- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:13:27 +0100
- To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <7EA1B4C4-4DDF-4A3A-9462-FEE4BB8988E5@w3.org>
Minutes are here:
http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html
text version below.
Thanks to Tim for scribing!
ivan
----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity 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 Dec 2014
[2]Agenda
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Nov/0133.html
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-irc
Attendees
Present
Doug_Schepers (shepazu), Paolo_Ciccarese (PaoloC), Rob
Sanderson (azaroth), Frederick Hirsch (fjh), Nick
Stenning (nickstenn), Dave Cramer (dauwhe), Time Cole
(TimCole), Ivan Herman (Ivan), Ben de Meester
(bjdmeest), Matt_Haas, Kyrce, Ray Denenberg (rayd),
Dinesh, Maxence Guesdon (MGU), Benjamin_Young
(bigbluehat), Jake Hartnell, Jacob Jett
Regrets
Markus Gylling
Chair
Frederick Hirsch
Scribe
TimCole
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Administrative (Scribe selection, agenda review,
announcements)
2. [6]Minutes Approval
3. [7]Annotating Specs
4. [8]Data Model FPWD
5. [9]Data Model namespace and context
6. [10]Robust Anchoring
7. [11]Use Cases
8. [12]Discovery
9. [13]Upcoming meetings
10. [14]Adjourn
* [15]Summary of Action Items
__________________________________________________________
<trackbot> Date: 03 December 2014
Administrative (Scribe selection, agenda review, announcements)
<fjh> s;Agenda:.*;Agenda:
[16]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0007.html;
[16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0007.html;
<fjh> Agenda:
[17]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0007.html
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0007.html
<bigbluehat> fjh: can we include the call number + extension as
a tel: URL in the agenda mails? :) would be handy!
<bigbluehat> what's the command to associate # + name?
<bigbluehat> thanks!
<bigbluehat> bigbluehat: == Benjamin Young
<bigbluehat> no worries! :)
<fjh> mapping number to handle automatically
[18]https://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
[18] https://www.w3.org/1998/12/bridge/info/name.php3
<MGU> Sorry, y english is not good enough :-(
<ivan> scribenick: TimCole
<fjh> revised agenda
[19]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0007.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0007.html
fjh: reviewed the agenda
<fjh> updated scribe list
[20]https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Scribe_List
[20] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Scribe_List
Minutes Approval
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: 19 November 2014 minutes approved:
[21]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-annotation-minutes.html
[21] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-annotation-minutes.html
<ivan> +1
shepazu: other groups don't do minutes approval on the call
fjh: would prefer to keep doing it on the call
RESOLUTION: 19 November 2014 minutes approved:
[22]http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-annotation-minutes.html
[22] http://www.w3.org/2014/11/19-annotation-minutes.html
Annotating Specs
<fjh> Call for implementations and participation, see
[23]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014N
ov/0137.html
[23] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Nov/0137.html
<fjh> community group,
[24]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014N
ov/0130.html
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Nov/0130.html
fjh: Doug sent out email requesting implementation ideas /
details
... also a message went to CG
shepazu: we want to be able to annotate our (W3C) own specs
... we want to start with Annotator
... we want to use other tools as they come forward
... discussion about which tool should not be something on
which we spend time
... so we formed a spec annotation CG
... if you are interested in the software aspects (as distinct
from standardization), should join the CG
... so please offer other tools, multiple implementations, ...
fjh: One thing we need to know when we can start annotating,
and if there are instructions for doing it
shepazu: we hope to be ready by Friday
... this will be done on Webplatform.org
... when you select something you will see the side bar
... annotate in using the sidebar (after logging in).
fjh: any questions?
azaroth: to clarify this will be a copy on webplatform.org
rather than the master on w3c
shepazu: we will encourage editor drafts on webplatform.org,
but will also be able to annotate on w3c.org
Data Model FPWD
<fjh> Call for Consensus (CfC) to publish FPWD of Data Model
Completed,
[25]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0000.html
[25] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0000.html
<fjh> Transition request sent,
[26]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014OctDec/0182
.html (member only)
[26] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/chairs/2014OctDec/0182.html
fjh: no objections to publishing FPWD
... we want to get this published before the moritorium
Data Model namespace and context
<fjh> oa namespace, JSON-LD context
[27]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0001.html
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0001.html
fjh: perhaps we can just change the landing page to reflect
that we are now managing the context
azaroth: we can update the context URI separately from the
namespace
... this would leave the previous context URI for the CG and
would put the WG context at new URI
ivan: we can work out the details by email
<fjh> +1 to rob sending email to list with details
ivan: Rob will write down his idea in detail and he and Ivan
will make this happen
<azaroth> ACTION: azaroth and ivan to discuss the details of
migration offline [recorded in
[28]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-2 - And ivan to discuss the details
of migration offline [on Robert Sanderson - due 2014-12-10].
