- From: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 12:50:48 -0500
- To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
13 Jan 2016
[2]Agenda
[2]
http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUEGPPMg3y_1HtC_rxuo5m6-OFHoE4fi1C5hQmyRsrqt_A@mail.gmail.com
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/13-annotation-irc
Attendees
Present
Ivan Herman, Frederick Hirsch, Rob Sanderson, Tim Cole,
Benjamin Young, Jacob Jett, Doug Shepers (shepazu),
Davis Salisbury, Paolo Ciccarese, Ben De Meester
(bjdmeest), Chris Birk, TB Dinesh, Takeshi Kanai,
Randall Leeds
Regrets
Paolo Ciccarese
Chair
Rob Sanderson, Frederick Hirsch
Scribe
bjdmeest
Contents
* [4]Topics
1. [5]Planning for 2016
2. [6]issue 49
3. [7]issue 59
4. [8]issue 21
* [9]Summary of Action Items
* [10]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<azaroth> trackbot, start meeting
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are
approved
[11]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
[11] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
<fjh> s;Agenda.*;Agenda:
[12]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016
Jan/0036.html;
[12]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html;
<fjh> i;Agenda;Agenda:
[13]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016
Jan/0036.html
[13]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html
<fjh> Agenda:
[14]https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016
Jan/0036.html;
[14]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0036.html;
<azaroth> Scribenick: bjdmeest
azaroth: agenda: planning 2016, and next 4 issues
shepazu: [talking about iAnnotate in Europe]
azaroth
azaroth: Social Web released some FPWD's
... most interesting one is WebMention
<azaroth> [15]http://www.w3.org/TR/webmention
[15] http://www.w3.org/TR/webmention
azaroth: it's a very simple notification network
... to send notifications between systems that annotations have
been created or modified
... which is one of our use cases
shepazu: it builds upon existing things and tools
... advantageous for us to reuse
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are
approved
[16]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
[16] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
<shepazu> Also, Social Web WG published Social Web Protocols
[17]https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-social-web-protocols-20160112
/
[17] https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-social-web-protocols-20160112/
RESOLUTION: Minutes of previous call are approved
[18]http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
[18] http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
Planning for 2016
azaroth: discussion started last week
... about planning
... oustanding issues:
... 1. f2f timing, amount of f2f's, and their purposes
... we need to be clear on what deliverables we will be working
on, to what end state
... proposed model doc to go to CR
... we should timebox, so we can make progress
shepazu: [talking about F2F] in discussions with Dan, we talked
about a 1 day F2F
... F2F are valuable and expensive, but I think we should have
at least a 2 day F2F
fjh: makes sense
... Implementations and test cases for Model should be lined
up, to go to CR
... should be important for F2F, depending on how many we can
add to the room
shepazu: fact that we are co-allocated with iAnnotate, could
help to open the room for half a day
... could be useful for iAnnotate participants, and for us
... e.g., last day of F2F
... dedicated to an open session with the community
azaroth: timing of iAnnotate would be May
<fjh> we need to be clear that we'd like to get model to REC by
end of charter, others possibly entering CR (or in old terms in
LC)
<davis_salisbury> sorsorry, something is wrong with the client
<fjh> s/sorsorry.*//
shepazu: testing is superimportant, and takes a lot of time
... we need to find some specific topics to be addressed in
person
... let's avoid too much testing at F2F
chrisbirk: [about testing plan]
... maybe bring it to the group next week?
shepazu: we'll be facing a similar problem as WebPayments WG
... am talking with that group's testing lead
... maybe we can share infrastructure
azaroth: so a plan by next week?
chrisbirk: yes
ivan: one thing we have to do on the F2F: charter expires end
of september
... continuing without problems would involve thinking about
rechartering by F2F
... F2F would be a perfect place for that
azaroth: can we make an agenda wiki page? logistics, guests,
etc..
ivan: doug's point is valid, that we have to plan for 2 days
... will be in Berlin, probably before iAnnotate (Tuesday,
Wednesday)
azaroth: what should we work on up until then?
... 1. Model: split up in vocabulary as well
... 2. protocol, and 3. findText
... Model and voc can go to CR, what about the others?
... we need tests, testing framework and at least two
independent implementations
fjh: findtext seems really important, and gets buy-in of
implementers
... what can we do, even without going to CR
... about protocol: what happens if we don;t get it done?
shepazu: there is interest in having something like findtext
... we can leverage that
... second point: how?
... form a process and chartering perspective: if browser
vendors say 'yes we're interested' would be sufficient for us
... as long as we keep iterating and improving the spec
... maybe we can start some testing
<fjh> makes sense
shepazu: with browser vendors interest, this will be deemed
viable work
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to +1 protocol
azaroth: protocol +1
... in order to have interoperability, we need to be able to
transfer annotations between systems
... e.g., maintainer vs rendering system
... only data model would not suffice
... I think protocol is very easy to implement
... basically it is just REST
... also testing would be straightforward
<fjh> +1 to be able to transfer annotations
azaroth: documentation will be close to done after
implementation and testing
timcole: I agree protocol being important
... I am a little worried about (relates to findtext): we don't
have a clear understanding about how an annotation will look
like in html
... don't know whether protocol will address that
... do we need something explicit about html-centric rendering
of annotations?
azaroth: it's been on our books for a while
ivan: speaking of protocol --> speaking of functionality level
of protocol document, not about search?
azaroth: indeed, get update delete
ivan: in the coming months, without clear idea about search, we
cannot have a recommendation about search by september
fjh: concerned about complexity: LDP, paging, synchronizing...
