14:07:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:07:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-irc
14:07:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:07:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:07:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:07:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
14:07:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:07:43 <trackbot> Date: 28 October 2016
14:07:57 <ivan> Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/097301d23098$d9a3f950$8cebebf0$@illinois.edu
14:08:14 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda 2016-10-18: http://www.w3.org/mid/097301d23098$d9a3f950$8cebebf0$@illinois.edu
14:45:04 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:51:29 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
14:54:31 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
14:59:34 <tbdinesh_> tbdinesh_ has joined #annotation
14:59:37 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:59:53 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:01:26 <bigbluehat> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:01:36 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:01:49 <tbdinesh_> Is the password changed?
15:01:51 <ivan> Present+
15:01:53 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:02:15 <ivan> tbdinesh_: no
15:03:19 <uskudarli_> uskudarli_ has joined #annotation
15:03:41 <tbdinesh_> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:04:52 <TimCole> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria
15:04:58 <PaoloC> PaoloC has joined #annotation
15:05:08 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:11:14 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:11:48 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:12:06 <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/10/07-annotation-minutes.html
15:12:24 <bigbluehat> TimCole: any objections? no. Great!
15:12:28 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/10/07-annotation-minutes.html
15:12:34 <TimCole> Topic: Issues
15:12:47 <bigbluehat> TimCole: azaroth got updates?
15:12:55 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there are 4 issues. All of which are I18N related
15:13:06 <bigbluehat> ...these haven't yet been accepted or a proposal to fix hasn't been accepted
15:13:10 <bigbluehat> TimCole: do they all have proposals
15:13:22 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yes. numbers coming into the logsshortly
15:13:29 <azaroth> #342, #343, #345, #348
15:13:29 <bigbluehat> s/logsshortly/logs shortly
15:13:49 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/342
15:13:51 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/343
15:13:52 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/345
15:13:54 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/348
15:14:31 <bigbluehat> ivan: for 342, this isn't one the I18N group created
15:14:41 <bigbluehat> ...so we can close this without the I18N sign-off
15:14:47 <bigbluehat> azaroth: right. let's see if we can close it now
15:15:08 <bigbluehat> ...it's a request in a non-normative note that we should clarify when and where you use processing language and language
15:15:18 <bigbluehat> ...since it would be non-normative, then I'm not sure it adds any value
15:15:29 <bigbluehat> ...and we essentially say it's OK not to provide processingLanugage anyhow
15:15:34 <PaoloC> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:15:35 <bigbluehat> ...seems easy to close to me
15:15:46 <bigbluehat> TimCole:  any discussion on this?
15:16:04 <bigbluehat> ...I don't see a normative way to close this
15:16:30 <bigbluehat> s/...I don't see a normative way to close this/...I don't see a normative way to address their concern
15:16:32 <Jacob> +1 to close
15:16:33 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close #342 without a fix, as there's no value in a non normative note, and the information is already in the document in a slightly different form
15:16:35 <azaroth> +1
15:16:37 <bigbluehat> +1
15:16:40 <tbdinesh> +1
15:16:42 <ivan> +1
15:16:45 <PaoloC> +1
15:17:02 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:17:02 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-irc#T15-17-02
15:17:09 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Close #342 without a fix, as there's no value in a non normative note, and the information is already in the document in a slightly different form
15:17:29 <bigbluehat> Topic: Issue 343
15:17:57 <bigbluehat> azaroth: should there be a relationship between language and processingLanguage?
15:18:05 <bigbluehat> ...it doesn't really make since the RDF statement world
15:18:14 <bigbluehat> ...and you might want to be more specific in processingLanguage than in language
15:18:32 <bigbluehat> ...such as a spellchecker use case for English + English UK (for the spellchecker)
15:18:51 <bigbluehat> ...there are reasons not to disallow it--and I added a scenario to the issue
15:18:55 <bigbluehat> ...so I propose wontfix
15:19:11 <bigbluehat> TimCole: should we got back and ask?
15:19:20 <bigbluehat> azaroth: let's flip it. We close it, and if they object, we'll reopen it
15:19:28 <bigbluehat> ivan: I agree.
15:20:00 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close #343 as there are no use cases for requiring processingLanguage to be one of the languages, and at least one use case for when they would not be
15:20:04 <Jacob> +1
15:20:05 <ivan> +1
15:20:05 <azaroth> +1
15:20:05 <TimCole> +1
15:20:07 <bigbluehat> +1
15:20:07 <tbdinesh> I can object already
15:20:15 <PaoloC> +1
15:22:18 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so the issue is whether or not we require the `language` value to be included in `processingLanguage`
15:22:32 <bigbluehat> ...there might be a reason to not include it, as your processingLanguage is a sub-set
15:22:56 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#model-1
15:23:04 <bigbluehat> processingLanguage ^^
15:23:11 <bigbluehat> "The language to use for text processing algorithms such as line breaking, hyphenation, which font to use, and similar. "
15:23:29 <bigbluehat> TimCole: basically, you want to narrow or clarify the processing of the text via processingLanguage
15:23:37 <tbdinesh> +1
15:23:37 <bigbluehat> ivan: can you +1 then tbdinesh
15:23:43 <bigbluehat> ivan: tnx.
