Meeting minutes - 2016-06-10

Minutes are here: <>

Text version below


Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Lead
mobile: +31-641044153



              Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

10 Jun 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log



          Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Sarven Capadisli, Ivan Herman,
          Tim Cole, Dan Whaley, Shane McCarron (ShaneM), TB
          Dinesh, Benjamin Young, Ben De Meester, Takeshi Kanai,
          Doug Schepers (shepazu), Paolo Ciccarese



          Rob (azaroth)


    1. [4]Contents
         1. [5]CR Transition
         2. [6]Last Week's Minutes
         3. [7]Testing
         4. [8]Extra Admin
    2. [9]Summary of Action Items
    3. [10]Summary of Resolutions

CR Transition

   TimCole: 9 people with +1 by email for the CFC to go forward
   with CR
   ... Do we take a vote now?

   ivan: Lets do that, as there are people who didn't vote on the
   list who are here
   ... before we do that, lets agree on the publication date

   TimCole: July 5th?

   ivan: Even if we issue call for transition today, it takes a
   week before the transition call, which would be around the 20th
   ... we can try for the 23rd, something might come up on the
   transition call
   ... Week of the 27th is a moratorium week, which pushes out to
   the 5th of July
   ... would like to be that week. 23rd is living dangerously

   TimCole: Don't want to live dangerously this morning
   ... Will you put it in as a proposal

   <ivan> Proposed RESOLUTION: The WG asks the Director to
   authorize the publication of the Protocol, Model, and Vocab
   documents as Candidate Recs, with a publication date on the 5th
   of July, 2016

   <ivan> +1


   <csarven> +1

   <PaoloCiccarese> +1

   <takeshi> +1

   <TimCole> +1

   <tbdinesh> +1

   <bjdmeest> +1

   <bigbluehat> +1

   <ShaneM> +1

   RESOLUTION: The WG asks the Director to authorize the
   publication of the Protocol, Model, and Vocab documents as
   Candidate Recs, with a publication date on the 5th of July,

   <ivan> Remaining editorial issues:


   ivan: All of the issues are minor, but must be done
   ... most complicated is need URI with a mockup of the
   implementation report
   ... Otherwise the rest Rob [and editors] can do

   ShaneM: I'll see if Gregg can do the mockup of the
   implementation report

   ivan: Great, as soon as the issues are closed I'll start the
   process for the call

Last Week's Minutes

   <TimCole> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last week's call
   are approved:


   <ivan> +1

   ivan: Shane, do you want to be on the call for the testing

   <PaoloCiccarese> +1

   ShaneM: I'll be there :|

   ivan: That's it :)

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last week's call are approved:


   TimCole: Neither Rob nor I are available next Friday 17th
   ... proposal is to cancel the call unless there's someone who
   wants to lead it?

   ivan: I can't do it either.

   Shane: I'm also out

   shepazu: I'm happy to have Friday off :)

   TimCole: We'll pick up the calls on the 24th


   ShaneM: Overview of where I'm at.... lots of pieces to the
   puzzle. Been focusing on the model testing infrastructure
   ... Largely complete
   ... Thing I'm working on is an OR clause for a set of
   assertions. So long as one feature passes, then the overall
   test passes
   ... The other piece of the puzzle is bugs in the WPT. Got those
   fixed and have been checked in.
   ... Good because it has primed the pump of working with the
   maintainers of the framework. So future integration should go
   more smootly
   ... Benjamin and Tim should talk about their stuff

   bigbluehat: I had switched out to doing protocol testing



   bigbluehat: Tim and friends seem to be doing a good job with
   the schemas
   ... ^^ this link is a protocol client as javascript mocha tests
   ... Mostly a toy but hopefully useful



   bigbluehat: built WPT-serve, ^^, python based http client
   ... so code in that PR that implements the core of the
   annotation protocol
   ... such as the prefer headers and responses. Thus an
   implementation inside WPT to be integrated as part of the
   testing process
   ... javascript code then exercises the server
   ... easier than loading REST-client and running tests by hand

   <TimCole> [16]


   TimCole: A general question ... in the model testing we have
   web application tests on github ^^
   ... is that where we're supposed to be working, or should we be
   in the spec-ops area

   ShaneM: Infrastructure in spec-ops, annotation specific tests
   in web-annotation-tests
   ... there's a webhook that pulls those in to the deployment
   ... don't want to mess with the tests at the same time as the
   infrastructure as they're independent

   TimCole: So an implementation that wants to test, like
   Europeana, where do they go?