Robust Anchoring
fjh: do we have anything new?
shepazu: there is a lot to talk about.
... how do we wan to approach this?
... people on the call who want to talk about the topic
... if not, Doug will introduce it on the email list
fjh: Maybe an email to the list and then a discussion on a call
might be best.
shepazu: wondering if people on the call today that have an
interest in robust anchoring
<ivan> +1
<fjh> interested, not sure whether off call preparation is
needed
<fjh> believe so
<azaroth> +1 to pre-call prep
<fjh> +1 to having concrete proposal to work from
paoloC: best to introduce and raise concrete examples to help
frame productive discussion
shepazu: volunteers to put together an initial draft for
discussion
ivan: would like to hear more about what implementations do now
... what are the approaches, experience, positive and negative
... experience is a good place to start
<fjh> ACTION: shepaz to provide robust anchoring architecture
draft on list to give start [recorded in
[29]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
02]
<trackbot> Error finding 'shepaz'. You can review and register
nicknames at <[30]http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/users>.
[30] http://www.w3.org/annotation/track/users
<fjh> ACTION: shepazu to provide robust anchoring architecture
draft on list to give start [recorded in
[31]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-3 - Provide robust anchoring
architecture draft on list to give start [on Doug Schepers -
due 2014-12-10].
azaroth: there are a large number of examples from CG and
elsewhere to draw on
paoloC: would be happy to share experience gleaned over several
years
... we should be able to annotate HTML
... not easy to handle for several reasons
... for example the same document in different clients has
different byte count, etc.
... so we use prefix and suffix to what you are annotating
... prefix and suffix a certain number of characters
... if subsequent re-matching works, then all good
... if not, increase length of prefix and suffix
... works for some changes elsewhere in the document if these
don't change the prefix and suffix
... when match fails (because of document change) our client
just shows the annotation on the side (orphaned)
... the idea of prefix and suffix also works well for
cross-format use cases (annotate PDF, display in HTML)
<fjh> paoloC: handles dom processing to convert tags to strings
as needed
paoloC: we have developed rules of thumb over time
... as Web pages become more complex, and as CSS affects
presentation, so we try not to cross sections when calculating
prefix and suffix
... sometimes may only be able to have a suffix
... these have been tuned on scientific papers, wikipedia,
other content that our users annotate
shepazu: questions - when trying to reanchor an annotation, do
you change the context?
paoloC: did some experimentation a few years ago
... first you tests right away
... then when you come back 6 months it no longer works
... you may be able to make a good guess, but often for
scientific papers not always a good idea
shepazu: poetry, lots of repetition, so you need to know which
instance
<fjh> paoloC: issue is that same word might appear often in
technical paper, so hard to anchor without more information
paoloC: even worse for legal documents
<fjh> shepazu: also music lyrics
paoloC: other tools use different approaches that may be better
for such situations
shepazu: not clear about approaches that work well for
increasingly modern dynamic documents
... so not sure how much literature has dealt with these newer,
very dynamic documents
... if an annotation engine wants to say this annotation would
be better anchored with new anchors, do we still keep the old
anchors?
paoloC: most of the problems last few years have arisen trying
to keep up, i.e., because of increasingly dynamic documents
... because of all the javascript now being used by publishers
- making things harder
<fjh> are ads a problem?
paoloC: but sometimes you can get api access to the base
document
... not able to annotate flash
... technological challenge is great, things change
... re keeping track of new selectors, we have to be careful to
track provenance, e.g., we have to keep track of what was
initially annotated.
