W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > April 2016

Meeting minutes, 2016-01-04

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:13:21 +0200
Message-Id: <2406ABC2-415F-40BC-B874-FBEBF0646403@w3.org>
To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>

text version below


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] http://www.w3.org/

              Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

01 Apr 2016

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/01-annotation-irc


          Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Shane McCarron (ShaneM),
          Tim_Cole, TB_Dinesh, Ben_De_Meester (bjdmeest), Ivan
          Herman, Kyrce Swenson, Takeshi Kanai, Doug Schepers
          (shepazu), Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), Frederick Hirsch

          DanW, nickstenn

          Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole



     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]Announcements
         2. [5]Minutes
         3. [6]Meeting Around the time of TPAC
         4. [7]F2F topics
         5. [8]Conformance
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

   TimCole: Agenda for today

   ... anyone wants to add something?


   <azaroth> bjdmeest: And continued thanks, as you're often the

   TimCole: WD's are published
   ... reviews are requested

   ivan: a reference from the security review people is received
   ... there is a questionnaire that helps identifying common

   <ivan> security questionnaire:

     [11] https://w3ctag.github.io/security-questionnaire/

   ivan: anyone willing to go through that offline?
   ... something that should be done between now and next version
   of the WD
   ... so if security people will check this, we need to check
   this asap

   azaroth: I am happy to work with whoever would work on that

   TimCole: I'll send a question around


     [12] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/index-respec.html

   TimCole: other thing to mention: there is a first draft of a
   possible note on selectors and states
   ... please take a look at this draft
   ... we could add github issues as we need to

   ivan: two things:
   ... 90% of the text was cut'n paste
   ... one good check would be to check I didn't forget anything
   ... so to check whether the text remains consistent
   ... someone else should do that
   ... second: I came up with a simple way of putting things in a
   fragment, differently than the previous proposal
   ... the last few days, I made a small javascript lib to parse
   the fragment url into a JSON object (see
   ... also, there are 2 new issues on the model

   TimCole: because the tight coupling between model and this
   note, we need to make sure everything remains consistent

   ivan: that's my job :)


   shepazu: The next 3 months I will focus on testing, together
   with ShaneM
   ... to get concrete work done on the testing

   TimCole: other volunteers will be welcome
   ... occasional updates from you guys are welcome

   shepazu: of course
   ... at this point, every week, we should have a testing update,
   during this telcon

   <Tbdinesh> We will be pitching in too.

   ShaneM: What's the target timeframe for CR?

   ivan: we will have a F2F in Berlin in mid may
   ... after that meeting, we should go to CR
   ... issues will come up
   ... but we virtually published a last call
   ... that's the idea


     [13] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016

   ivan: the charter ends the end of September
   ... we will not make a recommendation by then, but we can
   report that we can to PR
   ... so that we can extend the charter to go through PR and rec

   <ShaneM> remember that charter extensions require AC review now

   ivan: so we would like to start CR beginning of June, and our
   of CR at the beginning of September
   ... W3M can - I think - extend the charter without changes to
   finnish the rec

   TimCole: Hopefully we can get an extension

   <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOULTION: Minutes of the previous call are

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/03/25-annotation-minutes.html

   TimCole: any comments on the previous minutes?

   <azaroth> +1

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:

     [15] https://www.w3.org/2016/03/25-annotation-minutes.html

Meeting Around the time of TPAC

   TimCole: we had a F2F at TPAC, but for the next TPAC in
   September, it's not clear we need a full F2F
   ... as we have Berlin F2F, and would go to PR and CR by
   ... proposal would be to have a full F2F, a virtual F2F of a
   couple of hours, or not a F2F at all

   shepazu: if we don't have a F2F at TPAC, we shouldn't have a
   virtual F2F either

   <fjh> +1 to doug re avoiding TPAC conflicts with virtual

   shepazu: it's not viable wrt people traveling to and from TPAC
   ... I think it's viable to have a F2F at TPAC, for
   communication with other WGs and CGs

