Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

<TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-minutes.html

RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-minutes.html

PR Transition Request

<TimCole> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/PRTransitionAdmin/PRTransitionRequest.md

TimCole: transition request was recently updated
... check it if you haven't looked at it recently

ivan: PR will last 4~6 weeks
... 28 days

TimCole: any concerns about dates if we go to PR on the 17th
... walking through the rest of the transition report

ivan: need a formal decision on the last at risk feature
... sent a summary of its current situation just prior to this call:

<ivan> There was one feature at risk, see

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20161122/

<ivan> "The use of the ActivityStreams terms are considered to be at-risk, pending [activitystreams-vocabulary] reaching Candidate Recommendation and, eventually, Recommendation. If this fails, the (few) terms used in the current document will be replaced by terms with a similar names and similar semantics, but in the namespace defined by this document."

<ivan> The vocabulary in question is now in (2nd) CR:

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-activitystreams-vocabulary-20161215/

<ivan> The Social Web WG has also passed a resolution recently:

<ivan> "We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them."

<ivan> (see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-12-06-minutes#resolution03)

<ivan> Based on this resolution, I propose that the the WG simply removes the 'at risk' label and publishes the document unchanged with a reference to the CR version of the activity stream vocabulary. It is expected that the two documents will get into sync by the time of the possible publication of the Recommendations.

ivan: bottom line is in the last part
... activity streams will likely be in PR just about the same time as us
... is ok to refer to their CR; by the time we publish our PR everything will be in sync

TimCole: text mentions a concern about 2 implementations of start index

ivan: we have implementations of those features that they can reuse for their CR
... they need to tell us how they are reporting their results

<ivan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: remove the 'at risk' feature from the vocabulary on the AS vocabulary elements and publish the document otherwise unchanged

<ivan> +1

<TimCole> +!

+1

<PaoloCiccarese> +1

<tilgovi> +1

<ShaneM> +1

<takeshi> +1

RESOLUTION: remove the 'at risk' feature from the vocabulary on the AS vocabulary elements and publish the document otherwise unchanged

<TimCole> https://www.w3.org/annotation/errata/

TimCole: had an email exchange with Rob & Paolo as co-chairs of existing anno CG
... CG will take charge of the errata
... github repo will be maintained
... will keep the community discussion going, check validity of errata, and develop new features
... will need to announce this to the CG at some point in time

Test Reports

<TimCole> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-vocab/all.html

ShaneM: manual tests that correspond with our existing tests so that someone could go through and recreate the tests on their own
... ru = ruby test and py = python test

<ivan> +1

TimCole: satisfactory to everyone?

<TimCole> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-protocol/all.html

ShaneM: still no final results from Europeana
... assume that there is enough data in there despite that

TimCole: here there are a couple of SHOULDs that aren't required for the protocol
... the exit criteria for CR show that all of the tests pass, no need for a mapping

<TimCole> https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html

TimCole: big change to model test was the addition of an explanation at the top
... and the addition of a table that maps from the exit criteria to the test
... as of this morning, 2+ implementations of everything except specific resource as a body
... have an implementation of this that we will be uploading on our end
... have many additional tests for things not actually linked to exit criteria
... any concerns, questions, or issues?

ivan: highlighting that testing for collections are special
... part of model but are used by the servers and protocol
... conceptually part of the protocol testing
... that is why they appear in a separate section here
... with fewer implementations
... maybe adding an extra bullet will help emphasize this difference

TimCole: will add an additional bullet
... other than Pundit, we have a lot of features implemented
... must make an editorial fix for bodyValue (i.e., the String Body)
... actually have 2 implementations so don't have to take it out of the text
... however Rob already made an appendix for it
... so now have both text for it and an appendix
... so will need to strike the appendix

ivan: need to strike
... will add some text noting editorial changes

TimCole the implementations using bodyValue is EF and KN

ivan: any changes need to be recorded in the document's change section

TimCole: so the editors will fix and record in the change log but doesn't need to be done before Tuesday
... if folks are comfortable with where we are with the transition request
... so are ready vote, assuming no new issues arise before Tuesday

any remarks?

<TimCole> Proposed Resolution: Provided no new issue comes up on or before the 20th, the WG requests the Director to move 3 Web Annotation CRs to Proposed Rec Status.

+1

<ivan> +1

<TimCole> +1

<ShaneM> +1

<takeshi> +1

<PaoloCiccarese> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<ivan> Voted by email positively: Rob, Dinesh, Frederick, Ben De Meester

RESOLUTION: Provided no new issue comes up on or before the 20th, the WG requests the Director to move 3 Web Annotation CRs to Proposed Rec Status.

ivan: just so everyone knows, Tim and I agreed that he will send the transition request to the director on Wednesday
... have a transition call scheduled for 6-January

ivan: the directors are trying to make the process easier
... that is why the TR is so detailed
... so they may approve by email, then no need for transition call
... would be good to have most or all of the final editorial work done by the 6th

TimCole: what happens during the PR phase

ivan: AC must vote, we are not allowed to make any changes beyond minor editorial changes (e.g., to fix spelling mistakes)
... everyone in group must have their institution vote
... ask other members to vote

<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to make a blatant solicitation

<bigbluehat> safe to say we wouldn't have "made it" without ShaneM and Spec-Ops.io

<bigbluehat> honest

TimCole: suggest no further meetings this calendar year
... available to chair a WG call on the 6th
... may be useful in case anything comes up that we can address before the 17th

<ivan> +1

<TimCole> +1

<takeshi> +1

<PaoloCiccarese> +1

<ShaneM> +1 - also transition call is on my calendar

<bigbluehat> +0 ...I won't make it... (travel)

scribe: suggest that we go forward with a WG call on the 6th
... decide then on additional calls
... only work that will be ongoing is putting polish on notes, e.g., the html note, etc.
... adjourne