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

Minutes of meeting, 2016-04-29

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:09:34 +0200
Message-Id: <3989C94F-06E7-4312-AFE8-F7225F3BC6AC@w3.org>
To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Minutes are at:

https://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html

Text version below.

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

29 Apr 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/061301d1a15f$abff37d0$03fda770$@illinois.edu

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Tim Cole, Ivan Herman,
          Frederick Hirsch (fjh), Shane McCarron (ShaneM), Doug
          Schepers (shepazu), TB_Dinesh, Dan Whaley (dwhly), Ben
          De Meester, Paolo Ciccarese, Benjamin Young (bigbluehat)

   Regrets
   Chair
          Tim, Rob

   Scribe
          fjh

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements
         2. [6]Minutes approval
         3. [7]Testing
         4. [8]Agenda for F2F
         5. [9]Issues
     * [10]Summary of Action Items
     * [11]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <ivan> Agenda:
   [12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016
   Apr/0104.html

     [12] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Apr/0104.html

   <azaroth> Chair: Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson

   <scribe> ScribeNick: fjh

Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements

   azaroth: first 30 min for agenda followed by f2f and issue for
   2nd half
   ... had call with PING yesterday, will recap
   ... no changes to agenda noted
   ... no announcements, lets discuss iAnnotate under F2F topic

Minutes approval

   <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are
   approved:
   [13]https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html

     [13] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html

   <ivan> +1

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
   [14]https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html

     [14] https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html

Testing

   azaroth: need to clarify time frames and tasks to be done
   ... and who can help
   ... how to break vocabulary into smaller tests, need proposal
   and recipe for implementers to participate and contribute new
   tests
   ... also who will test implementations when working with other
   groups

   ShaneM: purpose of w3c testing is to verify for each feature
   there are at least 2 implementations that support it

   actually it is up to group to set the bar

   ShaneM: not to certify implementations

   <ivan> +1 to ShaneM

   fjh: +1 to ShaneM re not certifying

   shepazu: need to run tests on real implementations

   <bigbluehat> in this case don't we test the output of the
   implementations? their JSON(-LD) serializations of whatever
   they're storing?

   ShaneM: would like to test output of implementations but also
   need to test JSON schema, data model representation

   <azaroth> +1 to "representation of the data model" :) that's a
   nice way to frame it (IMO)

   ShaneM: not to make sure correct
   ... test JSON schema against canned input
   ... 2 kinds of testing
   ... testing against implementations - need to find them, need
   to get JSON schema completed

   <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about /other/ means?

   azaroth: what if we create tool for testing but wouldn’t
   suffice to meet w3c requirements

   shepazu: could create annotation bot, e.g. one that finds typos
   and annotates them

   <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: yes. you can write it to allow
   extra properties

   PaoloCiccarese: how to we test JSON schema if we have
   additional properties

   <bigbluehat> it does that by default, in fact

   shepazu: can we test the JSON schema and ignore additional
   material

   <TimCole> So, do we need samples of resources that are meant to
   be annotated a particular way, and then see if implementations
   create json-ld that describes the annotation?

   azaroth: answer is yes

   ShaneM: JSON does not know about prefixes, so need to normalize
   input

   bigbluehat: using keynames in anything in profile, more
   constrained than JSON-LD, require context and ranges for values
   ... so JSON schema validation should be ok

   azaroth: agree

   <bigbluehat>
   [15]https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#index-of-json-keys

     [15] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#index-of-json-keys

   azaroth: if property constraints to false then anything not
   specified is ok

   <bigbluehat> also:
   [16]https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#model "MUST have 1
   or more @context and [17]http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld MUST
   be one of them. If there is only one value, then it MUST be
   provided as a string."

