Meeting minutes, 2016-06-03

Minutes are here:

https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html

Textual version below

Have a nice weekend!

Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704



   [1]W3C

      [1] http://www.w3.org/

              Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

03 Jun 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Doug Schepers (shepazu), Jacob
          Jett, Ivan Herman, Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), Kyrce
          Swenson, Randall Leeds (tilgovi), Tim Cole, Shane
          McCarron, Paolo Ciccarese

   Regrets
          Ben De Meester, Dan Whaley, TB Dinesh

   Chair
          Tim and Rob

   Scribe
          Jacob

Contents

    1. [4]Contents
         1. [5]Minutes
         2. [6]Progress to CR
              1. [7]Issue 227
              2. [8]Issue 257
              3. [9]Issue 247
         3. [10]Testing
    2. [11]Summary of Action Items
    3. [12]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved:
   [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html

Minutes

   TimCole: any remarks about the minutes from last week?

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved:
   [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html

Progress to CR

   RESOLUTION: Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts,
   progress has been posted

   azaroth: update-- two issues opened by Europeana folks,
   normalization discussion needs to agreed upon, other than
   these, other issues have been closed
   ... should be able to quickly close the remaining issues
   ... ready to go to CR
   ... vocab still needs some examples added

Issue 227

   <TimCole> [15]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227

     [15] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227

   azaroth: recommendation from internationalization group was
   that the normalization para be removed unless specific
   requirements make it necessary
   ... normalizations might be applied due to our requirements but
   not necessary to mention internationalization

   ivan: propose to close the issue as they (internationalization
   folks) have suggested

   <TimCole> Proposal: for #227 remove paragraph on normalization
   and close (move to editorial)

   <azaroth>
   [16]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-s
   elector

     [16] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector

   azaroth: want to look at the 2nd para after the table
   ... can try to lop the paragraph into two in order to separate
   the normalization from the part describing selection

   <tilgovi> Mostly just removing the DOM Strings part, then? And
   splitting the rest around it?

   azaroth: suggesting splitting the para so that the first part
   discusses normalization and then rephrase the second para so
   that it doesn't discuss normalization at all

   <TimCole> applications SHOULD implement the DOM String
   Comparisons method. This allows the Selector to be used with
   different encodings and user agents and still have the same
   semantics and utility.

   azaroth: so first 2 sentences become a para, next sentence is
   deleted [?], and remainder of paragraph has all mentions of
   normalization removed

   <TimCole> Note that this does not affect the state of the
   content of the document being annotated, only the way that the
   content is recorded in the Annotation.

   TimCole: suggest we preserve the sentences above and delete
   everything else
   ... so that no one thinks that the underlying content should be
   changed
   ... opinions? ok, with removing the paragraph altogether, but
   also ok with preserving stuff about string comparisons as long
   as we don't provide details on how those comparisons are to be
   made

   azaroth: will make quick changes now, then ...[garbled]
   ... come back to issue before end of call

   ivan: need to close remaining issues, then make a resolution to
   freeze features, give WG a week to review the documents, so
   that they can note any glaring problems, with the goal to
   officially request to go to CR by the end of next week

   TimCole: so ok to vote next week so long as WG has been
   notified to review the documents by the end of today

   ivan: yes

   TimCole: plans for testing, need to be finalized by next week?

   ivan: documents, pubs must be ready, call with director must be
   set up, that period should be used 100% on testing
   ... so if possible plans for testing should be finalized by
   next week

   <azaroth> Okay, new version at:
   [17]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-s
   elector

     [17] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector

   ivan: plans must be written down, as agreed in Berlin

   <TimCole>
   [18]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
   &q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpon
   e

     [18] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone

   TimCole: link posted to issues not yet marked postponed or
   editorial
   ... most recent issue is for resource previews in annos

   ivan: let's close issue 227, rob has made the changes

   azaroth: moved selection to preceeding para, deleted everything
   else except the dom string mention

   tilgovi: dom string comparison recommendation was one of things
   called out by the internationalization folks as something
   causing problems
   ... should not introduce normalizations there

   TimCole: so drop the mention

   azaroth: should we go ahead and delete the subsequent para
   which mentions the dom apis

   <tilgovi> Shouldn't that next para read "Text Quote"?

   <tilgovi> It says Position.

   TimCole: deletion doesn't change the substance of the section,
   just means we aren't giving any help to implementers

   tilgovi: would leave in the DOM api's para, otherwise people
   will use the selector api

   TimCole: my sense is that the less we say, the better; whole
   thing is in flux (as discussed in Berlin)

   <tilgovi> Fine for me.

   <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison,
   UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of
   the normalization routine

   <TimCole> +1

   +1

   <azaroth> +1

   <ivan> _+1

   <ivan> +1

   <bigbluehat> +1

   <tilgovi> +1

   <Kyrce> +1

   RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid
   implications that comparison should be part of the
   normalization routine

   <TimCole>
   [19]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
   &q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpon
   e

     [19] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone

   <ivan>
   [20]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
   &q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting
  https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+

   +-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+

   ivan: is #249 postponed?

