- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 18:15:07 +0100
- To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <932E0A8C-7719-42D0-9CB0-09E4C3272C98@w3.org>
Minutes are here:
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-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
12 Feb 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUFkyudjVp2=yo_rf7fY48Q5PDg5gH74dG1qpiSy-E4oeg@mail.gmail.com
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/02/12-annotation-irc
Attendees
Present
Rob Sanderson, Nick Stenning, Dan Whaley, Ben De Meester
(bjdmeest), TB Dinesh, Frederick Hirsch, Doug Schepers
(shepazu), Paolo Ciccarese, Ivan Herman, Davis Salisbury
Regrets
Tim Cole, Benjamin Young
Chair
Rob
Scribe
bjdmeest
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Scribe selection, Agenda Review, Announcements?
2. [6]Issue Discussions
1. [7]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/1
43
2. [8]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/1
48
3. [9]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/1
49
4. [10]Annotation Lists
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/50
3. [11]AOB
* [12]Summary of Action Items
* [13]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
Scribe selection, Agenda Review, Announcements?
<azaroth> scribenick: bjdmeest
azaroth: [discussing today's agenda]
dwhly: [about iAnnotate] all systems go
... registration is up right now
<dwhly> [14]http://iannotate.org/2016/
[14] http://iannotate.org/2016/
ivan: and it works :)
<dwhly> :)
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are
approved:
[15]https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
[15] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:
[16]https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
[16] https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
Issue discussions
[17]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/143
[17] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/143
azaroth: raised by Ivan, discussed briefly last time
... short proposal:
... issue is that timestate only allows recording a single
point in time
... representation for an annotation needs an interval
... e.g., web archive etc. uses ranges, so seems easy to
support
... proposal: sourceDateStart and sourceDateEnd, or sourceDate
if single point in time
... using W3CDTF with fallback to xsd:dateTime, both are valid
shepazu: how did they do it in media fragments?
azaroth: this is unrelated
... this is about real-world datetime, about change
shepazu: this has nothing to do with range in a webpage, but a
valid datetime?
azaroth: yes
<nickstenn> What's the proposed behaviour if
sourceDateStart/sourceDateEnd are provided at the same time as
sourceDate?
ivan: I am fine with this proposal
azaroth: other comments?
ivan: [about writing it down in the spec]: what about all three
attributes are in the document, etc.
... these are specifics, when writing it down
fjh: is there an action?
ivan: editor will have to include this
azaroth: I'm fine to do it
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in #143 to
add sourceDateStart / sourceDateEnd to TimeState
<azaroth> +1
<ivan> +1
+1
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
<fjh> +1
<shepazu> +0
<tbdinesh> +1
nickstenn: xsd:datetime already supports range, was that a
concious decision not using that?
azaroth: last time we also discussed #+-141, so we could also
support only dates if no time is known
... using xsd:datetime, you cannot do 'range between this day
and this day' without including the time
<ivan> rq+
azaroth: so that's why two dates instead of datetime range
<ivan> [18]https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime dateTime
specification
[18] https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dateTime
ivan: xsd:datetime does not cover duration, that's a different
datatype
... in xsd:schema
... so datetime is not a duration
... duration is a different datatype, as far as I can see
... and these are disjoint
azaroth: we could have sourceDuration with a single duration
datatype
ivan: I would not want that unreadable syntax
<nickstenn> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in #143 to add sourceDateStart
/ sourceDateEnd to TimeState
[19]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/148
[19] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/148
azaroth: (wasn't a github issue yet, I made one)
... whether it was possible and/or desirable to validate the
fragment selectors
... e.g. a fragment claiming it is a media fragment, but
doesn't conform to the media fragments spec
... should we be able to check that?
... proposal: this is an implementation concern
... a validation suite can be constructed around it, but we as
WG don't concern ourselves as specifying that
<davis_salisbury> +1 tp letting it go
<fjh> close it
<ivan> +1 to kill it
<azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close #148, not in scope of WG work
<nickstenn> the important thing is the construction rule:
`source + "#" + fragment`
<PaoloCiccarese> +1 to not tackle
RESOLUTION: Close #148, not in scope of WG work
[20]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149
[20] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149
azaroth: [from europeana] about language tags in rdf, and how
that works
... [see example] valid RDF and valid JSON-LD, but very
confusing
<azaroth>
[21]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149#issuecomme
nt-181462980
[21] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/149#issuecomment-181462980
azaroth: discussion about language tag was an early one
... two reasons for using dc:language instead of @en
... (1) datatype + language tag cannot happen simultaneously in
RDF
... we do allow them, but then we get type and @type, value and
@value, and language and @language
... changes of this going wrong is high
... we should not do that
... al their use cases are covered (language choices, explicit
language)
... I think we can close this, no new requirements are proposed
... there are good reasons for our current way of working
... questions, comments?