... there are a lot of discussions that could take a lot of
time
shepazu: how is the protocol is different than LDP, concerning
annotations?
<fjh> need to scope work carefully to have CR deadline this
year - noting goals related to synchronization, containers,
paging, searching, profiling other work etc
shepazu: also: I did not expect an annotation specific
protocol, rather reusing an existing one, e.g., from social web
wg
<bigbluehat> how close are we to LDP? are we that different
outside of some "say these few other things"?
<bigbluehat> JSON-LD by default (not Turtle)...and some others
:)
azaroth: we changed making turtle not required
... we are more opinionated about the response than LDP
... and more opinionated about what can be in a single
container
... these are profiles of LDP
... not something new
shepazu: it's advantageous to us if we can reuse existing
implementations
... have we exhausted all options?
azaroth: if search is so important, then we don't have any
options
<bigbluehat> you can use LDP "out of the box" for annotations,
correct? we're just trying to lower the bar on
implementation--via the default changes and narrowing the scope
to annotations?
<fjh> syncronization across servers?
azaroth: issue around paging: pages in LDP are not ordered
internally, you have to reorder within single page
... there are several use cases where that is not possible
... previous decision was using ordered collection from
activity streams
shepazu: is there anything else we can reuse?
azaroth: correct
... that we cannot
... can we agree on a resolution on what we can take to CR?
shepazu: we are a long way atm
<fjh> +1 to doug, need to work out details of protocol scope,
details etc
<tilgovi> +1 to doug
ivan: we have a plan, an idea about what can go, and we'll work
along those lines
<azaroth> +1
<fjh> +1 to Ivan
<shepazu> Wiki page for F2F:
[19]https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
[19] https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
issue 49
<ivan> [20]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
[20] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
[21]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
[21] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/49
azaroth: issue is about how systems can notify each about
existence and modifications of annotations
... proposal: postpone, given WebMention's recent FPWD
... we need to get reading and writing done before we can think
about notification
ivan: choice is whether we do something about it now, or label
it as issue that we tackle it in new charter
<shepazu> [22]https://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/
[22] https://www.w3.org/annotation/charter/
shepazu: it's not on our charter, so shouldn't be taking on
work
... see no argument to do it
... hopefully, we can rely on the work of webmention
... although webmention might not fully comply to our needs
... there are other kinds of notifications as well
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Defer technical discussion and
work on notification, continue to work with Social Web WG to
ensure requirements are met
<Jacob> +1
<ivan> +1
<azaroth> +1
<davis_salisbury> +1
<tilgovi> +1
<tbdinesh> +1
<tilgovi> de-prioritize?
<tbdinesh> +1 to doug
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Defer technical work on
notification, continue to discuss requirements and work with
Social Web WG to ensure those are met
<azaroth> +1
<shepazu> +1
<davis_salisbury> +1
<chrisbirk> +1
<tbdinesh> +1
<ivan> +1
<tilgovi> +1
<TimCole> +1
RESOLUTION: Defer technical work on notification, continue to
discuss requirements and work with Social Web WG to ensure
those are met
<Jacob> +1
issue 59
<ivan> [23]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
[23] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
[24]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
[24] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/59
azaroth: in model, we talk about normalized text (for the
offset selector)
... this issue is about how this works in the DOM
... should that be a normative reference?
... I have no objection to that
... any objections?
<tilgovi> this is a PR for the spec language change:
[25]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/commit/bed9d0aeace6c2
7c32e7c8b6f04a7afc8766d5b7
[25]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/commit/bed9d0aeace6c27c32e7c8b6f04a7afc8766d5b7
<ivan> works for me...
<tilgovi> or, rather, that's a commit that could be merged
azaroth: we can merge that
shepazu: about HTML serialization: can we put that on the
agenda for next week?
azaroth: yes
issue 21
<ivan> [26]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21
[26] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21
azaroth: about set of uris that would be listed in `via`:
ordered or a set?
... has implications for model
... ivan suggested list makes sense (i.e., breadcrumbs)
... makes it harder to use viana:via
... as that is just a regular predicate, no list
<TimCole> slight preference for ordered list
ivan: I would say: go for ordered, if major issues, we deal
with it
<ivan> rrasagent, pointer?
azaroth: agreed
... anyone against ordered list?
... so: we go for ordered, and if feedback, we can set it back
... [wrapping up]
... for next week: HTML serialization and testing
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [27]Minutes of previous call are approved
http://www.w3.org/2016/01/06-annotation-minutes.html
2. [28]Defer technical work on notification, continue to
discuss requirements and work with Social Web WG to ensure
those are met
Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2016 17:51:00 UTC