   TimCole: How quickly do we have to decide?

   shepazu: It's better to say yes and possibly cancel instead of
   the other way around

   ivan: making a final decision within max a month would be a
   good idea
   ... we have to say something by +- 15th of April
   ... registration will be closed by then

   azaroth: 2 things to change our minds:
   ... one is the F2F in berlin in half of May
   ... is that too late?

   shepazu: no, seems the natural tipping point

   azaroth: given the time frame moving towards CR, I'm not
   convinced to meet at TPAC, if we do need to meet, something has
   gone wrong
   ... my preference is to keep it open until May, with the
   expectation that we won't meet, except if something comes up

   TimCole: I see value in F2F, partly to talk with other WGs
   about implementations etc.
   ... so wait until May seems good

   ivan: one of the chairs needs to register
   ... please try to register so that the meeting would be on
   Thursday and Friday
   ... let's do that now, and decide on the F2F in Berlin

   TimCole: any comments?

   <TimCole> Proposed RESOLUTION: We will submit request to meet
   at TPAC, and decide if we want to back out at F2F in Berlin

   <azaroth> +1

   azaroth: I'm happy to register and filling the forms

   <TimCole> +1


   <ivan> 0

   <ShaneM> +0\

   <Kyrce> +1

   <bigbluehat> +0

   <shepazu> +1

   <takeshi> +1

   shepazu: there may be stuff in digital publishing that may be
   happening at that time
   ... so that might be useful to talk with them

   RESOLUTION: We will submit request to meet at TPAC, and decide
   if we want to back out at F2F in Berlin

F2F topics

   TimCole: we have 6 weeks until Berlin
   ... we probably need to start thinking about topics and agenda

   ivan: if we keep to our current schema, then, it's difficult to
   plan in advance, because the goal is to close all technical
   ... difficult to plan now, if we get a load of issues from,
   e.g., i18n, we have to take that into account
   ... also, we need to have our CR criteria and testing etc.
   finalized, to have a credible plan to go into CR
   ... for me, it's difficult to plan now
   ... maybe we won't have any open issues, and spend 1,5 day on
   ... everything else has a lower priority

   <ShaneM> If the agenda is testing focused, and assuming I get
   my board's approval, then I could probably attend the meeting
   in Berlin

   TimCole: do we need to check our charter?

   ivan: yes, when we go to CR, but that's the kind of thing we
   can do offline as well, we don't need the F2F for this
   ... getting the issues closed and CR verified are top
   priorities, everything else comes after that
   ... to come up with the report of what we accomplished etc., is
   chair work, and can be done offline


     [16] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016

   TimCole: let's not forget that, and plan some minutes for that
   ... also, please register anyone who will come
   ... The timeline for notes is not with a deadline, so we can
   postpone those (e.g., about HTML serialization)


   <TimCole> [17]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/165

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/165

   TimCole: issue about conformance, there is a proposal
   ... this also was related to 'levels' of conformance, but we
   rejected that

   ivan: there should be a way for an implementation to say that
   it does not deal with a specific media type
   ... so selection on those media types cannot be done by those
   ... It can be as 'simple' as having a table of media types with
   their selectors
   ... and an extra table per implementation to show which media
   types it can be handle

   <ShaneM> That makes sense to me

   ivan: it's only the selector that created problems, not the
   rest of the model
   ... the model must me implemented fully by every implementation

   azaroth: one thing I thought about is about the fragment
   ... the table of fragment selectors is not a normative
   requirement, bu maybe we should make it a bit more normative
   ... so a client that can work with image/* Must implement the
   media fragment-syntax

   shepazu: we could say that a Text class needs to do these
   ... and these are not exclusive

