See also: IRC log
<azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2016
<azaroth> Chair: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole
<csarven> In the process of joining the call.
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/16-annotation-minutes.html
<TimCole> scribenick: TimCole
<azaroth> +1
+1
<ivan> +1
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/09/16-annotation-minutes.html
<azaroth> Git: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/354
azaroth: The appendices need to be marked
informative rather than left blank defaulting to normative
... azaroth has made updates showing all except extension as informative
ivan: if C is left normative then we have to test.
azaroth: a good reason not to leave C
normative
... propose all vocab appendices be informative
ivan: still requires editorial action, correct?
azaroth: correct
<azaroth> Git issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/355
azaroth: this is in relation to TPAC
discussion about CG, WG, IG making changes to namespaces, because
namespace docs are not normative
... however, these changes could affect normative sections and
constraints
... propose adding a comment to namespace clarifying our intended
direction for document, requiring changes have to come through a WG
ivan: not sure how to say properly
... hypothetical- a new publishing WG next year decides it needs to
define a new selector
... unless this new selector references the Annotation specs, couldn't
add to oa namespace
azaroth: yes, they can add to their own namespace, but not ours
ivan: are we going to far the other
direction?
... can we be more wishy washy
bigbluehat: one of the groups interested in
this is the Soc Web WG
... they have a term that they would like to LDP (for notifications) and
they are having a problem getting this done
... vocab extension discussion is growing
... so we need to leave open to eventual solution
azaroth: would ivan's wording, e.g., extension must come from a WG that has established expertise
<ivan> for example, "Any changes to this document MUST be from a Working Group in the W3C that has established expertise in the area"
azaroth: we can't enforce, but we should make our feelings known
bigbluehat: we need to be clear whether we want to allow CGs to add extensions.
<bigbluehat> +1 to ivan's wording..."established expertise" being sufficiently vague, but also exciting ;)
csarven: probably would be best to leave to WG, not CG
<azaroth> +1 to Ivan's wording as well
csarven: 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
<Jacob> +1 from me as well
csarven: should do our best to preclude random extensions and changes
<bigbluehat> +1 to proposing ivan's wording as a resolution
<rhiaro> +1 ivan's wording from the sidelines
azaroth: any objections to Ivan's wording?
... none heard, let's move forward with this as an editorial change
ivan: where does this text go?
azaroth:
<azaroth> Git Issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/357
azaroth: just into the namespace document
azaroth: from testing, should it be allowed
to have TextualBody as the source of a SpecificResource
... technically it should be allowed (a TextualBody is a Resource)
... but current language seems more constraining in how TextualBody is
used
... allowing would make it possible to use styleClass and renderedVia on
TextualBody
... also a TextualBody of Anno A may become the Target of Anno B
,,, does this need to be clarified?
ivan: yes we acknowledge that it is allowed, but don't change the document
<Jacob> +1 to ivan
<bigbluehat> +1
ivan: if we start looking at use cases, we could end up in a lengthy discussion
<azaroth> scribenick: 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
... 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
<TimCole> scribenick: 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
... result is we close the issue (Ivan has done).
azaroth: this is just a bug
... the context has a different term than we have in the model
... fix is to change term in context
... context is not normative, so we should be able to modify now without
an additional process
ivan: also found a couple of issues with the
context document, so let's fix these as soon as possible
... also found issues with the namespace document
<azaroth> Git: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/359
ivan: so let's change and Ivan will update
azaroth: the other issues are #359 and #353
<azaroth> Git: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/353
azaroth: #353 is a duplicate of one Greg
already submitted
... so editors will fix (azaroth) and pass on to Ivan
... azaroth will close
<azaroth> git: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/360
latest issue is about use of rights
azaroth: not clear from an ip perspective
what an annotation is, so what is the rights statement conveying
... second statement was we said that the statement must be a uri but
can it be a json instead?
... bodies and annotation each can have separate rights statements
... do we need to make any changes, beyond responding to clarify what
the annotation is
<bigbluehat> add a license to target in the example also?
<bigbluehat> the text is great
<bigbluehat> or maybe expand the example to show multiple bodies?
ivan: text fairly clearly says what the
rights statements applies to
... maybe one or two words can be editorial altered but...
azaroth: second part -- must be iri, can it be embedded json?
