- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:16:49 +0200
- To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <A14FC439-A2A7-4842-B1BD-44B4D59493F7@w3.org>
Minutes are here:
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
Textual version below
Have a nice weekend!
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
03 Jun 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/0e9b01d1bd0e$c7623930$5626ab90$@illinois.edu
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-irc
Attendees
Present
Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Doug Schepers (shepazu), Jacob
Jett, Ivan Herman, Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), Kyrce
Swenson, Randall Leeds (tilgovi), Tim Cole, Shane
McCarron, Paolo Ciccarese
Regrets
Ben De Meester, Dan Whaley, TB Dinesh
Chair
Tim and Rob
Scribe
Jacob
Contents
1. [4]Contents
1. [5]Minutes
2. [6]Progress to CR
1. [7]Issue 227
2. [8]Issue 257
3. [9]Issue 247
3. [10]Testing
2. [11]Summary of Action Items
3. [12]Summary of Resolutions
__________________________________________________________
<TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved:
[13]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
[13] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
Minutes
TimCole: any remarks about the minutes from last week?
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the F2F are approved:
[14]https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
[14] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
Progress to CR
RESOLUTION: Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts,
progress has been posted
azaroth: update-- two issues opened by Europeana folks,
normalization discussion needs to agreed upon, other than
these, other issues have been closed
... should be able to quickly close the remaining issues
... ready to go to CR
... vocab still needs some examples added
Issue 227
<TimCole> [15]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227
[15] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/227
azaroth: recommendation from internationalization group was
that the normalization para be removed unless specific
requirements make it necessary
... normalizations might be applied due to our requirements but
not necessary to mention internationalization
ivan: propose to close the issue as they (internationalization
folks) have suggested
<TimCole> Proposal: for #227 remove paragraph on normalization
and close (move to editorial)
<azaroth>
[16]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-s
elector
[16] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
azaroth: want to look at the 2nd para after the table
... can try to lop the paragraph into two in order to separate
the normalization from the part describing selection
<tilgovi> Mostly just removing the DOM Strings part, then? And
splitting the rest around it?
azaroth: suggesting splitting the para so that the first part
discusses normalization and then rephrase the second para so
that it doesn't discuss normalization at all
<TimCole> applications SHOULD implement the DOM String
Comparisons method. This allows the Selector to be used with
different encodings and user agents and still have the same
semantics and utility.
azaroth: so first 2 sentences become a para, next sentence is
deleted [?], and remainder of paragraph has all mentions of
normalization removed
<TimCole> Note that this does not affect the state of the
content of the document being annotated, only the way that the
content is recorded in the Annotation.
TimCole: suggest we preserve the sentences above and delete
everything else
... so that no one thinks that the underlying content should be
changed
... opinions? ok, with removing the paragraph altogether, but
also ok with preserving stuff about string comparisons as long
as we don't provide details on how those comparisons are to be
made
azaroth: will make quick changes now, then ...[garbled]
... come back to issue before end of call
ivan: need to close remaining issues, then make a resolution to
freeze features, give WG a week to review the documents, so
that they can note any glaring problems, with the goal to
officially request to go to CR by the end of next week
TimCole: so ok to vote next week so long as WG has been
notified to review the documents by the end of today
ivan: yes
TimCole: plans for testing, need to be finalized by next week?
ivan: documents, pubs must be ready, call with director must be
set up, that period should be used 100% on testing
... so if possible plans for testing should be finalized by
next week
<azaroth> Okay, new version at:
[17]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-s
elector
[17] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#text-quote-selector
ivan: plans must be written down, as agreed in Berlin
<TimCole>
[18]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpon
e
[18] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
TimCole: link posted to issues not yet marked postponed or
editorial
... most recent issue is for resource previews in annos
ivan: let's close issue 227, rob has made the changes
azaroth: moved selection to preceeding para, deleted everything
else except the dom string mention
tilgovi: dom string comparison recommendation was one of things
called out by the internationalization folks as something
causing problems
... should not introduce normalizations there
TimCole: so drop the mention
azaroth: should we go ahead and delete the subsequent para
which mentions the dom apis
<tilgovi> Shouldn't that next para read "Text Quote"?
<tilgovi> It says Position.
TimCole: deletion doesn't change the substance of the section,
just means we aren't giving any help to implementers
tilgovi: would leave in the DOM api's para, otherwise people
will use the selector api
TimCole: my sense is that the less we say, the better; whole
thing is in flux (as discussed in Berlin)
<tilgovi> Fine for me.
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison,
UTF-8, and avoid implications that comparison should be part of
the normalization routine
<TimCole> +1
+1
<azaroth> +1
<ivan> _+1
<ivan> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
<tilgovi> +1
<Kyrce> +1
RESOLUTION: Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid
implications that comparison should be part of the
normalization routine
<TimCole>
[19]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpon
e
[19] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Apostpone
<ivan>
[20]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Aeditor_action+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
ivan: is #249 postponed?
TimCole: should be marked editor action or closed
<azaroth>
[21]http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-a
nd-purpose
[21] http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd2/#motivation-and-purpose
Issue 257
azaroth: #257 -- want to include info in the anno that allows
the client to display a snippet or preview to the end user
... ivan has suggested this be postponed, [rob] agrees, don't
know what clients actually need to do this yet
ivan: not sure it even needs to be in the model at all
TimCole: doesn't need to be in v.1 of the model
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking
information as to what is appropriate for previews of resources
<ivan> +1
<azaroth> +1
<TimCole> +1
+1
<tilgovi> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
RESOLUTION: Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is
appropriate for previews of resources
... that leaves us with #247
Issue 247
azaroth: can add a sentence saying that if you have
contradictory information from external resources, believe the
external resources and not the annotation
... e.g., external resource claims target is html, and anno
claims something different, believe that it is html
TimCole: discussion?
<azaroth> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that
information from the resource should be considered
authoritative, not the Annotation's properties
<Kyrce> +q
Kyrce: is this a question of content of the resource or its
format?
azaroth: not content, just its metadata
<ivan> +1
+1
<TimCole> +1
<Kyrce> +1
<azaroth> +1
<bigbluehat> +1
RESOLUTION: Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the
resource should be considered authoritative, not the
Annotation's properties
TimCole: that seems to be it; 2 issues for testing and 2 issues
for pending
<azaroth> Yay! :D
<Loqi> woot
<azaroth> Thank you all :)
ivan; all done, as testing issues don't need to be addressed at
this time
<ivan>
[22]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93
&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-la
bel%3Apostpone+
[22] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+-label%3Atesting+-label%3Aeditorial+-label%3Apostpone+
scribe: everything else is editor's actions
... my impression is that all of them have been addressed but
they need to be closed
ivan: features freeze, call for one week review, then CR next
week
<ivan> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol
documents are now in feature freeze, and in a one week WG
review period to propose them for CR next week (06-09)
<azaroth> +1
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
<ivan> +1
<TimCole> +1
+1
<bigbluehat> +1
<Kyrce> +1
TimCole: discussion?
<ShaneM> +1
<tilgovi> +1
RESOLUTION: The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in
feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to propose
them for CR next week (06-09)
Testing
TimCole: will take the testing issues out of order and start
with the new one
... ivan noted a need for interoperability testing
ivan: yes, would be nice to demo interoperability via server,
in practice -- 1 client pushes an anno into a server and
another client fetches that anno and displays it in its own way
<ShaneM> hmm.... I don't think that is a CR requirement.
ivan: whether we have enough implementations to do that, don't
know, but would be a good extra
TimCole: like this idea in general, but concerned that the
implementations don't have much overlap w/r/t domain,
community, or topicality
... e.g., emblem annotation are kind of unique, is testing if
they're interoperable artificial?
ivan: understand, shouldn't be a formal active criteria, but
would be very nice to demonstrate
... if it can be done, it will strengthen the interoperability
of the standard
<ShaneM> protocol testing should ensure that each client sends
and retrieves annotations correctly...
azaroth: seems like we should try to have 2 clients and 2
servers where client 1 makes a anno on server 1, copy it to
server 2 and have it read by client 2
ivan: testing a singular implementation for the protocol is not
the same as testing across multiple clients
ShaneM: however, if have multiple clients and they all pass the
protocol tests, then hasn't interoperability been tested?
ivan: need a server independent from the clients
ShaneM: assuming this for protocol tests
ivan: discussed in Berlin to use scenarios
ShaneM: the web platform test infrastructure is a server, so be
pointing the protocol tests at that server, then an independent
server will have been provided to/for them
TimCole: to be clear, the protocol requires
accepting/responding to LDP exchanges, so it didn't seem clear
to us that that capacity existed at this tinme
ShaneM: the platform is capable of modeling any protocol that
is desired
<azaroth> ShaneM++
<Loqi> ShaneM has 2 karma
<bigbluehat> ShaneM+++++++
<Loqi> ShaneM has 3 karma
TimCole: sounds like we have a better way to do protocol
testing than we thought in Berlin
... seems that we still need to test if anno looks the same in
two different implementation environments, e.g., Rob's
implementation v Europeana implementation
ShaneM: protocol test is next for me, sounds like vocab/model
tests are there, so will move on to implementing protocol tests
TimCole: have built some schemas to test the model, is the
infrastructure to trigger a run in place?
ShaneM: will post the instructions for how to do the testing to
the lists
TimCole: will spend next friday on discussing testing after
taking the CR vote
ivan: everyone should take some time to read through the
documents
TimCole: will be very good, many small typos lurking
... adjourn
<ivan> trackbot, end telcon
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
1. [23]Minutes of the F2F are approved:
https://www.w3.org/2016/05/27-annotation-minutes.html
2. [24]Rob completed a large amount of work on the drafts,
progress has been posted
3. [25]Remove DOM string comparison, UTF-8, and avoid
implications that comparison should be part of the
normalization routine
4. [26]Postpone #257, lacking information as to what is
appropriate for previews of resources
5. [27]Add to the note in 3.2.1 that information from the
resource should be considered authoritative, not the
Annotation's properties
6. [28]The model, vocab and protocol documents are now in
feature freeze, and in a one week WG review period to
propose them for CR next week (06-09)
[End of minutes]
__________________________________________________________
Minutes formatted by David Booth's [29]scribe.perl version
1.144 ([30]CVS log)
$Date: 2016/06/03 16:14:16 $
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[30] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 3 June 2016 16:16:59 UTC