15:23:52 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:23:52 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-irc#T15-23-52
15:24:07 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Close #343 as there are no use cases for requiring processingLanguage to be one of the languages, and at least one use case for when they would not be
15:24:14 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the next one's a bit longer
15:24:25 <bigbluehat> ...also Richard created this one
15:24:31 <bigbluehat> ivan: right, so we shouldn't close it without his feedback
15:24:58 <bigbluehat> Topic:  Issue #345
15:25:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: the issue seems to be that processingLanguage does not say that BCP47 is a SHOULD
15:25:50 <bigbluehat> ...but it should be a SHOULD in my opinion
15:26:00 <bigbluehat> ivan: is this normative?
15:26:05 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it would only add a SHOULD
15:26:23 <bigbluehat> ivan: you may also want to call out to Richard that we want his yeah/nay on this one
15:26:32 <bigbluehat> ...we conditionally accept it if Richard +1's it...basically
15:26:38 <bigbluehat> TimCole: any concerns from the folks on the call?
15:26:46 <bigbluehat> ...it seems it really SHOULD have been there all along
15:27:02 <bigbluehat> azaroth: putting in the proposal
15:27:07 <bigbluehat> TimCole: well, we can't close it today
15:27:09 <azaroth> PROPOSAL:  Add a SHOULD for BCP47 to processingLanguage (as an oversight), conditional on acceptance from i18n
15:27:12 <azaroth> +1
15:27:13 <Jacob> +1
15:27:16 <bigbluehat> azaroth: but we can have it ready for when we hear back from Richard
15:27:16 <tbdinesh> +1
15:27:16 <bigbluehat> +1
15:27:17 <TimCole> +1
15:27:25 <ivan> +1
15:27:31 <azaroth> Yes please
15:27:37 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Add a SHOULD for BCP47 to processingLanguage (as an oversight), conditional on acceptance from i18n
15:27:38 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:27:38 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-irc#T15-27-38
15:27:53 <bigbluehat> s/Yes please//
15:28:14 <bigbluehat> Topic: Issue 348
15:28:23 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there are two issues in this one
15:28:35 <bigbluehat> ...one is that we take "auto" from HTML5--which is character-by-character order
15:29:09 <bigbluehat> ...essentially I feel it's not our problem
15:29:19 <bigbluehat> ...There was also a lot of discussion about Unicode
15:29:37 <bigbluehat> ...that we should express direction related to Unicode
15:29:46 <bigbluehat> ...but these properties are about external resources
15:29:50 <r12a> r12a has joined #annotation
15:29:59 <bigbluehat> ...so we can't dictate Unicode for those resources
15:30:38 <bigbluehat> ...for the inline bodies and such, they have to be UTF-8 because JSON
15:30:58 <bigbluehat> ...so the plan is to propose that we cannot change the declarations related to external resources
15:33:32 <bigbluehat> TimCole: we still need a resolution for 348
15:34:57 <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Change the definition of textDirection as requested, leave the definitions of rtl, ltr and auto exactly as per HTML5, do not require unicode for external resources outside of our control
15:35:01 <ivan> +1
15:35:04 <bigbluehat> +1
15:35:05 <azaroth> +1
15:35:11 <TimCole> +1
15:35:15 <tbdinesh> +1
15:35:46 <ivan> rrsagent, pointer?
15:35:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-irc#T15-35-46
15:35:52 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Change the definition of textDirection as requested, leave the definitions of rtl, ltr and auto exactly as per HTML5, do not require unicode for external resources outside of our control
15:36:18 <bigbluehat> azaroth: now it's just the editorial work
15:36:26 <ivan> current PR Issues: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestone/3
15:36:51 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/324 ?
15:36:57 <bigbluehat> ivan: sadly, azaroth we have one left
15:37:09 <bigbluehat> azaroth: ah yes. 324
15:37:15 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/324
15:37:18 <bigbluehat> Topic: Issue 324
15:37:34 <bigbluehat> azaroth: we decided not to do our own media-type
15:37:40 <bigbluehat> ...but instead to a profile for JSON-LD
15:38:06 <r12a> r12a has left #annotation
15:38:08 <bigbluehat> ...there is a registry for profiles: https://tools.ietf.org/rfc/rfc7284.txt
15:38:17 <bigbluehat> ...so to be good citizens of the Web, we should register it
15:38:56 <bigbluehat> ivan: is this expected procedure?
15:39:26 <bigbluehat> TimCole: do we need to do this before we exit CR?
