhaps we could get help running the test scripts
15:44:35 [bigbluehat]
...if I provide some draft test scripts
15:44:50 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: I'm happy to do that. the test dev environment is actually up and running
15:44:55 [ShaneM]
15:44:56 [bigbluehat]
...and stays up to date with the repo
15:45:03 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: k. we'll try that
15:45:13 [bigbluehat]
...the tests could compare a series of assertions
15:45:29 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:45:31 [bigbluehat]
...I'd like to put something together that puts all the optionals together
15:45:58 [bigbluehat]
ShaneM: I think that's fine. as long as there's an annotation that matches those criteria
15:46:31 [bigbluehat]
...there's just no way to do it with one huge schema, because there's no way one annotation would exercise all those tests
15:46:48 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: great. we're hoping to put stuff together with some of these libraries
15:46:55 [bigbluehat]
...perhaps in another language besides JS
15:46:55 [ShaneM] is a JS package to validate language tags btw
15:47:08 [bigbluehat]
azaroth: happy to help with Python for one
15:47:13 [azaroth]
15:47:17 [bigbluehat]
TimCole: if nothing else is needed here, let's move on to protocol testing
15:47:32 [TimCole]
scribenick: TimCole
15:47:56 [TimCole]
Topic: Protocol Testing
15:48:19 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: protocol multiple headers was a bit of a red herring
15:48:37 [ShaneM] JS library
15:48:47 [TimCole]
... have a stack of PR to bring protocol more in line with LDP
15:48:54 [TimCole]
ivan: are they all editorial?
15:49:14 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: maybe not, e.g., prefer headers...
15:49:50 [TimCole]
... include parameter in 2 headers, the latter should override
15:50:11 [TimCole]
... have rewritten the spec language to make clear how multiple headers work together
15:50:27 [TimCole]
ivan: a little lost in details
15:50:33 [bigbluehat]
15:50:46 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: so this is the section that I've proposed be revised
15:51:08 [TimCole]
... includes how LDP specifies the link headers should look
15:51:44 [TimCole]
ivan: this seems making more precise, not a technical change?
15:52:19 [tbdinesh]
yes there is
15:52:21 [TimCole]
azaroth: the CR doesn't mention multiple headers, so perhaps this is a clarification
15:52:26 [ShaneM]
15:52:46 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: we did add an 'example 4', was not in CR
15:52:56 [TimCole]
... so this is editorial
15:53:41 [ShaneM]
q+ to ask a question about model testing (before we adjourn)
15:53:57 [TimCole]
ivan: any change (even editorial) has to be fully documented and determined to be editorial
15:54:47 [TimCole]
azaroth: for the PR for this protocol issue, can we go ahead and merge after update section is updated
15:55:03 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: Note, the PR includes a few other clarifications
15:55:22 [TimCole]
... will add something to the changes section and then azaroth can merge
15:55:27 [ShaneM]
15:55:48 [TimCole]
azaroth: how close to protocol testing implementation?
15:56:01 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: updated to do include headers properly
15:56:16 [TimCole]
... researching how to get into WPT
15:56:22 [bigbluehat]
15:56:51 [TimCole]
ShaneM: at point where we want to request merge into WPT (once mergeable)
15:57:13 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: yes. and once merged should be fully compliant annotation server
15:57:20 [tbdinesh]
is there an annotations "dump" somewhere that can be used for protocol testing?
15:57:22 [TimCole]
azaroth: anything further on protocol?
15:57:30 [azaroth]
ack ShaneM
15:57:30 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to ask a question about model testing (before we adjourn)
15:58:06 [TimCole]
ShaneM: found js tests for media types and languages
15:58:15 [TimCole]
... ajv supports this
15:58:37 [TimCole]
... does not rely on external services
15:58:50 [TimCole]
... ajv implementation does not rely on external services
15:59:10 [TimCole]
azaroth: would tie implementation to ajv libraries
15:59:18 [TimCole]
... would not be able to use in python
15:59:29 [TimCole]
15:59:43 [TimCole]
azaroth: if possible to have a branch?
15:59:56 [TimCole]
ack TimCole
16:00:50 [TimCole]
TimCole: wait and do later, but not slow down progress on implementation testing
16:01:02 [azaroth]
16:01:16 [azaroth]
16:01:49 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Adjourn :)
16:02:14 [azaroth]
Ivan: You'll do the minutes magic?
16:02:16 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:02:16 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
16:02:20 [azaroth]
16:02:28 [azaroth]
Thank you!
16:02:42 [azaroth]
Oh, and thank you to Benjamin for scribing and Tim for assistance
16:02:51 [bigbluehat]
16:02:53 [bigbluehat]
happy to
16:02:58 [bigbluehat]
once a year ;)
16:04:31 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has left #annotation
16:04:38 [azaroth]
16:04:51 [bigbluehat]
16:41:36 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
17:25:09 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:13:25 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #annotation
21:43:22 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #annotation
22:18:14 [shepazu_]
shepazu_ has joined #annotation