Meeting minutes, 2016-08-26

Minutes are here:

https://www.w3.org/2016/08/26-annotation-minutes.html

text version below.

Cheers

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

26 Aug 2016

   [2]Agenda

      [2] http://www.w3.org/mid/010201d1ff15$8813a540$983aefc0$@illinois.edu

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2016/08/26-annotation-irc

Attendees

   Present
          Shane McCarron, Jacob Jett, Rob Sanderson, Ivan Herman,
          TB Dinesh, Benjamin Young, Dan Whaley, Tim Cole, Paolo
          Ciccarese, Takeshi Kanai

   Regrets
          Ben_De_Meester

   Chair
          Rob, Tim

   Scribe
          Jacob

Contents

     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Last weeks minutes
         2. [6]Exit Criteria
         3. [7]Implementers doing testing
     * [8]Summary of Action Items
     * [9]Summary of Resolutions
     __________________________________________________________

Last weeks minutes

   <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are
   approved:
   [10]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html

     [10] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html

   <ivan> +1

   <TimCole> +1

   <ivan> scribenick: Jacob

   <azaroth> +1

   <ShaneM> +1

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
   [11]https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html

     [11] https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html

Exit Criteria

   <azaroth> Rob's proposed text:
   [12]https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/c5f2fdeeb7faad37af534
   e5b057ce03d92aada44/model/wd2/index.html#candidate-recommendati
   on-exit-criteria

     [12] https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/c5f2fdeeb7faad37af534e5b057ce03d92aada44/model/wd2/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria

   <azaroth> And:
   [13]https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/3af99d57ec3ec645b17e4
   961cb63974f07a22feb/protocol/wd/index.html#candidate-recommenda
   tion-exit-criteria

     [13] https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/3af99d57ec3ec645b17e4961cb63974f07a22feb/protocol/wd/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria

   ivan: will make an editorial change to put the exit criteria in
   all three documents

   TimCole; what needs to go into that summary? do we need some
   ancillary documentation to clarify the text that goes in?

   ivan: essential part would be the only part in the documents,
   can link to other documents for greater details

   TimCole: once a test is up and running, may be worthwhile to
   get the summary of assertions, e.g., what are we testing?
   ... what things are we claiming are features [of the model]?

   <ShaneM> I have put a PR into the test results tree:
   [14]https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/32

     [14] https://github.com/w3c/test-results/pull/32

   TimCole: fairly easy to summarize at a high-level but as has
   been pointed out, we reuse properties on different objects
   ... is the feature the property or the combination of property
   on a particular object?

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask "feature of what?"

   azaroth: had previously decided to treat the combination of
   properties on objects to be the feature, e.g., the name on an
   agent

   ShaneM: feature of model? feature of vocabulary? feature of
   what?
   ... need more context

   azaroth: need exit criteria for both; if they are not the same
   then not sure what the criteria for vocab would be

   ShaneM: focus on model for now
   ... need to test the properties in their contexts, e.g., target
   at top level means something different than target at a deeper
   level

   TimCole: would treat agent as creator of annotation as a
   feature, agent as creator of a specific resource as a feature,
   etc.

   <ShaneM> can't we just say "2 independent implementations of
   each feature" ?

   <ShaneM> Long discussion of draft text for CR exit criteria.
   Rob had proposed text in github:

   <ivan> [15]proposal for the protocol

     [15] https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/3af99d57ec3ec645b17e4961cb63974f07a22feb/protocol/wd/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria

   <ivan> [16]proposal for the model

     [16] https://rawgit.com/w3c/web-annotation/c5f2fdeeb7faad37af534e5b057ce03d92aada44/model/wd2/index.html#candidate-recommendation-exit-criteria

   ivan: what to do about the vocabulary?

   azaroth: could reuse the same proposal as the one for the
   model; hard to test the vocab separately from serializations

   ivan: need to test the model when expressed in ttl is valid rdf

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to note that we delivered a
   serialization of the vocab. testing its implementation is
   testing to make sure that multiple processors can parse it.

   ShaneM: our implementation is the json-ld context

   azaroth: context + ontology, those two together

   <ShaneM> need to pull the context document into various JSON-LD
   processors

   ivan: did we systematically check for validation of the
   context, check for production of valid rdf, etc.?

   <azaroth>
   [17]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/model/w
   d2/check_egs.py

     [17] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/model/wd2/check_egs.py

   TimCole: hasn't been done systematically yet
   ... do we need to include annotations submitted by
   implementers?

   <ShaneM> transitivity supports the validity

   ivan: no, if the context doc is okay then their annotations
   will be ok

   <TimCole> PROPOSAL: Go forward with Rob's drafts and our
   discussion about Vocabulary Exit Criteria (the last will be
   reviewed via email).

   <ivan> +1

   +1

   <azaroth> +1

   <TimCole> +1

   <ShaneM> +1

   <ShaneM> Should it be in a branch?

   <TimCole> Ivan will make sure these get published once ready in
   gitHub

   <azaroth> It's in exit-criteria at the moment

   RESOLUTION: Go forward with Rob's drafts and our discussion
   about Vocabulary Exit Criteria (the last will be reviewed via
   email).

Implementers doing testing

   <ShaneM>
   [18]http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotatio
   n-model

     [18] http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotation-model

   TimCole: discussed emailing implementers last week, have yet to
   move on that
   ... (@implemeters on call) first set of tests are up, more
   going up every later today and report
   ... want implementers to start using tests
   ... who should we prod to use these?

   <ShaneM> Anyone can run tests here:
   [19]http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotatio
   n-model

     [19] http://w3c-test.org/tools/runner/index.html?path=/annotation-model

   dwhly: building a universal client architecture
   ... will take the summary here and ask tech team what they need
   to move forward
   ... want to test interoperability

   TimCole: Nick's feedback on whether or not the testing process
   makes sense will be helpful, even if a bit of a distraction

   <ShaneM> For example, is this page usable?
   [20]http://w3c-test.org/annotation-model/annotations/annotation
   AgentOptionals-manual.html

     [20] http://w3c-test.org/annotation-model/annotations/annotationAgentOptionals-manual.html

   <tbdinesh> I can use that too so we can also start with tests

   PCiccarese: still updating the client aspects of domeo and
   annotea, so not doing useful implementations atm

   azaroth: no distinction of where the implementation is
   (client-side or server-side)

   PCiccarese: so if old server could produce a new annotation,
   that would count as an implementation?

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to point out that the protocol tests
   just speak the protocol.

   <tbdinesh> but to read it back might be harder (paolo)

   <azaroth> Protocol implementations won't be a problem, I think.

   <ShaneM> azaroth: yay!

   <azaroth> Benjamin and I each have one, plus I know of two
   others

   TimCole: if tests are in good shape next week (which seems to
   be the case), will contact several other implementers to engage
   with the tests

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to note that I think that the
   protocol tests include a server implementation.

   TimCole: also adding to the web repo readme some info about how
   to use the schemas locally
   ... Rob helping with the python
   ... Jacob already gave some text describing the ajv / node.js
   process
   ... want to have some experience with implementers by the end
   of next week so that our extension request has some basis

   ShaneM: protocol test q: submitting the server wpt first, is it
   okay if the server tests up initially?
   ... e.g., tests exercising the server are nearly ready to
   submit, but the ones testing a client are farther away from
   readiness, is it okay to push on with out the other?

   ivan: need to get the extension request to w3c sooner rather
   than later, need to demonstrate that we have things that can be
   relied on
   ... would be great if by 2 weeks from now the
   testing/implementation repo is not empty
   ... even incomplete results are good
   ... so whatever we have

   ShaneM: so we could begin generating reports later today
   ... concerned that we haven't actually looked at the tests
   ... need to make sure the results match our expectations

   TimCole: model tests, excepting the annotation collections
   should go up over the weekend
   ... do need to look at the validation (pass/fail), how to
   generate the report to make clear the differences between the
   examples from the documentation, e.g., ex.1 (no substantial
   features) vs. ex. 42 (an annotation collection
   ... vs. ex. 44 (many substantial features)

   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [21]Minutes of the previous call are approved:
       https://www.w3.org/2016/08/19-annotation-minutes.html
    2. [22]Go forward with Rob's drafts and our discussion about
       Vocabulary Exit Criteria (the last will be reviewed via
       email).

   [End of minutes]
     __________________________________________________________


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [23]scribe.perl version
    1.143 ([24]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/08/26 16:09:55 $

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