IRC log of annotation on 2016-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:42:21 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:42:21 [RRSAgent]
logging to
14:42:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:42:23 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #annotation
14:42:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
14:42:25 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:42:26 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:42:26 [trackbot]
Date: 30 September 2016
14:42:41 [ivan]
14:42:46 [ivan]
Chair: Tim, Rob
14:49:26 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
14:50:32 [azaroth]
azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda:
14:50:44 [azaroth]
rrsagent, start telco
14:50:44 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'start telco', azaroth. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:50:48 [azaroth]
rrsagent, start meeting
14:50:48 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'start meeting', azaroth. Try /msg RRSAgent help
14:50:58 [azaroth]
trackbot, start meeting
14:51:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:51:02 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
14:51:03 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:51:03 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:51:04 [trackbot]
Date: 30 September 2016
14:51:22 [bigbluehat]
Present+ Benjamin_Young
14:51:29 [azaroth]
Chair: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole
14:51:34 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:58:25 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:55 [ivan]
15:01:57 [csarven]
15:02:02 [csarven]
In the process of joining the call.
15:03:46 [TimCole]
present+ Tim_Cole\
15:03:50 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
15:03:53 [TimCole]
scribenick: TimCole
15:03:56 [azaroth]
15:03:59 [TimCole]
15:04:02 [ivan]
15:04:08 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:04:11 [TimCole]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
15:04:20 [tbdinesh]
Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:04:24 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Issues
15:04:26 [TimCole]
Topic: Issue Updates
15:04:42 [azaroth]
15:05:18 [TimCole]
azaroth: The appendices need to be marked informative rather than left blank defaulting to normative
15:05:45 [TimCole]
... azaroth has made updates showing all except extension as informative
15:05:54 [ShaneM]
ShaneM has joined #annotation
15:05:59 [TimCole]
ivan: if C is left normative then we have to test.
15:06:14 [dwhly]
Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:06:15 [TimCole]
azaroth: a good reason not to leave C normative
15:06:28 [TimCole]
azaroth: propose all vocab appendices be informative
15:06:34 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:06:34 [RRSAgent]
15:06:53 [TimCole]
ivan: still requires editorial action, correct?
15:07:00 [TimCole]
azaroth: correct
15:07:10 [TimCole]
Topic: Issue 355
15:07:10 [azaroth]
Git issue:
15:07:45 [TimCole]
azaroth: this is in relation to TPAC discussion about CG, WG, IG making changes to namespaces, because namespace docs are not normative
15:08:02 [TimCole]
... however, these changes could affect normative sections and constraints
15:08:38 [TimCole]
... propose adding a comment to namespace clarifying our intended direction for document, requiring changes have to come through a WG
15:08:46 [TimCole]
ivan: not sure how to say properly
15:09:08 [Jacob]
Jacob has joined #annotation
15:09:17 [TimCole]
... hypothetical- a new publishing WG next year decides it needs to define a new selector
15:09:19 [Jacob]
present+ Jacob_Jett
15:09:38 [ShaneM]
present+ ShaneM
15:09:57 [TimCole]
... unless this new selector references the Annotation specs, couldn't add to oa namespace
15:10:09 [bigbluehat]
15:10:13 [TimCole]
azaroth: yes, they can add to their own namespace, but not ours
15:10:27 [TimCole]
ivan: are we going to far the other direction?
15:10:42 [azaroth]
ack bigbluehat
15:10:42 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:10:44 [TimCole]
... can we be more wishy washy
15:11:16 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: one of the groups interested in this is the Soc Web WG
15:11:51 [TimCole]
... they have a term that they would like to LDP (for notifications) and they are having a problem getting this done
15:11:59 [TimCole]
... vocab extension discussion is growing
15:12:03 [ivan]
15:12:10 [TimCole]
... so we need to leave open to eventual solution
15:12:41 [csarven]
15:12:52 [TimCole]
azaroth: would ivan's wording, e.g., extension must come from a WG that has established expertise
15:13:03 [ivan]
for example, "Any changes to this document MUST be from a Working Group in the W3C that has established expertise in the area"
15:13:07 [csarven]
15:13:08 [TimCole]
... we can't enforce, but we should make our feelings known
15:13:18 [azaroth]
ack csarven
15:13:41 [TimCole]
bigbluehat: we need to be clear whether we want to allow CGs to add extensions.
