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

Meeting minutes, 2016-01-27

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 09:11:42 +0100
Message-Id: <CB68E60F-F2A7-4323-B728-DB723012E6E9@w3.org>
To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
Meeting minutes are here:


Textual version below


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] 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] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Jan/0185.html


          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)

          Frederick Hirsch

          Rob Sanderson

          dwhly, azaroth


     * [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


     [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
   ... 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

     [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


   <azaroth> Doodle link:

     [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

   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
   ... 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


   <dwhly> azaroth: issues, lets bang through them in 15 minutes


     [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

   <dwhly> ... next issue is #87

   <dwhly> ... which is embedding annotations in the target

   <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

   <dwhly> azaroth: issue 107, opened by bigbluehat, on behalf of

   <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

   <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

   <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

   <dwhly> azaroth: next one is doug's as well. issue 119, around
   having groups in the annotation model as opposed to the

   <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

   <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

   <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

   <Jacob> +1

   <ivan> +1

   <PaoloCiccarese> +1


     [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

   <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" :

   <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

   <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

   <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

   <dwhly> ... before diving in to rdfa, html, etc.

   <dwhly> ... stakeholders, adopters, whaat are we trying to

   <dwhly> timcole: agree on use cases, also in terms of

   <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/

   <shepazu> F2F wiki page:

     [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
    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/

Received on Thursday, 28 January 2016 08:11:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:43 UTC