<Zakim> fjh, you wanted to ask about rules of thumb
documentation
<azaroth> +1 to the danger of changing selectors in some
domains
paoloC: it can be dangerous to change exactly what was
annotated and the original selectors
fjh: Paolo, do you have documentation we can share
paoloC: some documentation shared with hypothes.is previously
<fjh> paoloC: work with static docs, but javascript becomes a
problem
paoloC: an example of changes is how images are handled
... used to be a fixed size, now the image size changes when
you mouse over
... so the annotation client alters the behavior of the page so
that the image is always fixed size.
nickstenn: what comes to mind in listening to this is how hard
this is to do in general
... we need to keep in mind a number of considerations that
haven't yet been raised
... how do these approaches work in non-Western languages
... not convinced we know what we're doing well enough to
standardize
fjh: we should continue this discussion on the list, unless
someone has a contribution now that we need to get started
... we don't yet have a robust definition of robust anchoring,
but we understand that to make annotation work, we need to lay
out the landscape
<fjh> lets take this to the list
Dinesh: for example versioning control; I anchor one version
and that may be important
... that's all we can say at this point
<nickstenn> My position: we should focus on what support we
need in APIs and model for robust anchoring, rather than
talking about algorithms
Use Cases
<fjh> Call for use cases
[32]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014N
ov/0128.html
[32] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Nov/0128.html
fjh: we have the call for use cases for Rob. We need to decide
who else to send that call to.
<azaroth> +1 to broader sharing
<fjh> cross-format annotations
[33]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0005.html and
[34]http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014D
ec/0006.html
[33] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0005.html
[34] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2014Dec/0006.html
fjh: we have from Paolo the cross-format use case
... there were use cases from the dpub IG
paoloC: my point of raising cross-format use case is to help us
keep in mind interoperability
... what can be done whether what domeo does makes sense, is a
good starting point
<bigbluehat> the dpub use cases are all linked from the wiki
(and tagged using azaroth's tags) at
[35]https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Use_Cases#List
[35] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Use_Cases#List
paoloC: Benjamin Young and I worked on setting up the use case
page - use cases should include concrete examples and should be
clear about what areas the use case impacts
<bigbluehat> sorry for the nit...there's a lot of us :-P
paoloC: the cross-format use cases raises the possibility of
annotating an identifier (that might not be a URI)
... for example annotating a doi or pii, i.e., a work that may
have multiple representations, each with their own URL/URI
... these identifiers are a shortcut for associating an
annotation with a work
fjh: we should take this to the list and help us figure out
what the WG wants to focus on.
Discovery
fjh: discovery is not explicitly in our charter, so we need to
figure out if there's something meaningful that fits with us.
Any quick thoughts?
<bigbluehat> agree with shepazu
shepazu: thinks discovery is part of the REST API
... this is being discussed in parallel in the Social WG
<fjh> good to know, then we should start thinking about this
more seriously
shepazu: so we should discuss and coordinate closely with
Social WG
azaroth: agrees discovery is important to do
... but parts could be deferred until we have better and more
use cases to help us understand the scope appropriate for
annotation
rayd: summarizing from his email - doesn't want to impose a
burden to deal with the full discovery
... but if we can define a mechanism for notification, i.e.,
the ability to notify the owner of annotation target
... this would allow the owner of the target to take action as
appropriate
... provided 3 use cases
paoloC: volunteers to copy into the wiki
<Jacob> This sounds familiar. Is it worth looking into the
'expectation' use case again?
paoloC: will interact with rayd to make sure we don't
mis-represent
Upcoming meetings
shepazu: the diagram we've been using does cover notification -
not explicit in the charter, but is something we have discussed
before.
<fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: no teleconference 24 December or 31
December
shepazu: it may not be this WG that ultimately defines the
discovery mechanism, but we need to be part of the process.
RESOLUTION: no teleconference 24 December or 31 December
fjh: defer decision on 17 Dec.
Adjourn
<fjh> Thanks everyone!
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: azaroth and ivan to discuss the details of
migration offline [recorded in
[36]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
01]
[NEW] ACTION: shepaz to provide robust anchoring architecture
draft on list to give start [recorded in
[37]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
02]
[NEW] ACTION: shepazu to provide robust anchoring architecture
draft on list to give start [recorded in
[38]http://www.w3.org/2014/12/03-annotation-minutes.html#action
03]
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [39]scribe.perl version
1.140 ([40]CVS log)
$Date: 2014-12-03 17:12:26 $
[39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[40] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Wednesday, 3 December 2014 17:13:37 UTC