- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:09:25 +0100
- To: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Oops... Sorry about that. Thanks Frederick!
Ivan
---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net
(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)
> On 31 Jan 2016, at 23:08, Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com> wrote:
>
> correct link for minutes: https://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-annotation-minutes.html
>
>> On Jan 28, 2016, at 3:11 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>> Meeting minutes are here:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0185.html
>>
>> Textual 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
>>
>> 27 Jan 2016
>>
>> See also: [2]IRC log
>>
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/27-annotation-irc
>>
>> [3]Agenda
>>
>> [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0185.html
>>
>> Attendees
>>
>> Present
>> Ivan Herman, Frederick Hirsch, Rob Sandersion (azaroth),
>> Tim Cole, Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), Jacob Jett, Dough
>> Schepers (shepazu), Davis Salisbury, Paolo Ciccarese,
>> Ben De Meester (bjdmeest), Chris Birk, TB Dinesh,
>> Takeshi Kanai, Randall Leeds, Dan Whaley (dwhly)
>>
>> Regrets
>> Frederick Hirsch
>>
>> Chair
>> Rob Sanderson
>>
>> Scribe
>> dwhly, azaroth
>>
>> Contents
>>
>> * [4]Topics
>> 1. [5]Logistics
>> 2. [6]I Annotate / F2F
>> 3. [7]Issues
>> 1. [8]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/87
>> 2. [9]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/87
>> 3. [10]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/107
>> 4. [11]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/113
>> 5. [12]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/119
>> 6. [13]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/130
>> * [14]HTML Serialization
>> * [15]F2F registration
>>
>> [16]Summary of Action Items
>>
>> [17]Summary of Resolutions
>> __________________________________________________________
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are
>> approved
>>
>> <azaroth>
>> [18]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> [18] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> <csarven> I'm in another meeting. re: 5. "HTML Serialization" .
>> Just like to mention that,
>> [19]https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli is entirely on
>> HTML+RDFa + OA (position quote selector, and
>> footnotes/references at the moment). Happy to give feedback or
>> spec that out as needed.
>>
>> [19] https://github.com/linkeddata/dokieli
>>
>> azaroth: review minutes, check results of doodle poll on a new
>> time
>> ... then walk through the six issues we have in front of us.
>> ... then 2x deferred discussion on HTML serialization
>> ... if time, then discussion of selectors
>>
>> azaroth: other than webex switch, any other announcements?
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are
>> approved
>> [20]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> [20] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> <azaroth> RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are approved
>> [21]https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> [21] https://www.w3.org/2016/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
>>
>> Logistics
>>
>> <azaroth> Doodle link:
>> [22]http://doodle.com/poll/m25yrdi3fmne6src
>>
>> [22] http://doodle.com/poll/m25yrdi3fmne6src
>>
>> azaroth: Frederick has a conflict with this time, and thus we
>> need to select an alternate.
>> ... Doodle link: [23]http://doodle.com/poll/m25yrdi3fmne6src
>> ... the proposal is that starting next week, we can switch to
>> 8am PT on Fridays.
>> ... any objections
>>
>> [23] http://doodle.com/poll/m25yrdi3fmne6src
>>
>> <dwhly> ... so moved! and approved.
>>
>> ivan: Tomorrow I'll change the webex entry
>> ... I hope it won't force me to change the password and
>> whatever
>>
>> shepazu: I just changed a telco for another group
>> ... it lets you just edit the entry to change the time without
>> the rest
>>
>> ivan: to be clear, we don't have a call on wednesday, but yes
>> to friday ... the 5th of February for the new schedule
>>
>> I Annotate / F2F
>>
>> dwhly: Microsoft has agreed to host I Annotate in the atrium in
>> Berlin on Under der Linden, a very nice space
>> ... Giving it to us for free, which is a huge benefit. Normally
>> 20k euros. Thanks to everyone, Ivan, Doug and Georg with the
>> connections were helpful
>> ... May 19 and 20th, Thursday and Friday, which implies the
>> days before are for the F2F
>> ... The afternoon of 17th, and all of the 18th for the F2F.