[crickets]
<nickstenn> the point of the shorthand was to make minimal
conforming implementations simpler...
azaroth: having language on the resource instead of the literal
makes it easier for human understanding
<azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close #149, no change needed
<fjh> +1
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
<nickstenn> +1
<ivan> +1
<davis_salisbury> +1
<azaroth> +1
+1
RESOLUTION: Close #149, no change needed
Annotation Lists [22]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/50
[22] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/50
azaorth: issue: how we manage ordered groups of things
... if it were pure JSON, it would possibly be a non-issue,
just an array
... but we also want to be compatible with RDF via JSON-LD
... ignoring ordering from a spec perspective, there are
several times when this issue becomes relevant
... easiest one: how to have a list of annotations, or a group
of annotations
... requirement from the protocol perspective
... e.g., search matched list of annotations, annotations in
this container, harvesting lists of annotations, list of
annotations to upload, etc.
... IDPF and DPUBIG have a real requirement for this
... some additional constraints/requirements, i.e., lists have
properties
... e.g. DVD extra's equivalent as set of annotations
... so some metadata (label/price/...)
... not just a JSON array, but also some extra data
ivan: thus this is not only a JSON-LD issue
azaroth: we need to think about the modelling in RDF for the
resource that is a set
PaoloCiccarese: other use case: teaching
... when teaching, we have a set of annotations to publish for
students with extra metadata
... it's seen as a collection, not a single annotation
... there many use cases in teaching and science as well
<davis_salisbury> +1 to Paolo
<azaroth> (+1 to Paolo too!)
shepazu: what is the relation between collection and ordered
collection?
azaroth: the order of collections has be requested, e.g., for
list of annotations that are on a particular web page, ordered
by relevance to the user (e.g., social network)
... would make response more useful (good stuff first)
shepazu: why JSON vs JSON-LD issue?
azaroth: in JSON-LD, an array is used for 2 different purposes
... both look the same in JSON-LD, but are different in RDF
... e.g., unordered collection [2, 4, 9049, 1]
... or ordered collection, which is an RDF list, e.g.,
[1,2,3,4]
... proposal: we only do ordered collections, we don't do
unordered collections at all
... there are modelling reasons why you might want to have a
set of unordered items, the serialization will always be in
order
... the order just might not be static
... you have systems that always return annotations in order,
moving to another system that doesn't have order could give bad
results for the user
ivan: essentially: we do like JSON, i.e., always a list
(implies ordering)
... and that's where we stop
... I am very sympathetic to this approach
... but that also means that all the sections about
multiplicity constructs go down the drain in the model spec?
... in the case of the protocol, it is clear, but what do we do
with other places that talk about something like a collection?>
azaroth: referring to #92: is this choice consistent for
multiplicity?
... same for #145
... proposal: we drop composite (Because we only do ordered)
... choice is a subclass of list of things
... and use orderedcollection of activityStreams
... we do need to keep the discussion about language, i.e.,
choice about displaying language
... to keep them working
ivan: we decide by principle, to keep only an ordered list
<azaroth> +1
ivan: underlying principle is that this is the approach we take
in both documents
... if there are specific cases, we open extra issues for these
issues, and discuss this subclassing further there
... proposal: close all issues, and say we use ordered always,
and new issue is opened for discussing the rewriting of the
multiplicity sections
PaoloCiccarese: I'm ok with accepting only ordered list
... as implementer: am I supposed to keep that order?
... in use cases where I don't care about order
... is it mandatory it keep order across transformations?
ivan: answer is: you have to keep order, to keep the same RDF
... so can I add a proposal?
azaroth: sure
<ivan> Proposed RESOLUTION: we close issues #50, #92, #145 with
the principle that, whenever we can, we use ordered list only.
Exceptions should be subjects of specific issues.
<azaroth> +1
+1
<davis_salisbury> +1
<ivan> +1
azaroth: we aim for compatibility for RDF via JSON-LD
<tbdinesh> +1
ivan: for the end-user, this is the simplest thing
azaroth: and also for the end-user developer
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
<nickstenn> +0
<shepazu> +0
<fjh> +0
RESOLUTION: we close issues #50, #92, #145 with the principle
that, whenever we can, we use ordered list only. Exceptions
should be subjects of specific issues.
AOB
azaroth: AOB?
... some broad topics: testing and html serialization
ivan: how far are we to have a virtual last call?
<azaroth>
[23]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atelco+
[23] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Atelco+
azaroth: amount of open issues has decreased a lot
... by the end of march, we could have a last call for issues
internally
ivan: so another month and a half?
azaroth: certainly before the end of march
ivan: because we have 4 open issues, some are relatively minor
... e.g., selector to the wide world is discussed a lot, with
restricted influence
... multiple states and selectors are dependent of todays
resolution
... I'd like us to publish it by the end of march
azaroth: good
... adjourn
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [24]Minutes of the previous call are approved:
https://www.w3.org/2016/02/05-annotation-minutes.html
2. [25]Accept the proposal in #143 to add sourceDateStart /
sourceDateEnd to TimeState
3. [26]Close #148, not in scope of WG work
4. [27]Close #149, no change needed
5. [28]we close issues #50, #92, #145 with the principle that,
whenever we can, we use ordered list only. Exceptions
should be subjects of specific issues.
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([30]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/02/12 17:12:46 $
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 12 February 2016 17:15:20 UTC