15:13:41 [bigbluehat]
+1 to ivan's wording..."established expertise" being sufficiently vague, but also exciting ;)
15:14:03 [TimCole]
csarven: probably would be best to leave to WG, not CG
15:14:38 [azaroth]
+1 to Ivan's wording as well
15:14:42 [TimCole]
... we need confidence that the group making the extension has knowledge and is committed, which is more likely to come with WG rather than CG or through a note
15:14:45 [Jacob]
+1 from me as well
15:15:10 [TimCole]
... should do our best to preclude random extensions and changes
15:15:13 [bigbluehat]
+1 to proposing ivan's wording as a resolution
15:15:21 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:15:21 [RRSAgent]
15:15:21 [rhiaro]
+1 ivan's wording from the sidelines
15:15:22 [TimCole]
azaroth: any objections to Ivan's wording?
15:15:39 [TimCole]
... none heard, let's move forward with this as an editorial change
15:15:48 [TimCole]
ivan: where does this text go?
15:15:51 [TimCole]
15:16:00 [azaroth]
Git Issue:
15:16:01 [TimCole]
... just into the namespace document
15:16:29 [TimCole]
Topic: next issue #357
15:17:05 [TimCole]
azaroth: from testing, should it be allowed to have TextualBody as the source of a SpecificResource
15:17:24 [TimCole]
... technically it should be allowed (a TextualBody is a Resource)
15:17:42 [TimCole]
... but current language seems more constraining in how TextualBody is used
15:18:13 [TimCole]
... allowing would make it possible to use styleClass and renderedVia on TextualBody
15:18:29 [ivan]
15:18:38 [TimCole]
... also a TextualBody of Anno A may become the Target of Anno B
15:19:01 [azaroth]
ack Ivan
15:19:09 [TimCole]
,,, does this need to be clarified?
15:19:30 [TimCole]
ivan: yes we acknowledge that it is allowed, but don't change the document
15:19:40 [Jacob]
+1 to ivan
15:19:41 [bigbluehat]
15:19:53 [TimCole]
... if we start looking at use cases, we could end up in a lengthy discussion
15:19:57 [TimCole]
15:20:08 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
15:20:16 [azaroth]
scribenick: azaroth
15:20:57 [azaroth]
TimCole: It came from some real annotations at Princeton, they were using purpose this way. I pointed out they didn't really have to. Some early testing discussions was that we didn't really want this. We can change the tests, and happy for people to ask questions that might be clarified in email or later documents
15:21:23 [azaroth]
... As Rob says, the model doesn't conclude this either way, and there'll be some confusion around purpose as there's two ways to handle purpose in the model
15:21:42 [TimCole]
scribenick: TimCole
15:21:44 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:21:44 [RRSAgent]
15:22:17 [TimCole]
azaroth: proposal, make sure tests allow, but no change is really needed in the specs. These are edge cases and we now know how we feel about this
15:22:33 [TimCole]
... result is we close the issue (Ivan has done).
15:22:51 [TimCole]
Topic: issue #358
15:23:00 [TimCole]
azaroth: this is just a bug
15:23:17 [TimCole]
... the context has a different term than we have in the model
15:23:29 [TimCole]
... fix is to change term in context
15:23:50 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:23:50 [RRSAgent]
15:23:52 [TimCole]
... context is not normative, so we should be able to modify now without an additional process
15:24:26 [TimCole]
ivan: also found a couple of issues with the context document, so let's fix these as soon as possible
15:24:33 [TimCole]
... also found issues with the namespace document
15:24:40 [azaroth]
15:24:47 [TimCole]
... so let's change and Ivan will update
15:25:14 [TimCole]
azaroth: the other issues are #359 and #353
15:25:17 [azaroth]
15:25:20 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:25:20 [RRSAgent]
15:25:42 [TimCole]
... #353 is a duplicate of one Greg already submitted
15:26:05 [TimCole]
... so editors will fix (azaroth) and pass on to Ivan
15:26:14 [TimCole]
... azaroth will close
15:26:19 [Jacob]
scribenick: Jacob
15:26:23 [azaroth]
15:26:44 [Jacob]
latest issue is about use of rights
15:27:19 [Jacob]
azaroth: not clear from an ip perspective what an annotation is, so what is the rights statement conveying
15:27:40 [Jacob]
... second statement was we said that the statement must be a uri but can it be a json instead?
15:27:42 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #annotation
15:28:07 [Jacob]
... bodies and annotation each can have separate rights statements
15:28:29 [Jacob]
... do we need to make any changes, beyond responding to clarify what the annotaiton is
15:28:39 [bigbluehat]
add a license to target in the example also?
15:28:43 [bigbluehat]
the text is great
15:29:02 [bigbluehat]
or maybe multiple bodies?
15:29:04 [Jacob]
ivan: text fairly clearly says what the rights statements applies to
15:29:27 [bigbluehat]
s/or maybe/or maybe expand the example to show/
15:29:29 [Jacob]
... maybe one or two words can be editorial altered but...
15:29:46 [Jacob]
azaroth: second part -- must be iri, can it be embedded json?
15:29:46 [bigbluehat]
can we say Resource?
15:30:03 [ivan]
15:30:04 [Jacob]
... not certain what they meant be embedded json
15:30:11 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:30:14 [Jacob]
... is it a description of a resource? or something random?
15:30:34 [Jacob]
ivan: think what was meant is that in some cases we want a complex resource there
15:30:42 [Jacob]
... e.g., a blank node with some properties
15:31:04 [azaroth]
" There may be at exactly 0 or more rights statements or licenses linked from each resource, and the value must be an IRI. "
15:31:15 [TimCole]
15:31:38 [Jacob]
azaroth: didn't want to overcomplicate the rights statement, so went with an iri rather than "resource"
15:31:43 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
15:31:54 [Jacob]
ivan: can respond that this was intended
15:32:04 [Jacob]
TimCole: we tested it that way too
15:32:40 [Jacob]
ivan: then we can respond that changing from iri would be a normative change which would complicate the CR
15:32:59 [Jacob]
... is this important enough to reopen the CR to make a normative change?
15:33:27 [Jacob]
... if there are valid use cases here, we record them in git with an eye towards revising in version 2
15:34:01 [Jacob]
... Rob please respond to him so that the issue is properly closed
15:34:20 [Jacob]
TimCole: CR ends today
15:34:41 [Jacob]
... not certain that we have 2 implementations of everything to be tested
15:34:52 [Jacob]
... what would be realistic to get the testing done
15:35:00 [Jacob]
... just made some changes that tweak the tests
15:35:37 [ShaneM]
15:36:17 [Jacob]
ivan: looking at the model report (from Takeshi), 1st block are the required features
15:36:23 [Jacob]
... 2nd block is optional?
15:36:46 [Jacob]
TimCole: 1st block determines that specific resource wasn't misused
15:36:56 [Jacob]
... 2nd block determines that specific resource was used
15:37:10 [Jacob]
... textual body also implemented now
15:38:02 [Jacob]
...once we have Rob's implementation and Europeana's implementation then we will be very close to 2 implementations
15:38:45 [Jacob]
ivan: can see two fails (content locator and id must match) and (target iri)
15:39:04 [Jacob]
azaroth: these are bugs in line to be fixed
15:39:53 [Jacob]
... https still getting it, as for paging, not enough annotations to test yet
15:40:37 [Jacob]
ivan: will everything be ready to start the last round of testing[?] by the end of October?
15:41:22 [Jacob]
azaroth: can take the output from the protocol servers and reuse for testing the model
15:41:51 [Jacob]
TimCole: embedded textual body only has one implementation
15:42:07 [Jacob]
... body value
15:42:27 [Jacob]
azaroth: generated we will get from the protocol servers
15:42:45 [Jacob]
TimCole: but not part of exit criteria
15:43:08 [ivan]
15:43:14 [Jacob]
... embedded textual body, choice, independents, specific resource, list
15:43:18 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:43:22 [ShaneM]
q+ to ask about removing things from spec
15:43:29 [Jacob]
have implementations of choice but not independents or list
15:43:46 [Jacob]
azaroth: that's ok, they are marked at risk
15:44:28 [Jacob]
ShaneM: want to confirm that things are being removed because of implementations and not the lack of tests
15:44:53 [Jacob]
TimCole: these were marked at risk because while we have use cases, no one is implementing, not related to tests
15:45:12 [Jacob]
ivan: by last week of October, editorial changes should be done
15:45:57 [Jacob]
... know that some things are pending (from today), these must absolutely be done
15:46:00 [ShaneM]
Note that I ened to modify wptreport to allow rolling up of results.
15:46:06 [Jacob]
... then tests and reports as we discussed
15:46:15 [Jacob]
... once these are done then we can move one
15:46:23 [Jacob]
s /one/on
15:47:23 [Jacob]
TimCole: still implementing the changes in how we test optionals and report optionals
15:47:39 [Jacob]
ShaneM: one of these written, not yet committed
15:48:15 [Jacob]
TimCole: only issue is that there may not be enough implementations of bodyValue
15:48:40 [Jacob]
ivan: we're still waiting for Europeana
15:49:12 [csarven]
I'll have to revisit to see how close it is to being a WAP implementation.