>> Georg has offered DFKI facility for it.
>> ... Slight conflict for the morning of the 17th, so 1.5 days
>> ... Also planning a hack day, but don't have a venue yet.
>> Randall has been helpful, but still looking for something for
>> around 40 people
>> ... If you're looking for travel support, let me know privately
>> ... Does not look like we'll get separate support from the
>> funders.
>> ... Means there'll need to be a reasonable fee, on the order of
>> 100 euros maybe, to cover catering
>> ... So won't have a huge pot of travel money, but do let me
>> know and we'll see what we can do
>>
>> dwhly: We also put a coalition together called annotating all
>> knowledge, to bring annotations to scholarly content
>> ... Page with participants linked from our home page
>> ... Aim is to get the publishers and platforms to interoperate
>> ... Announcement is that there'll be a f2f of a large number of
>> them in April 17th, in Portland
>> ... Day before FORCE 2016 conference
>> ... Anyone interested are very welcome to attend, let me know
>> and we'll make sure you're included
>>
>> <azaroth> TimCole: Registration pages?
>>
>> <azaroth> dwhly: We made them yesterday, hope to send out early
>> next week to previous attendees
>>
>> <dwhly> TimCole: When are the registration pages going up
>>
>> <azaroth> ... F2F up to us to sort out
>>
>> <dwhly> TimCole: when is the F2F registration page going up
>>
>> <dwhly> shepazu: I'll do it today
>>
>> Issues
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: issues, lets bang through them in 15 minutes
>>
>> [24]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/86
>>
>> [24] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/86
>>
>> <dwhly> ... there is a list of six issues. linked in
>>
>> <dwhly> ... [someone] suggested a list of tags that could be
>> added to the annotation
>>
>> <dwhly> ... there hasn't been a concrete proposal, so suggest
>> that we close the issue
>>
>> <dwhly> ... is there anyone that would like to champion and
>> make a proposal?
>>
>> <bigbluehat> close and move on
>>
>> <dwhly> ivan: what you did is something we should do in
>> general. if there's an issue that's discussed, but no one that
>> steps up, then we should either close or postpone
>>
>> <bigbluehat> +1 to ivan
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: +1
>>
>> <dwhly> ... proposed resolution, close #86
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close #86, won't fix, pools of
>> tags on annotations
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> <TimCole> +1
>>
>> <shepazu> 0
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> <bjdmeest> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Close #86, won't fix, pools of tags on annotations
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: thank you ivan for closing
>>
>> [25]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/87
>>
>> [25] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/87
>>
>> <dwhly> ... next issue is #87
>>
>> <dwhly> ... which is embedding annotations in the target
>> document
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <dwhly> ... proposal is that we postpone this one because it
>> ties to other topics like HTML serialization. won't close
>> outright, but won't work on it directly.
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone issue #87, to work on
>> later as part of future HTML serialization work
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> <shepazu> +!
>>
>> <shepazu> +1
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Postpone issue #87, to work on later as part of
>> future HTML serialization work
>>
>> <csarven> +1
>>
>> <takeshi> +1
>>
>> <bjdmeest> +1
>>
>> [26]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/107
>>
>> [26] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/107
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: issue 107, opened by bigbluehat, on behalf of
>> takeshi
>>
>> <dwhly> ... we need a way to select more than just the textual
>> content in HTML, for example if you wanted to annotate i [image
>> heart] ny
>>
>> <dwhly> ... currently not possible to include the heart. good
>> issue.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... reason to close is that it's been split out into
>> separate issues.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... it seems like there's nothing more to do, will be
>> addressed with issues to come.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... any objections?
>>
>> <dwhly> bigbluehat: lets iterate on the next batch of
>> selectors. lets close it.
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close #107, as it will be solved
>> by new selectors
>>
>> <TimCole> +1
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <takeshi> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Close #107, as it will be solved by new selectors
>>
>> <tilgovi> +1
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: done.