   <azaroth> +1 to shepazu

   shepazu: it's just acknowledging the extension model

   TimCole: first: do we have a template of an existing rec
   ... second: we talked about clients that create annotations,
   annotation repository, annotation consumers, annotation
   servers, agents that republish annotations
   ... it seems to me that will also be a factor in how
   conformance is described

   shepazu: I agree, an ecosystem should consider all these things
   ... but I don't want us to get too ambitious with the testing
   ... I want to scope it to specifics that are called out in the
   existing specs
   ... e.g., we want to test the protocol (cfr. LDP)
   ... we could certain elements of the data model
   ... we could test the structure
   ... that the right objects have the properties of the right
   type, etc.
   ... we could also test to make sure selectors are interoperable
   ... I propose to leave that last one out of scope
   ... because we don't explicitly talk that any given UA will
   return exactly the same output for any selection

   takeshi: about fragments selector conformance testing
   ... about plain text
   ... e.g., text would be encoded in an encoding system
   ... we haven't specified which encoding should be used
   ... I think it's important for conformance testing

   <ShaneM> I dont think that encoding is a real problem. It is
   part of the headers (accept-encoding)

   ivan: encodings is a very specific issue to be taken into
   account for text selector
   ... question is about specification about specific selector
   ... a specific issue is important

   <azaroth> +1 to raising encoding issue, thanks Takeshi!

   ivan: now, about the categories of the implementations:
   ... let's not over-formalize ourselves
   ... we had in the past implementations that implemented certain
   parts, but not the other parts
   ... and that's fine
   ... it's not up to us to decide on that
   ... what we really have to be careful about, is that each
   feature needs to be implemented by 2 different implementations
   ... having all these very formal categories, would drive us to
   a very formal way of conformance testing
   ... that may become very complicated

   TimCole: there has to be some recognition

   ivan: the issue about media types may be - where we have to
   stop - is to have a very clear description in the text

   <shepazu> +1

   ivan: These are the selectors that are relevant to these media
   ... to make clear that text/* media types are handled by
   selector A and B, and are thus relevant to me

   ivan: that as and addendum will guide us to have test suites on
   all those categories

   azaroth: so, we start with syntactic testing, conformance with
   JSON, correct properties, etc. (cfr JSON schema)
   ... seems low-hanging fruit
   ... less than a day of work
   ... then, we can start with protocol
   ... LDP had some good patterns
   ... also, sending all possible annotation forms to a server,
   and a server that sends all possible annotations to a client
   ... at that point, we can see what else we can do

   shepazu: we agree about semantic vs syntactic testing
   ... I like the framing
   ... what about the OA CG testing?

   azaroth: in the IDPF work, we created a JSON schema for the CG
   open annotation model

   <azaroth> [18]http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/#h.b2nk2onxjepf

     [18] http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/#h.b2nk2onxjepf

   azaroth: at the bottom of the spec, there is the JSON schema

   ivan: IDPF people will want to take the new model, so that's

   shepazu: good that we can start from the schema, thanks rob!

   [19]http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/schema/oa-epub-schema.json :
   the real schema

     [19] http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/schema/oa-epub-schema.json

   azaroth: It's on my list
   ... by the end of next week, I hope to have done that

   <ShaneM> We have some JSON-LD testing code sitting around that
   needs polishing, but hoping it will work well for syntactic
   testing in the web platform test framework.

   TimCole: that's a good consensus about an approach for the
   ... it would be nice to have some more examples

   <azaroth> Regrets for next week, yes

   TimCole: for next Friday, both Rob and Ivan aren't here
   ... I have on the list: HTML serialization (which would be a
   ... without some guidance, there won't be much uptake

   shepazu: I'm interested, I'll be on the call next week
   ... I think we can also talk about testing

   <azaroth> Sorry, need to disappear. Bye all!

   TimCole: ok, so the call of next week will be about testing and
   ... other ideas or examples are welcome
   ... [adjourn]

   <bigbluehat> +1

   <bigbluehat> bye all!

   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [20]Minutes of the previous call are approved:
    2. [21]We will submit request to meet at TPAC, and decide if
       we want to back out at F2F in Berlin

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [22]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([23]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/04/01 16:10:39 $

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

Received on Friday, 1 April 2016 16:13:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:45 UTC