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

Re: Web Anno Agenda: Telco 2016-12-16 - Will be an important vote!

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:48:57 +0100
Cc: Tim Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AEFF36E3-296F-4048-8B00-646C36626570@w3.org>
To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
Frederick, others,

We have had some discussions re Issue 1, and here is where we are now:

There was one feature at risk, see

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-annotation-vocab-20161122/

> "The use of the ActivityStreams terms are considered to be at-risk, pending [activitystreams-vocabulary] reaching Candidate Recommendation and, eventually, Recommendation. If this fails, the (few) terms used in the current document will be replaced by terms with a similar names and similar semantics, but in the namespace defined by this document."

The vocabulary in question is now in (2nd)  CR:

https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/CR-activitystreams-vocabulary-20161215/

The Social Web WG has also passed a resolution recently:

> "We consider the 12 AS2 terms used by WebAnnotations to be stable and will not substantively change their definitions from those in our 06 September 2016 CR. We expect to go to PR in Jan 2017 and see no likely impediments, given our plan to drop any vocabulary terms lacking 2 impls. We currently lack 2 impls of as:startIndex, but assume Anno can provide them."

 (see https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-12-06-minutes#resolution03)

Based on this resolution, I propose that the the WG simply removes the 'at risk' label and publishes the document unchanged with a reference to the CR version of the activity stream vocabulary. It is expected that the two documents will get into sync by the time of the possible publication of the Recommendations.

Ivan






> On 15 Dec 2016, at 20:21, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
> 
> Regrets for the call tomorrow,
> 
> Any concern on whether Vocabulary should go to PR with "Issue 1" as noted in the document [1]? I note that the Activity Streams is at CR, so the issue text needs revision. That said, is the issue still relevant and can it be removed from the status section?
> 
> otherwise +1 to PR transition for Data Model and Protocol.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> [1] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/vocab/wd/index.html
> 
>> On Dec 15, 2016, at 11:06 AM, Timothy Cole <t-cole3@illinois.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Web Annotation Working Group
>> Teleconference Agenda for
>> Friday December 16, 2016 (11am Eastern US, 8am Pacific US, 16:00 UTC).
>> 
>> PLEASE NOTE THAT WE EXPECT TO VOTE ON READINESS TO ADVANCE TO PROPOSED REC STATUS; PLEASE PLAN TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION AND THEN VOTE.
>> 
>> Logistics / Call in details:
>> - IRC channel ( irc.w3.org  ): #annotation.
>> - WebEx via computer:
>>   https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m2c99abd2f8cea21e3e3c33c9c2626eec
>>               or direct dial in: +1-617-324-0000
>>  Meeting Number / Access Code: 645 413 954
>> 
>> Agenda
>> 
>> 1. Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements, Minutes Approval
>>   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/12/02-annotation-minutes.html
>> 
>> 2. Final review of PR Transition Request
>>    Current Draft: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/PRTransitionAdmin/PRTransitionRequest.md
>>    To do:
>>                Review & confirm dates
>>                Finalize testing reports - current drafts available:
>>                             https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-model/all.html
>>                             https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-protocol/all.html
>>                             https://w3c.github.io/test-results/annotation-vocab/all.html
>>                Review draft of updated text addressing Model & Vocab features at risk
>>                Review draft text of Implementation Information \ Protocol section
>>                  Life after Rec - The co-chairs of the Open Annotation Community Group have reviewed and approved the relevant text in the draft Transition Request
>>                Anything else?
>> 
>> 3. Vote to formally request transition to PR (assuming we get through our review of the PR Transition Request).
>>               **Draft** Proposed Resolution: Provided no new issue comes up on or before the 20th, the WG requests the Director to move 3 Web Annotation CRs to Proposed Rec Status.
>> 
>> 4. AOB
>>   Next meeting?
>>                Proposed: 6 January 2017.
>> 
>> 5. Adjourn
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Technical Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704





Received on Friday, 16 December 2016 15:49:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:51 UTC