<scribe> scribenick: TimCole
azaroth: agenda review. Anything else?
... no other topics, so we will move forward.
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-annotation-minutes.html
<azaroth> +1
<Jacob> +1
<bjdmeest> +1
<takeshi> +1
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/16-annotation-minutes.html
<ivan> +1
<azaroth> :)
ivan: we have been approved to
transition to PR (on call earlier today)
... went smoothly, so thanks to Shane / Spec-Ops, Tim, Rob, Benjamin et
al. who made it possible
... offical publication of PR will be on 17 Jan
... practicalities, Ivan will send out request for publication
<ShaneM> please remember that the decisions about transition are member only until formally done. do not announce.
ivan: will check final versions of docs next Tuesday (10th), does that work for everyone and the editors?
azaroth: yes
ivan: a diff will be required
... any changes on namespace, context doc, etc.?
azaroth: don't think so
ivan: make sure docs in right section of
repo
... need to run the checkers again on Tuesday.
azaroth: how is diff integrated into doc?
<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/393
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about that one change to the vocab that gregg requested - I think that was done.
ivan: there's a special way to add it and also for final rec we will do an EPub version.
ShaneM: The results of PR Transition meeting
are member only for now
... did vocab change that Greg identified a while ago get fixed?
azaroth: we closed #381 and I think that means we did
ivan: yes, I remember we did
... the change was on ns and json-ld files and was done, and since not
part of rec does not need to be documented further
<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/vocab/wd/ontology/mk-ontology.py#L16
http://emblematica.library.illinois.edu/detail/emblem/E000004
<azaroth> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html
TimCole: question to Shane, will we continue to have access to testing, and can update schemas?
ShaneM: yes, but test report generator updates are needed, and Shane will get to those.
ivan: have made added abstract, made updates
... would like review to make sure still aligned with core model
... differences are to make Note stand alone
... added Turtle structures
... added a syntax for fragment ids
... examples all have frag ids
... has small program linked from document (javascript)
... that last definitely needs review
... there will need to be a vote of the WG endorsing publication
... correct way is to publish in the same round as when we publish Rec
(make sure all links correct)
... some in publishing community have expressed interest
azaroth: timeline?
ivan: Recs will be published mid to late feb
... so people should feedback by end of this month
... raise issues or send to mailing list
TimCole: do we have to round up AC votes, and does the WG have ideas about what to say in blog when we go Rec status
ivan: yes, AC vote will open on 17 Jan for 4
weeks.
... we will need to watch for comments (hopefully no objections)
... we should make sure that the orgs represented in the WG to vote in
favor
... may want to contact CG members who have AC reps
... not same as charter in terms of minimum, but it looks nicer if we
get a good number of votes
... should talk to Garth about raising that vote is open with DPub IG
... WG should plan for blog (in Feb) so not urgent, but should not
forget
... ideally Rob or Tim should write the blog entry announcement
azaroth: happy to work on that
ivan: getting testimonals or less formal
from implementers would be good (e.g., Europeana?, Hypothes.is?)
... this may require a little lead time - so Tim or Rob should contact
some groups
azaroth: happy to do that
ivan: ... implementers on WG should also consider contributing
azaroth: including quotes from Takeshi and
Dinesh would be good
... presumably will require approvals, etc.
azaroth: what do we want to maintain?
... we have to be careful not to allow editing of Editor's Draft, but
could make branches, etc.
... will want to coordinate with CG to make sure we provide
opportunities for them to do what they want
ivan: CG could also decide to have their own
repository
... not only issues, but can also use wiki
azaroth: a shame that forking repos doesn't
copy issues or wiki
... technically wiki is just another repository so can be cloned, but
tricky
TimCole: have web-annotation-tests
... do we need to maintain that or should it be a folder in the main
repo
... bring json schemas into main repo
TimCole: continue to do PRs to w3ctest.org repository
azaroth: will have ability to raise and
track issues
... might do a little publicity to reinvigorate the CG
... still has more than 100 members (on paper)
... should plan to announce the transition
ivan: to be on the safe side, we should wait until Rec publication before announcing to CG
takeshi: what will CG do in regard to possible new charter, etc.
<azaroth> https://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/
ivan: CG can propose a charter for a WG
azaroth: but CG may need to re-publish their
own 'charter' - current one (link above) out of date
... not sure how CG charters get edited
ivan: yes, CG should update. In practice
someone on the team will have to be involved
... CG should give something to Ivan when we go to Rec and then the
change will be made
... change to CG charter can happen very quickly.
azaroth: not as easy as a Wiki page, but not hard to do
takeshi: not currently a member, but CG charge should be updated to make it easier to join
ivan: needs to be done
<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/256
azaroth: issue 256 - add wiki page
... regarding motivations, etc.
ivan: put it in repo wiki page so CG can
keep updated easily
... don't have to be W3C member, also given that WG wiki space will
freeze at end of Feb.
azaroth: consensus on 20th
... adjourn
with 4 minutes to spare
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon