- From: Frederick Hirsch <w3c@fjhirsch.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2016 17:08:40 -0500
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
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 Sunday, 31 January 2016 22:09:16 UTC