   TimCole: should be marked editor action or closed

   <azaroth>
   [21]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-a
   nd-purpose

     [21] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose

Issue 257

   azaroth: #257 -- want to include info in the anno that allows
   the client to display a snippet or preview to the end user
   ... ivan has suggested this be postponed, [rob] agrees, don't
   know what clients actually need to do this yet

   ivan: not sure it even needs to be in the model at all

   TimCole: doesn't need to be in v.1 of the model

   <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking
   information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources

   <ivan> +1

   <azaroth> +1

   <TimCole> +1

   +1

   <tilgovi> +1

   <bigbluehat> +1

   RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is
   appropriate for previews of resources
   ... that leaves us with #247

Issue 247

   azaroth: can add a sentence saying that if you have
   contradictory information from external resources, believe the
   external resources and not the annotation
   ... e.g., external resource claims target is html, and anno
   claims something different, believe that it is html

   TimCole: discussion?

   <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that
   information from the resource should be considered
   authoritative, not the Annotation's properties

   <Kyrce> +q

   Kyrce: is this a question of content of the resource or its
   format?

   azaroth: not content, just its metadata

   <ivan> +1

   +1

   <TimCole> +1

   <Kyrce> +1

   <azaroth> +1

   <bigbluehat> +1

   RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the
   resource should be considered authoritative, not the
   Annotation's properties

   TimCole: that seems to be it; 2 issues for testing and 2 issues
   for pending

   <azaroth> Yay! :D

   <Loqi> woot

   <azaroth> Thank you all :)

   ivan; all done, as testing issues don't need to be addressed at
   this time

   <ivan>
   [22]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
   &q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-la
   bel%3Apostpone+

     [22] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+

   scribe: everything else is editor's actions
   ... my impression is that all of them have been addressed but
   they need to be closed

   ivan: features freeze, call for one week review, then CR next
   week

   <ivan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol
   documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG
   review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)

   <azaroth> +1

   <PaoloCiccarese> +1

   <ivan> +1

   <TimCole> +1

   +1

   <bigbluehat> +1

   <Kyrce> +1

   TimCole: discussion?

   <ShaneM> +1

   <tilgovi> +1

   RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in
   feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose
   them for CR next week (06-09)

Testing

   TimCole: will take the testing issues out of order and start
   with the new one
   ... ivan noted a need for interoperability testing

   ivan: yes, would be nice to demo interoperability via server,
   in practice -- 1 client pushes an anno into a server and
   another client fetches that anno and displays it in its own way

   <ShaneM> hmm.... I don't think that is a CR requirement.

   ivan: whether we have enough implementations to do that, don't
   know, but would be a good extra

   TimCole: like this idea in general, but concerned that the
   implementations don't have much overlap w/r/t domain,
   community, or topicality
   ... e.g., emblem annotation are kind of unique, is testing if
   they're interoperable artificial?

   ivan: understand, shouldn't be a formal active criteria, but
   would be very nice to demonstrate
   ... if it can be done, it will strengthen the interoperability
   of the standard

   <ShaneM> protocol testing should ensure that each client sends
   and retrieves annotations correctly...

   azaroth: seems like we should try to have 2 clients and 2
   servers where client 1 makes a anno on server 1, copy it to
   server 2 and have it read by client 2

   ivan: testing a singular implementation for the protocol is not
   the same as testing across multiple clients

   ShaneM: however, if have multiple clients and they all pass the
   protocol tests, then hasn't interoperability been tested?

   ivan: need a server independent from the clients

   ShaneM: assuming this for protocol tests

   ivan: discussed in Berlin to use scenarios

   ShaneM: the web platform test infrastructure is a server, so be
   pointing the protocol tests at that server, then an independent
   server will have been provided to/for them

   TimCole: to be clear, the protocol requires
   accepting/responding to LDP exchanges, so it didn't seem clear
   to us that that capacity existed at this tinme

   ShaneM: the platform is capable of modeling any protocol that
   is desired

   <azaroth> ShaneM++

   <Loqi> ShaneM has 2 karma

   <bigbluehat> ShaneM+++++++

   <Loqi> ShaneM has 3 karma

   TimCole: sounds like we have a better way to do protocol
   testing than we thought in Berlin
   ... seems that we still need to test if anno looks the same in
   two different implementation environments, e.g., Rob's
   implementation v Europeana implementation

   ShaneM: protocol test is next for me, sounds like vocab/model
   tests are there, so will move on to implementing protocol tests

   TimCole: have built some schemas to test the model, is the
   infrastructure to trigger a run in place?

   ShaneM: will post the instructions for how to do the testing to
   the lists

   TimCole: will spend next friday on discussing testing after
   taking the CR vote

   ivan: everyone should take some time to read through the
   documents

   TimCole: will be very good, many small typos lurking
   ... adjourn

   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [23]Minutes of the F2F are approved:
       https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
    2. [24]Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts,
       progress has been posted
    3. [25]Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid
       implications that comparison should be part of the
       normalization routine
    4. [26]Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is
       appropriate for previews of resources
    5. [27]Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the
       resource should be considered authoritative, not the
       Annotation's properties
    6. [28]The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in
       feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to
       propose them for CR next week (06-09)

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([30]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/06/03 16:14:16 $

     [29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/

Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 16:16:59 UTC