Issues progress and 15 April meeting minutes

Minutes from last Friday's Web Annotation Working Group conference call are here:

https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-minutes.html 

and appended to this email below signature line.

 

Progress on Issues - as appropriate please respond on GitHub or on the list if any concerns, contrary opinions, etc.:

 

#199 (Deref of Namespace): https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/199.  Based on discussion on the call, Rob took an action to have a concrete proposal ready for consideration by our next call. 

 

#200 (Should oa:start / oa:end be xsd:nonNegativeInteger or xsd:integer?): https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/200. The consensus on the call was to accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab, pending any further comments this week. We will discuss on our next call and close the issue (or tag for editor-action) if consensus holds. 

 

#203 (selector/media table): https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/203. Please review before next call, on which we will review a final time and hopefully be able to call it done. 

 

#204: Much of the call was given over to discussing responses to the Privacy Interest Group review comments - https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/204. Progress was made, but more remains to discuss; we will continue our discussion on upcoming call(s).

 

Issues 185, 183, 179, 174, 165, 154, 71 were resolved as part of getting latest Working Drafts ready for publication at the end of last month. Accordingly, these issues were all closed late last week.

 

As of today we still have 19 open issues, 8 of which we have marked 'postpone'. Four of the remaining issues have been marked 'editor-action'. On the remaining calls before our F2F we will continue to manage the list of open issues and see if we can shorten further. 

 

Thanks,

 

Tim Cole

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign


Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference


15 Apr 2016


See also: IRC log <http://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-irc> 


Attendees


Present

Rob_Sanderson (azaroth), Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young (bigbluehat), Ben_De_Meester (bjdmeest), Randall_Leeds (tilgovi), Dan_Whaley (dwhly), tb_dinesh, Doug_Shepers (shepazu), Takeshi_Kanai, Kyrce_Swenson, Paolo_Ciccarese, Frederick_Hirsch (fjh_)

Regrets

Nick_Stenning, Ivan_Herman, Shane_McCarron (ShaneM)

Chairs

Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson

Scribes

TimCole, azaroth


Contents


* Topics 

1. Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements
2. Minutes Approval
3. Open Issue #204 (Privacy Interest Group PING review)
4. Open Issue #203 (Selector/media table)
5. Open Issue - Issues #200 and #199

* Summary of Action Items
* Summary of Resolutions


Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements


<TimCole> scribenick: TimCole

azaroth: Agenda will cover newly opened issues, including privacy review, selector media table, etc.
... other topics?
... hearing none, any announcements?
... hearing none, move on to minutes review.


Minutes Approval


<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-annotation-minutes.html

azaroth: any objections to minutes?

RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-annotation-minutes.html


Open Issue #204 (Privacy Interest Group PING review)


<azaroth> PING review: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/204

azaroth: Issue #204, results of Privacy review.
... summary - two most important comments, 1) request to recommend https
... 2) there should be some way to opt out of being annotated
... similar to how robots.txt requests crawlers not to crawl

<dwhly> +q

azaroth: reality is there is no way to preclude annotating, but you can request
... Privacy also asked about being able to delete, etc., but this is supported.

dwhly: okay with https, but lots to say about 2nd suggestion
... we have been doing research, outreach, interviews, with people across the spectrum
... of project, users, blog posters, etc.
... there is a diversity of opinion, but some consensus that there should be some way page owners can signal would-be annotators
... would be interested in the opinion of the WG whether they thought this was within their remit
... there are a wide variety of things that might be signaled

<shepazu> (privately/locally annotated vs published)

dwhly: proxied or not, annotated or not, annotated only if annotations are moderated, etc. - long list
... mechanism not clear yet, but first question is should a signaling mechanism be considered.