15:39:45 <bigbluehat> ivan: we can close it by changing the milestone
15:39:51 <bigbluehat> ...it doesn't effect CR
15:41:46 <ivan> Draft transition request: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/PRTransitionAdmin/PRTransitionRequest.md
15:42:01 <bigbluehat> ivan: I have prepared this transition request
15:42:14 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I'll take first cut at the editor_actions this afternoon
15:42:16 <bigbluehat> ivan: thanks
15:42:27 <TimCole> Topic: Draft doc for exiting CR
15:42:34 <bigbluehat> ivan: we do have to need to decide editorially what we do with the "at risk" features
15:43:07 <bigbluehat> ...we need to do something with the ones marked as "at risk" and we need to address the sort-of "at risk" terms from AS2
15:43:16 <bigbluehat> TimCole: what are our options?
15:43:21 <bigbluehat> ivan: we have to remove them
15:43:39 <bigbluehat> TimCole: there were some use cases...
15:43:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: sadly, it doesn't matter
15:43:59 <bigbluehat> TimCole: I don't think we've seen samples from PaoloC
15:44:44 <TimCole> https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#sets-of-bodies-and-targets
15:45:16 <tbdinesh> :)
15:45:49 <tbdinesh> I told Benjamin, i will sure have a follow up for the renarration case
15:46:17 <bigbluehat> ivan: sadly, we have to have code
15:46:25 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: is there still a window to ship something?
15:46:29 <bigbluehat> ivan: there is a window
15:46:42 <bigbluehat> ...I personally would like to send out a PR within 2 weeks
15:47:31 <bigbluehat> PaoloC: sadly, I'm not in place to contribute right now
15:47:34 <bigbluehat> ...I'm really sorry about that
15:49:12 <bigbluehat> scribenick: TimCole
15:49:27 <PaoloC> q+
15:49:40 <azaroth> ack PaoloC
15:50:36 <TimCole> azaroth: At risk List, Composite, Independents (in the model) and activity streams related item in Protocol
15:50:59 <TimCole> Paolo: am using Sets, but out of date
15:51:03 <azaroth> New issue for removing sets: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/369
15:51:48 <TimCole> TimCole: Choice has not been implemented
15:52:23 <TimCole> ... Agent has not been implemented on Body or Target
15:53:28 <ShaneM> yes I do
15:54:00 <bigbluehat> scribenick: bigbluehat
15:54:15 <bigbluehat> TimCole: there are a few testing bugs tripping up Hypothes.is
15:54:35 <bigbluehat> ...they also use terms a bit differantly
15:54:40 <bigbluehat> ...specifically RangeSelector
15:55:05 <bigbluehat> ivan: if it's not putting the feature at risk, then it doesn't need to be a blocker for us
15:55:15 <bigbluehat> TimCole: mostly I want to be sure we're not leaving anything behind
15:55:26 <bigbluehat> ...or if there are situations where they're they only ones using a thing
15:55:32 <bigbluehat> ...such as TextQuoteSelector
15:55:48 <bigbluehat> ivan: that's all fine, but if those features are implemented by 2 others
15:55:56 <bigbluehat> ...for the purpose of a PR, then it's not a problem for us
15:56:08 <bigbluehat> TimCole: if they violate part of the spec, it's not our problem?
15:56:12 <bigbluehat> ivan: no, it's there concern, not ours.
15:56:22 <bigbluehat> ...it doesn't effect us going to PR/TR
15:56:42 <bigbluehat> ivan: here is where ShaneM has more experience than I do
15:57:05 <bigbluehat> ...if there is a feature not implemented during CR then we have to remove it?
15:57:13 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: yes. or extend CR until it is implemented
15:57:23 <bigbluehat> ivan: right. our only reasonable choice is that we remove the feature
15:57:26 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: I think that's accurate
15:57:39 <bigbluehat> ...or move it to an Appendix
15:57:43 <bigbluehat> ivan: oh. that sounds better
15:57:47 <Jacob> +1 for the appendix approach
15:57:52 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: I'd hate to loose the concept just because we didn't get there
15:57:55 <bigbluehat> ivan: no, that's great
15:58:02 <bigbluehat> ...it's also good news for the At Risk features
15:58:20 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: now...i just said that...could you, ivan, verify that this is still an ok approach?
15:58:28 <bigbluehat> ivan: I will ask the director
15:58:45 <bigbluehat> ShaneM: by all
15:58:48 <bigbluehat> s/by/bye
15:59:31 <bigbluehat> azaroth: by all
15:59:35 <bigbluehat> s/by/bye
15:59:43 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:00:01 <ivan> rrsagent, end telcon
16:00:01 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'end telcon', ivan.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:00:09 <ivan> rrsagent, stop telcon
16:00:09 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'stop telcon', ivan.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
16:00:42 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:00:42 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:00:42 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Benjamin_Young, Jacob_Jett, ivan, Tim_Cole, TB_Dinesh, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:00:44 <ivan> trackbot, stop telcon
16:00:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:00:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/10/28-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:00:51 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:00:51 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:00:51 <trackbot> Sorry, ivan, I don't understand 'trackbot, stop telcon'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.