15:49:23 [Jacob]
TimCole: reference implementation = a by-hand annotation based on the model
15:50:08 [tbdinesh]
15:50:11 [Jacob]
... in the report columns it is labeled AI, EB is Illinois working implementation (for the Emblematica DigLib)
15:50:59 [Jacob]
ivan: if we get an implementation form dinesh and europeana then that will be 5 or 6 implementations for the model
15:51:22 [Jacob]
... if europeana implements the protocol then we'll have three implementations of that
15:51:30 [tbdinesh]
15:51:52 [ShaneM]
I have removed the AI columns from the model result report.
15:52:04 [ivan]
15:52:06 [TimCole]
15:52:11 [TimCole]
ack ShaneM
15:52:11 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to ask about removing things from spec
15:52:34 [Jacob]
azaroth: one thing to note, Rob will be at Europeana in 2 weeks time, so can talk directly to Antoine
15:53:13 [Jacob]
TimCole: would like to start the html discussion
15:53:24 [Jacob]
... haven't created the skeleton note yet, doing it this week
15:53:38 [Jacob]
'... assuming that there are only 2 approaches that will be described
15:54:07 [Jacob]
... embedding annotations as json+ld in a script tag
15:54:15 [ShaneM]
I wonder how Benjamin's work does it?
15:54:20 [Jacob]
... and embedding via rdfa (by someone else)
15:54:20 [csarven] is one
15:54:26 [csarven]
15:54:30 [csarven] is one
15:55:23 [Jacob]
ivan: can we merge this into one note?
15:55:53 [Jacob]
csraven: do we really need a note on rdfa serialization? is this to make it easier for people to use the vocab to implement rdfa?
15:56:32 [Jacob]
TimCole: the idea is to point to examples of how the vocabulary is useful even if the annotations are stored/transmitted directly in html
15:56:42 [Jacob]
... leaving it to someone else to look at in the future
15:56:49 [ShaneM]
q+ to mention web platform and annotations
15:57:22 [Jacob]
ivan: the note is not an implementation in the terms of testing, intended for users
15:57:36 [Jacob]
... so that they can see how annotations can be used in/with html
15:57:44 [TimCole]
ack ShaneM
15:57:44 [Zakim]
ShaneM, you wanted to mention web platform and annotations
15:57:57 [Jacob]
ShaneM: review ongoing for the web platform working group
15:58:19 [Jacob]
... punts the find text api to the annotation working group
15:58:26 [csarven]
15:58:51 [Jacob]
ivan: there is no work going on it, is not in our charter
15:58:54 [TimCole]
ack csarven
15:59:15 [Jacob]
csraven: use case for dokeili is using rdfa
16:00:04 [Jacob]
... for use with services that are not explicitly annotation services
16:00:21 [ivan]
16:00:23 [Jacob]
... might be good to come up with more use cases for rdfa serialization for the note
16:00:30 [Jacob]
... might be helpful
16:00:53 [Jacob]
TimCole: useful for people to see, use case csraven has outlined is compelling
16:01:00 [TimCole]
ack ivan
16:01:30 [Jacob]
ivan: don't want to make too much of a deal out of it, at a stage where work is winding down
16:01:47 [Jacob]
... enough for the note to describe the use case as an example of usage
16:02:21 [Jacob]
... goal is to signal that a future working group could address embedding annotations into html more formally
16:02:24 [Jacob]
... but don
16:02:37 [csarven]
Ack ivan, thanks.
16:02:42 [Jacob]
... want to provide to much emphasis on it right now
16:02:57 [Jacob]
s /provide to/provide too
16:03:22 [Jacob]
TimCole: going to create the skeleton of the note and add in the json+ld
16:03:33 [csarven]
Happy to lead the RDFa bits
16:03:53 [Jacob]
ivan: should do conver the json+ld into turtle and put it into the document too
16:04:01 [Jacob]
... can use turtle in html too
16:04:13 [csarven]
16:04:38 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:04:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate ivan
16:05:07 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
16:05:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:05:07 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Benjamin_Young, Rob_Sanderson, ivan, csarven, Tim_Cole\, TB_Dinesh, Dan_Whaley, Jacob_Jett, ShaneM
16:05:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:15 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:05:16 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:05:16 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items