<bigbluehat> "annotation service" == "publisher" ?

dwhly: would require some negotiation, but annotators would need to be able to override if in public interest

<tbdinesh> first. how to we identify a page owner? (so as to signal)

dwhly: these are some thoughts within hypothes.is, interested in knowing what others in the WG think.

azaroth: Could you (Dan) write-up a summary of data gathering so far and post to WG list serv?

dwhly: yes, could be a couple of weeks

shepazu: a big problem on the Web, there should be a place for standards here
... there are useful things beyond if you want to be annotated or not

<ShaneM> Regrets for today - sorry!

shepazu: e.g., do I have my own annotation server?
... so there are degrees beyond do I wanted to be annotated at all?
... what are the other useful end points (annotation repositories)
... maybe only be able to annotate to curated sites?

paoloCiccarese: sounds cool, but what's the goal?

paoloCiccarese: are we just trying to publish guidelines?

<fjh_> +1 to paolo

shepazu: yes, guidelines

<bigbluehat> can we untangle the terms and vectors we're discussing?

shepazu: a way to express intent

paoloCiccarese: examples - Canadian site that allows people to make comments. Don't like but how can you block?

<bigbluehat> do-not-blog-about-me.txt

paoloCiccarese: history is that blogs ultimately will do what they want.

shepazu: distinction between can you annotate and can you publish annotations to a site and should annotations be displayed in the context of my page

azaroth: to Doug's point about where to annotate - there is a way to say in the model [scribe error, corrected later - should say 'in the protocol spec'] that this is my preferred annotation service
... also agree is provide a way for content publishers to express preferences, can't enforce in this kind of distributed system
... we might want to have an initial list of what content providers would like to be able to say
... then we can work through these and decide what's reasonable for first draft

dwhly: robots.txt is not entirely a good analog for what we do.
... robots.txt is respected by some but not others
... that will happen here as well

<azaroth> +1 to Dan. If the big systems respect it, then the damage is limited. Robots.txt limits bandwidth damage, this would limit social damage

dwhly: but would be good to provide a standard way to express preferences and formalizes an ontology of these preferences
... this is social signaling basically
... which is a benefit

paoloCiccarese: what are the connections to legal issues
... does any of this fall into legal space?

<Zakim> shepazu, you wanted to clarify signally in protocol

shepazu:W3C doesn't do a lot around legal, but there are intersections

shepazu: there are legal precedents, lots that happens in legal space around W3C standards
... I would hope that the markets would coalesce around our ontology and avoid the need to turn everthing into legal

paoloCiccarese: so this assumes that we know that what we propose would not contradict legal.

<bigbluehat> does proxy + overlaid annotation == publication (for instance)

shepazu: what we have now happens in HTTP headers, but maybe we also need to think about putting something in the HTML
... and the right reference for what we have currently is in protocol not model

<dwhly> +1 for collaboration!

tillgovi: are these issues also being dealt with elsewhere
... some of what we're talking about is not just about annotation
... e.g., annotation doesn't require displaying as overlay, and content can be talked about beyond the scope of annotation

dwhly: in discussing with a variety of folks about signaling
... where it might be
... an immediate concern is that I may not have access to all of these mechanisms (headers, etc.)
... could it be signaled at the bottom of the blog?

<Zakim> tbdinesh, you wanted to mention pages dont have an owner who can be identified by a community

dwhly: concern might be that someone could spam the intention of the page owner.

tbdinesh: page owner could lots of different kinds of agents

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to suggest Social Web WG

tbdinesh: our model doesn't really say how the page owner is identified

<bigbluehat> +1 to azaroth re: social web

azaroth: this falls into the remit also of the Social Web WG
... would be good to work with them

<shepazu> +1 to working on this outside Web Annotation WG

<bigbluehat> note their charter expires this year also...

azaroth: re Dan's and Dinesh's questions - if we have a way for blog authors to signal intent, I would hope that platforms would allow for that

<shepazu> bigbluehat, yes, might be something outside either WG

azaroth: the author then is the person that controls that particular preference

<bigbluehat> new WG most likely

tbdinesh: we are getting into question of ownership of pages on the Web
... we are asking the page owner to identify themselves some how

<azaroth> scribenick: azaroth

TimCole: In terms of next steps, don't want to get derailed, but do want to respond to the feedback. What modifications do we make to the specs?
... What would satisfy the issue raised, and what could we leave for additional work?