     [16] https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#model
     [17] http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld

   PaoloCiccarese: in general dealing with JSON-LD in JSON
   environments prefix is handled inconsistently , expanded or
   not, so what are we going to do

   bigbluehat: can use vocabulary how you see fit, for annotation
   model then have to use key names

   shepazu: gkellog mentioned framing for normalization

   <ShaneM> unfortunately framing is not mature enough for us to
   reply upon at this time

   <azaroth> json schema validation with additionalProperties of
   false:
   [18]https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fge-json-schema-validatio
   n-00#page-13

     [18] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fge-json-schema-validation-00#page-13

   <ShaneM> at least that is my position

   shepazu: we might want to get him on a call

   <azaroth> And the OA json-schema for IDPF:
   [19]http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/#h.b2nk2onxjepf

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

   bigbluehat: ... validate against vocabulary, if web annotation
   also validate against JSON schema

   ShaneM: let’s get something working first, if too constraining
   reduce the constraints

   shepazu: need to make sure this works within W3C testing
   framework, however many if not most implementations cannot use
   web framework
   ... so will need manual validation
   ... should focus on that first

   <PaoloCiccarese> FYI: In Annotopia I use Framing and then I do
   custom validation, which I assume can be swapped with JSON
   Schema pretty easily as long as the framing produces an agreed
   upon output

   shepazu: start with a validator

   ShaneM: disagree, doing assertion based tests

   shepazu: mean doing tests manually, possibly using a web form
   to enter inputs and get results

   ShaneM: web test environment supports that directly, so don’t
   need to reimplement

   shepazu: didn’t realize that, ok
   ... lets talk offline to be clear

   ivan: JSON framing not implemented widely so not sure
   implementions can use, algorithm defined, but not a REC
   ... JSON schema should not be normative

   <ShaneM> +1 to not making it normative.

   ivan: if normative, then need to make sure absolutely
   consistent with RDF vocabulary

   <azaroth> +1 to Ivan

   ivan: if inconsistency between schema and vocabulary,
   vocabulary wins

   ivan: need someone to work with on schema

   PaoloCiccarese: framing is essential if you do RDF, no way
   around it
   ... but starting point is schema validation, can work on first
   step of pipeline, can create some RDF test case
   ... happy to be involved

   <bigbluehat> 2 things you should be able to check: "my RDF uses
   the Annotation Vocabulary correctly" and "my output JSON format
   is valid Web Annotation Data Model JSON Serialization"

   <bigbluehat> PaoloCiccarese: you may not need to do both
   (afaik) ^^

   azaroth: framing proposal is not that every implementation has
   to do it, but that test generator has option to use it

   ivan: ok with that, Gregg can do it

   azaroth: i can work on JSON schema side

   <Zakim> tbdinesh, you wanted to comment on process for
   suggesting test cases and validating tests do what they say

   <bigbluehat> [20]https://github.com/bigbluehat/testing-json-ld
   <-- this thing

     [20] https://github.com/bigbluehat/testing-json-ld

   tbdinesh: can make more test cases, what is process for doing
   this
   ... what if I want to test multiple targets

   <bigbluehat> these
   [21]https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/tree/master/w
   eb-annotation/tests

     [21] https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/tree/master/web-annotation/tests

   <bigbluehat> happy to move these into the w3c space on GH

   tbdinesh: need wiki for tests, so we can look at them, know
   what they are doing

   ivan: agree

   <bigbluehat> PRs welcome ^_^

   tbdinesh: need list of needed tests

   bigbluehat: instead of one big JSON schema, use one per MUST,
   using defaults in JSON schema, see link above

   <bigbluehat>
   [22]https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/blob/master/w
   eb-annotation/tests/verify-target-present.json

     [22] https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/blob/master/web-annotation/tests/verify-target-present.json

   bigbluehat: need to decide some types, string etc
   ... deal with arrays and streams appropriately
   ... different approach than giant schema

   <bigbluehat>
   [23]https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld#screenshot

     [23] https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld#screenshot

   <azaroth> In my experience, many small tests is better

   <azaroth> as the mega schema will stop as soon as it hits the
   first error

   <azaroth> Also there's no distinction between error and warning

   <azaroth> (MUST vs SHOULD)

   <azaroth> so you stop after the first warning even

   <tbdinesh> for example, for motivation renarration i need to
   define new motivation and then its input validation for those
   uses

   bigbluehat: uses quads, relies on human involvement, but a
   starting point

   <ShaneM> azaroth: yes. that's how the WPT works

   <ShaneM> atomic tests are key

Agenda for F2F

   <azaroth>
   [24]https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016

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

   azaroth: continue this on next call
   ... comments on agenda, proposals?
   ... how many observers do we have?

   ivan: suggest we change agenda, focus on topics related to
   going to CR
   ... if time, include others
   ... remove client-side APIs, search, robust anchoring etc
   ... need to close all issues to go to CR, be clear on testing
   strategy, before going to CR

   <azaroth> +1

   ivan: this is first priority

   TimCole: agree with Ivan, however suggest meeting in 3rds, 1st
   afternoon on testing, morning on issues, put otther items we
   want to do before charter expires as last third
   ... if we don’t have time then we can slip them to later calls

   +1 to TimCole

   TimCole: we should break down testing to sub-topics, schema,
   framing, implementations etc

   <azaroth> and +1 from me too

   +1 to ivan’s suggestion to prioritize

   azaroth: will revise agenda, we can discuss next week

   dwhly: not much new to report on iAnnotate, planning continues,
   please attend and remember to register

   <azaroth> Can you drop a link to the registration page?

   dwhly: lots of participants, about 120, increasing daily, max
   will be 150

   <tbdinesh> iannotate.org

   dwhly: remember Sat 1 day developers meeting, sign up for that
   separately
   ... working on panel on harrassment and page owner consent over
   annotation, should be interesting
   ... Genius will be there

   <shepazu> +1

   dwhly: +1 to Ivan, however perhaps have some time in F2F to
   talk about consent, or on a call before, then input into panel
   discussion
   ... at iAnnotate, not definitive statement, but suggestions or
   additional information

Issues

   issue-195

   <azaroth> proposal is:
   [25]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/195#issuecomme
   nt-213490285

     [25] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/195#issuecomment-213490285

   dwhly: in progress

   TimCole: Privacy in CR documents takes precedence over future
   privacy work
   ... lets look at issue 195

   azaroth: selectors and sub-selectors, merged using refined by
   to allow state or selector, so now question can have both,
   proposal is yes

   <TimCole> Proposed Recommendation: Accept proposal and close
   issue #195

   <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Allow a State to be refined by a
   Selector.

   azaroth: had support for proposal from Ivan and Jacob, no
   concerns from anyone

   <TimCole> +1

   <ivan> +1

   <azaroth> +1

   +1

   <PaoloCiccarese> +1

   <ShaneM> +0

   <bigbluehat> +1

   RESOLUTION: Allow a State to be refined by a Selector.

   <tbdinesh> +1

   <TimCole> [26]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205

     [26] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205

   TimCole: should we close

   <azaroth> Agree it's incomplete

   ivan: document incomplete now, allow two selectors or states on
   top level, spec silent on meaning
   ... refinement covers various use cases
   ... two means conjunction
   ... don’t really like this, could disallow
   ... my preference

   TimCole: take to github

   ivan: we had disagreement so we need to decide

   <TimCole> [27]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206

     [27] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206

   TimCole: let’s take it next week

   ivan: text position selector is under specified as noted in the
   issue
   ... should we say anything in model about encoding

   azaroth: we don’t, agree spec is incomplete, as Takeshi noted
   as well

   ivan: if we use HTML5 then encoding is defined

   <ShaneM> technically it is part of the wrapper

   ivan: cannot have our own definition that conflicts with HTML5
   ... wrapper

   azaroth: Takeshi made web page of various languages and
   frameworks
   ... on how dealing with characters

   TimCole: Rob, Benjamin, Paolo willing to help with schema issue
   ... anybody else?

   <ShaneM> me me me

   <shepazu> ShaneM

   <shepazu> shepazu

   TimCole: ask that group to get something started

   ivan: to speed up if others could look at 205, 206, 191 and
   give opinion
   ... please work on the list, before call, so we can resolve
   them. its been 3 weeks
   ... these are technical?

   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [28]Minutes of the previous call are approved:
       https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html
    2. [29]Allow a State to be refined by a Selector.

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [30]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([31]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/04/29 16:07:04 $

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





Received on Friday, 29 April 2016 16:09:46 UTC

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