>>
>> [27]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/113
>>
>> [27] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/113
>>
>> <dwhly> ... next one is shepazu's issue 113
>>
>> <dwhly> ... we should work through motivations and work through
>> them with user-agent behaviors.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... proposal is that we won't do this because we lack
>> the time and it doesn't really add anything. doug are you ok
>> with closing it, or can you work on it.
>>
>> <dwhly> shepazu: i'd prefer not to close, lets postpone. i
>> think there are other ways we can express it, could be worked
>> into a spec, perhaps not this one.
>>
>> <bigbluehat> propose to re-open if they arrive and are willing
>> to work on it
>>
>> <dwhly> ... as to who could work on it. the guy from europeana
>> could follow up on it. i'd like to see if they're still
>> interested. that's still ongoing.
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: proposal is to postpone.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... ok to postpone.
>>
>> <dwhly> ivan: i have no problem postponing, but have the
>> impression that the discussion that happened diverged from what
>> doug started with, and we need to realize this.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... the discussion i see with rafael and europeana is
>> going in a direction that's different than dougs.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... what i thought doug was suggesting was that we have
>> a more disciplined way to add more motivations.
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone #113, until we have
>> further time and people willing to move it forwards
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i don't think we should go in the other direction.
>>
>> <TimCole> +1
>>
>> <PaoloCiccarese> +1
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> <shepazu> +1
>>
>> <tilgovi> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Postpone #113, until we have further time and
>> people willing to move it forwards
>>
>> <bigbluehat> +1
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> [28]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/119
>>
>> [28] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/119
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: next one is doug's as well. issue 119, around
>> having groups in the annotation model as opposed to the
>> protocol.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... again the discussion was also quite rich around
>> audience and access control, which we know is important but
>> separately covered.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... having access control specced in the model was not
>> good.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... proposal is that we close 119 because it's covered
>> by existing proposal for different components.
>>
>> <dwhly> shepazu: i don't think this is about access control, I
>> think it's about indicating.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... nick or someone from H. should weigh in.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i'd prefer to postpone.
>>
>> <PaoloCiccarese> I believe the same Doug
>>
>> <tilgovi> +q
>>
>> <dwhly> timcole: i agree with what doug's saying, we do have
>> the same thing in other issues. i want to avoid access in
>> authorization.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... maybe we need a longer discussion with all the
>> right people on the call.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... if we don't have the right model for audience then
>> we won't get the right adopters.
>>
>> <dwhly> tilgovi: i'm not quite sure i follow. not in favor of
>> specifying access control in the model.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i think this could be taken care of by existing
>> things like tags.
>>
>> <dwhly> PaoloCiccarese: We will need group models, with
>> subgroups, etc. How is a third party system understanding.
>>
>> <dwhly> ivan: i propose we postpone
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone #119 for further
>> discussion and proposals needed
>>
>> <TimCole> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Postpone #119 for further discussion and proposals
>> needed
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <PaoloCiccarese> +1
>>
>> [29]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/130
>>
>> [29] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/130
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: next one is 130. at the moment, we use nick,
>> because nick is kind of old-fashioned, so we've used account.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... but there's also an "account" so there could be
>> confusion.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... do people think we should use something else?
>>
>> <dwhly> ... no one bit, happy to close
>>
>> <dwhly> propose we close
>>
>> <dwhly> paolociccarese: can you explain your concern
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: there is a property account, and also nick
>>
>> <dwhly> ... we use account in the json-ld context for foaf-nick
>>
>> <dwhly> ... so if someone wanted to use account, that would be
>> a problem
>>
>> <tilgovi> Anyone want to propose something else?
>>
>> <azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Close #130, not our concern
>>
>> <ivan> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> +1
>>
>> RESOLUTION: Close #130, not our concern
>>
>> <Jacob> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> "account": "azaroth"
>>
>> <TimCole> +1
>>
>> <azaroth> "foaf:account" : {"@id" :
>> "twitter.com/users/azaroth42"}
>>
>> <dwhly> paolociccarese: i think its fine
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: lets call it closed
>>
>> <PaoloCiccarese> +1
>>
>> HTML Serialization
>>
>> <dwhly> ... as a suggestion: where do we want to get to by the
>> end of the charter.