<bigbluehat> can we say Resource?
azaroth: not certain what they meant be
embedded json
... is it a description of a resource? or something random?
ivan: think what was meant is that in some
cases we want a complex resource there
... e.g., a blank node with some properties
<azaroth> " There may be at exactly 0 or more rights statements or licenses linked from each resource, and the value must be an IRI. "
azaroth: didn't want to overcomplicate the rights statement, so went with an iri rather than "resource"
ivan: can respond that this was intended
TimCole: we tested it that way too
ivan: then we can respond that changing from iri would be
a normative change which would complicate the CR
... is this important enough to reopen the CR to make a normative
change?
... if there are valid use cases here, we record them in git with an eye
towards revising in version 2
... Rob please respond to him so that the issue is properly closed
TimCole: CR ends today
... not certain that we have 2 implementations of everything to be
tested
... what would be realistic to get the testing done
... just made some changes that tweak the tests
<ShaneM> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/README.md
ivan: looking at the model report (from
Takeshi), 1st block are the required features
... 2nd block is optional?
TimCole: 1st block determines that specific
resource wasn't misused
... 2nd block determines that specific resource was used
... textual body also implemented now
... once we have Rob's implementation and Europeana's implementation
then we will be very close to 2 implementations
ivan: can see two fails (content locator and id must match) and (target iri)
azaroth: these are bugs in line to be fixed
... https still getting it, as for paging, not enough annotations to
test yet
ivan: will everything be ready to start the last round of testing[?] by the end of October?
azaroth: can take the output from the protocol servers and reuse for testing the model
TimCole: embedded textual body only has one
implementation
... body value
azaroth: generated we will get from the protocol servers
TimCole: but not part of exit criteria
... embedded textual body, choice, independents, specific resource, list
have implementations of choice but not independents or list
azaroth: that's ok, they are marked at risk
ShaneM: want to confirm that things are being removed because of implementations and not the lack of tests
TimCole: these were marked at risk because while we have use cases, no one is implementing, not related to tests
ivan: by last week of October, editorial
changes should be done
... know that some things are pending (from today), these must
absolutely be done
<ShaneM> Note that I ened to modify wptreport to allow rolling up of results.
ivan: then tests and reports as we discussed
... once these are done then we can move one
TimCole: still implementing the changes in how we test optionals and report optionals
ShaneM: one of these written, not yet committed
TimCole: only issue is that there may not be enough implementations of bodyValue
ivan: we're still waiting for Europeana
<csarven> I'll have to revisit https://github.com/csarven/mayktso to see how close it is to being a WAP implementation.
TimCole: reference implementation = a by-hand annotation based on the model
<tbdinesh> yep
TimCole: in the report columns it is labeled AI, EB is Illinois working implementation (for the Emblematica DigLib)
ivan: if we get an implementation from
dinesh and europeana then that will be 5 or 6 implementations for the
model
... if europeana implements the protocol then we'll have three
implementations of that
<ShaneM> I have removed the AI columns from the model result report.
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about removing things from spec
azaroth: one thing to note, Rob will be at Europeana in 2 weeks time, so can talk directly to Antoine
TimCole: would like to start the html
discussion
... haven't created the skeleton note yet, doing it this week
'... assuming that there are only 2 approaches that will be described
scribe: embedding annotations as json+ld in a script tag
<ShaneM> I wonder how Benjamin's work does it?
scribe: and embedding via rdfa (by someone else)
<csarven> https://github.com/csarven/dokieli is one
<csarven> err
<csarven> https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli is one
ivan: can we merge this into one note?
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?
TimCole: the idea is to point to examples of
how the vocabulary is useful even if the annotations are
stored/transmitted directly in html
... leaving it to someone else to look at in the future
ivan: the note is not an implementation in
the terms of testing, intended for users
... so that they can see how annotations can be used in/with html
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to mention web platform and annotations
ShaneM: review ongoing for the web platform
working group
... punts the find text api to the annotation working group
ivan: there is no work going on it, is not in our charter
csraven: use case for dokeili is using rdfa
... for use with services that are not explicitly annotation services
... might be good to come up with more use cases for rdfa serialization
for the note
... might be helpful
TimCole: useful for people to see, use case csraven has outlined is compelling
ivan: don't want to make too much of a deal
out of it, at a stage where work is winding down
... enough for the note to describe the use case as an example of usage
... goal is to signal that a future working group could address
embedding annotations into html more formally
... but don
<csarven> Ack ivan, thanks.
ivan: want to provide to much emphasis on it right now
s /provide to/provide too
TimCole: going to create the skeleton of the note and add in the json+ld
<csarven> Happy to lead the RDFa bits
ivan: should do conver the json+ld into
turtle and put it into the document too
... can use turtle in html too
<csarven> Sure
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon