Minutes of meeting 2016-08-19

Minutes are here:

https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-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

19 Aug 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Aug/0145.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), Tim Cole, Shane McCarron,
          Ivan Herman, Jacob Jett, Dan Whaley, TB_Dinesh

   Regrets
          Paolo Ciccarese, Rob Sanderson

   Chair
          TimCole

   Scribe
          Jacob

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Issues
         2. [6]Testing
         3. [7]Protocol Testing
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

   <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are
   approved:
   [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
   [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html

Issues

   TimCole: Rob posted a question about agent requirements

   <TimCole> Issue - agent requirements :
   [12]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/349

     [12] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/349

   TimCole: noted that there are no MUST requirements on agents
   involved in creating annotations or resources that serve as
   bodies
   ... do have SHOULDS but no MUSTS
   ... doesn't prevent checking for agent objects (even if empty)
   ... not any real concerns but want to confirm that agents being
   unspecified is how we want it
   ... will leave this as -- should be closed -- but will wait for
   Rob's return

   <TimCole> :
   [13]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/348

     [13] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/348

   TimCole: other issue is an editorial recommendation for
   textDirection
   ... discussion participants from internationalization group;
   suggesting wording changes

   ivan: should add the editorial labels [have added them]
   ... not clear is whether proposals to close the related
   textDirection discussions, e.g., #335

   <TimCole> [14]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/335

   ivan: is 348 a proposal to close 335?

   TimCole: no other actions out of this

Testing

   TimCole: model testing

   <TimCole>
   [15]http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotation
   s/annotationMusts-manual.html

     [15] http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotations/annotationMusts-manual.html

   TimCole: posted a few links to the test area Shane set up
   ... can go there, paste in an annotation, and determine if all
   of the keys specific to "annotation" are valid, i.e. does not
   test body/target properties
   ... it does check optional annotation properties, e.g., created
   ... if 0 or 1 it passes but 2+ fails
   ... if these tests look usable to implementers then should
   potentially move to the production region so that more
   implementers can use them
   ... will be similar sets for bodies and targets
   ... want to verify this approach works first

   ShaneM: want to pay attention to the readability of the
   assertion list
   ... existing ones readable, make sense, etc. but wish they
   could be more ledgible
   ... not critical but will want to make it even clearer what is
   being tested, e.g., "leap off the page"

   TimCole: can we embed html into the text here?

   ShaneM: yes but not sure how this will propagate through the
   tool chain

   Ben: could use markdown instead of embedding html

   ShaneM: good idea, will embed markdown processing

   <TimCole>
   [16]http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotation
   s/annotationOptionals-manual.html

     [16] http://testdev.spec-ops.io:8000/annotation-model/annotations/annotationOptionals-manual.html

   TimCole: recommended / optional assertions are harder to word
   ... [summary of web-page]
   ... how should these be worded? a lot of text explaining the
   "failure" result
   ... which is followed by some fairly arcane json validation
   text

   ShaneM: could use the OR structure
   ... e.g., branch A, "property not included", branch B,
   "property value invalid"

   TimCole: Could cascade several...e.g., creator key
   ... was it implemented? then was only one implemented?

   <ivan> +1 to Shane

   ShaneM: makes sense but more important to get the test out
   there, don't need to be perfect
   ... can defer this issue until later

   TimCole: will move on to body/target tests then
   ... haven't started on annotation collection tests
   ... wanted help from Rob, so not starting them until late next
   week
   ... in the interim should we solicit feedback on the three
   tests (annotation, body, target)?

   ivan: anything we can do to get the community more involved
   would be good
   ... running very behind on the CR schedule
   ... need to publish asap, even if additional / new tests are
   coming

   ShaneM: will move the existing tests to the main repo, tagging
   tim and benjamin as reviewers
   ... then peer-reviewed step will be accomplished

   TimCole: will be cleaning some of the unused / older folders
   out to simplify the merge
   ... other thing we are doing is testing locally using ajv /
   nodejs
   ... relatively easy process
   ... going to write some additional json schemas to allow local
   annotation testing in a similar manner to the existing test
   infrastructure

   ShaneM: if there's a way to add that to the repo, can do that

   TimCole: script is a command line, just using a text file for
   it but can look at making a more formal ajv script

   ShaneM: there is a make_tests.py script, which should generate
   a test so long as valid schema are available

   TimCole: json allows a certain amount of recursion, e.g.,
   choice has items, items may be lists, etc.
   ... need to be careful not to loop to infinity
   ... will provide instructions next week on how to run these in
   ajv
   ... hopefully Rob will help us provide instructions on how to
   do the same with python libraries

   ivan: should look at implementor list and generate some emails
   to get community involved

   ShaneM: will take some cycles to get the changes merged

   Benjamin: should we use github to rally the implementers?
   ... would allow implementers to self-identify

   ivan: need to still email those we know; the more the better

   Benjamin: github issue will also go out to the list

   TimCole: any concerns about reporting the test results?
   ... clear what was/wasn't implemented, etc.

   ShaneM: will put an example result using the W3C's reporting
   tool (makes a table of who's implementing which features)

Protocol Testing

   TimCole: testing example 42 is nice, implements many of the
   model's features

   <TimCole> s /42/44

   ShaneM: continuing to work on the ldp hand-off from Benjamin
   ... physically adding a "route" into the server that knows that
   for certain things goes through our protocol
   ... making internal changes for short-term data
   ... converted the client-side testing to WPT framework

   Benjamin: moving to hunting to Wiley's implementation status
   and open-source implementations
   ... revisiting past annotation work to get them involved,
   provide more options

   ShaneM: protocol test can be demo'd now, just not in the WPT
   context
   ... client-side experience would be similar to what we have
   now, server-side will have a page
   ... to-do list: integrate the route and html page for
   client-protocol testing, server-side is a single test case

   TimCole: will there be pushback from implementers who received
   the invalid result but insist they have implemented correctly,
   how do they note this?

   <ShaneM> annotation-protocol/client and
   annotation-protocol/server are the paths

   <ShaneM> I have written the documentation - not yet checked in.

   ShaneM: via github -- then we prove they were wrong or fix the
   test

   TimCole: other action items?

   <bigbluehat> I know csarven is interested in the HTML note if
   we can get that on the schedule

   ivan: html note, can be done when the CR is done
   ... internationalization will probably be a topic next week

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if there is any danger of
   having to recycle CR?

   <csarven> Not in the call.. but, yes. Interested in pushing a
   NOTE. I'll send an email out - would like to narrow down on
   exactly what we are expecting from this note.

   ivan: nothing has yet to come up to cause us to restart the CR,
   but the internationalization discussion could result in a
   technical change
   ... @ShaneM: will the testing specs built for us be reused for
   other groups

   ShaneM: yes, was the reason specops moved on it
   ... general case of testing the shape of a json data structure
   is critical for many standards
   ... protocol testing a little less important but will reuse the
   protocol testing model for other protocols
   ... was why the effort to take a neutral approach was taken

   TimCole: will be updating the assertions with markdown in the
   next couple of hours
   ... adjourn

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [17]Minutes of the previous call are approved:
       https://www.w3.org/2016/08/12-annotation-minutes.html

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/08/19 16:04:15 $

     [18] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
     [19] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/