>>
>> <dwhly> timcole: question in my mind is: what do people on the
>> call mean by html serialization
>>
>> <dwhly> ... 1. we have a json-ld serialization by default
>>
>> <dwhly> ... 2. turtle
>>
>> <dwhly> ... 3. microformats
>>
>> <dwhly> ... they could do that but we could provide some
>> guidance
>>
>> <PaoloCiccarese> 4. RDF/a
>>
>> <dwhly> .... that's a bigger thing to bite off, might be
>> critical for adoption
>>
>> <dwhly> paolociccarese: some time ago, we played with some
>> things
>>
>> <dwhly> ... first level would be nice to have guidelines
>>
>> <dwhly> shepazu: solution i'm looking at doesn't ask rdfa
>>
>> <dwhly> ... don't know if this can be done.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i'm going to try this summer to start a spec for
>> html serialization and see if there's interst
>>
>> <dwhly> ... we could start, not sure we'll finish
>>
>> <dwhly> ivan: getting back to what tim said
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i'm looking for use cases
>>
>> <dwhly> ... in between what tim said
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i could see importance of html format even if
>> target is somewhere else
>>
>> <dwhly> ... an annotation system could put that into the dom in
>> a dynamic manner
>>
>> <dwhly> ... then someone could use CSS to style
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i wouldn't even put tim's resrtiction in
>>
>> <dwhly> ... rdfa or something else, i don't know
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: +1 to ivan, having a set of use cases would be
>> valuable
>>
>> <dwhly> ... before diving in to rdfa, html, etc.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... stakeholders, adopters, whaat are we trying to
>> solve
>>
>> <dwhly> timcole: agree on use cases, also in terms of
>> formatting.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... my suggestion is that when it comes time, we may
>> have to do this 2x
>>
>> <dwhly> ... if we get rechartered, might have to pursue longer
>> term soltion
>>
>> <dwhly> ... agree w/ doug. i'd propose what rob is suggesting.
>>
>> <dwhly> ... use cases, how to meet them.
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: seems good. anyone else?
>>
>> <dwhly> ... lets make a gh issue with the broad set of things
>>
>> <dwhly> ... include this discussion
>>
>> <dwhly> ... this is not going to block CR or other processes
>>
>> <dwhly> ... tim can u do
>>
>> <dwhly> timcole: tomorrow
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: there is a serialization tag
>>
>> <dwhly> shepazu: f2f registration
>>
>> F2F registration
>>
>> <shepazu> Registration poll:
>> [30]https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73180/anno-f2f-berlin-2016/
>>
>> [30] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/73180/anno-f2f-berlin-2016/
>>
>> <shepazu> F2F wiki page:
>> [31]https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
>>
>> [31] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
>>
>> <dwhly> ... i have created a poll, pls answer
>>
>> <dwhly> ...that. is. all.
>>
>> <dwhly> azaroth: top of the hour, lets rejoin next friday
>>
>> <dwhly> BYE
>>
>> <ivan> bye
>>
>> <azaroth> Thanks to Dan for scribing!
>>
>> <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
>>
>> Summary of Resolutions
>>
>> 1. [32]Close #86, won't fix, pools of tags on annotations
>> 2. [33]Postpone issue #87, to work on later as part of future
>> HTML serialization work
>> 3. [34]Close #107, as it will be solved by new selectors
>> 4. [35]Postpone #113, until we have further time and people
>> willing to move it forwards
>> 5. [36]Postpone #119 for further discussion and proposals
>> needed
>> 6. [37]Close #130, not our concern
>>
>> [End of minutes]
>> __________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>> Minutes formatted by David Booth's [38]scribe.perl version
>> 1.144 ([39]CVS log)
>> $Date: 2016/01/28 08:10:27 $
>>
>> [38] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
>> [39] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Chair, W3C Device APIs WG (DAP)
>
> www.fjhirsch.com
> @fjhirsch
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 February 2016 05:09:42 UTC