<scribe> scribenick: TimCole

<dwhly> I don't think the page owner needs to identify their real-name, they just need to state a preference in some agreed upon location.

azaroth: any objections to recommending Https?

<bigbluehat> not to recommending. objection to *requiring*

<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Recommend HTTPS in the protocol doc

+1

<azaroth> +1

<tbdinesh> +1

<shepazu> +1

<takeshi> +1

<dwhly> +1

<PaoloCiccarese> +1

<bjdmeest> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

RESOLUTION: Recommend HTTPS in the protocol doc

azaroth: for signaling, if we can come up with list, hopefully based on interviewing Dan has been doing
... and then once we have that list come up with a mechanism
... goal would be have list by F2F

dwhly: yes, we can summarize before then what we've heard
... and then have a discussion at f2f

<tbdinesh> dwhly: to state a preference on *a* page requires a lot of thought. easier as post-event-signalling. maybe an abuse signalling?

azaroth: will take action to talk to social Web WG to see if they have thoughts
... to see if can come up with around social publishing rather than just annotating
... it's about making it public.

shepazu: agree with sentiment that this is a larger problem, here's what we can do now.

<tbdinesh> dwhly: also a blog is generated (owned) by an institute generally but an owner owns the content in a way of a/their blog post

azaroth: any further next steps on this one?
... hearing none, we move on
... we should add a privacy consideration section
... rest of the privacy feedback looks like editorial. Any contrary thoughts?


Open Issue #203 (Selector/media table)


<azaroth> Media Table: http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/medias.html

TimCole: this is mostly informational people should review this and see if they agree and if adequate for helping with testing

azaroth: actions here are for the WG to review and post comments to the issue #203

<azaroth> github link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/203

azaroth: for next week let's try to call it done unless objections are raised between now and then
... any other thoughts about #203?
... to clarify, with regard to conformance we don't want to say that an implementation must support all selector types
... this table is a way of saying what we think an implementation supporting a media type should support.


Open Issue - Issues #200 and #199


<azaroth> github link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/200

<shepazu> 200 = Should oa:start / oa:end be xsd:nonNegativeInteger or xsd:integer ?

azaroth: should be may explicit where integer values should not be negative (right now just says any integer)?
... a question of specificity

<shepazu> Deref of namespace should go to vocab? #199

azaroth: any thoughts or objections on #200. 
... stian suggested putting type into the json-ld context, but this can sometimes make a mess in the json instance
... stian and azaroth will test and offer closure, subject to review of the WG

+1 for specifying non-negative

<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab

<azaroth> +1

+1

<tilgovi> +1

<bjdmeest> +1

<shepazu> +1

RESOLUTION: Accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab

<azaroth> Github Link: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/199

azaroth: #199 is about what should happen when you dereference the namespace
... when you dereference a namespace you typically get documentation about the vocabulary
... there are multiple options, a landing page with link to human documentation and machine-readable, you could get turtle, etc.
... we will discuss next week and see if we can close/resolve
... azaroth will try to make concrete proposal

shepazu: Shane will help put together the framework for general json-ld testing and will work with shepazu
... hopefully will be able talk about next week.


Summary of Action Items


Summary of Resolutions


1. Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/08-annotation-minutes.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-minutes.html#resolution01> 
2. Recommend HTTPS in the protocol doc <https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-minutes.html#resolution02> 
3. Accept xsd:nonNegativeInteger for start and end in ontology and vocab <https://www.w3.org/2016/04/15-annotation-minutes.html#resolution03> 

[End of minutes]