   ShaneM: Couple steps before we get there, but W3C has a test
   ... URI escapes me at the moment
   ... that's the canonical place to run tests from. Can also
   bring up the framework themselves if they want

   <bigbluehat> [17]


   ShaneM: framework doesn't record what they do, you record it
   and provide in the implementation report

   bigbluehat: the protocol pieces so far are in the spec-ops repo
   as PRs
   ... web annotation tester repo is under my GH account right now
   ... didn't want it to seem more official :)
   ... could be set up to run in a browser, but once it's more
   complete, along side the server, could be live where ever.
   ... Will let the mailing list know when it's useful for more
   than just me

   TimCole: Have you talked with Nick since Berlin

   bigbluehat: I haven't since then no

   TimCole: Rob created a spreadsheet before Berlin of the keys /
   features of the model
   ... have used that as a starting point



   TimCole: and working with Shane to get schemas into folders.
   Revising the spreadsheet, which I sent to the list
   ... will take a week or two to get it fully populated, but
   moving along okay
   ... still using v0.4
   ... others can edit and improve the schemas
   ... one gap is a set of negative examples that should NOT
   ... Getting the schemas to run with help from Shane

   Shane: Have a core question - remembering that the tests are
   manual, we want to have the fewest number of tests that give
   the greatest coverage
   ... You're keeping that in mind as you group the assertions
   ... Sent a proposal to semi-automate lots of tests with the
   same input.

   TimCole: We can write a script that will use all of the schemas
   as a single test
   ... Can run a few then skip a bunch that aren't relevant
   ... thought we might end up with one test per major folder, so
   5-6 tests
   ... maybe what you're suggesting will address it

   ShaneM: single test per major feature area could make sense
   ... but one test per way that a feature is used
   ... if there's orthogonality in a feature it should be broken
   up into two tests
   ... we have a way to automatically repopulate the manual test
   input window for the annotation when the next test loads
   ... you paste in the annotation, and there's a checkbox to copy
   it to the next one.
   ... so you don't paste it again, you just click go again
   ... to reduce the clunkiness
   ... if there's 6, I don't care, if there's 100, I care about

   TimCole: We might end up with about 10?
   ... 5 kinds of bodies: bodyValue, embedded text, external
   resource, specific resource, choice/set
   ... some of them then follow on to other tests, like for
   specific resource or choice
   ... would have the same (almost) 5 things for targets
   ... so the major features are about a dozen

   ShaneM: convenience feature might not make sense?

   TimCole: I think it would

   ShaneM: Oh not because it's a small number, but because the
   input would be different

   TimCole: I might have multiple bodies that a single annotation
   implements multiple features
   ... dont' think people should break up their annotations
   ... not sure I have a good use case in mind
   ... if what you're saying is not hard to do, it would be nice
   ... multiple bodies that demonstrate different features seem
   ... any questions at this point?
   ... In terms of documenting the test process, have a good
   readme file
   ... is that the kind of docs we need. Need the report from
   Gregg. What else do we need?

   ShaneM: Definitely need docs. Readme is guidance for test
   authors, not testers
   ... need a thing to say how to run the tests and capture the
   ... some is just part of WPT
   ... Have a couple mechanisms to get from tests to
   implementation reports
   ... both are fine, just need to pick one



   ivan: One of the things I forgot. Have created CR transition
   request text
   ... supposed to present about testing and implementation on the
   ... don't have to have a detailed presentation
   ... but a draft description would be good to make the request
   ... want to send request monday or so

   <ShaneM> ACTION: ShaneM to write up drafty test process
   document for model, server, and clients [recorded in


   <trackbot> Created ACTION-33 - Write up drafty test process
   document for model, server, and clients [on Shane McCarron -
   due 2016-06-17].

   TimCole: a little worried about richness?

   ivan: doesn't need to be rich, just have to have it in writing
   that we have the main testing blocks
   ... this is what they are, and that's maybe all we need, but I
   don't know where they are now

   TimCole: Shane has volunteered to help
   ... both Rob and I are travelling tomorrow

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about how we expect to test
   an implementation of an annotation server

   ShaneM: I know how to test an annotaiton client ... wondering
   about testing an annotaiton server
   ... is the work you've been doing so far Benjamin something we
   can use to exercise a real server

   bigbluehat: That's the hope :)



   bigbluehat: Actual javascript ^^ it uses Chai and structures
   tests in MUST and SHOULD and refs lines from the spec
   ... copy and pasted. Then tries to write a test for the
   specific MUST/SHOULD. Focusing on specific stuff
   ... good if Rob could test against MangoServer
   ... and anyone else with an implementation
   ... how close the testing and protocol code are. Unit tests for
   the server I'm writing.
   ... could rewrite in python

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask how difficult it would be to
   put this in a browser



   ShaneM: Your tests are in JS, can we wrap it to run in a
   browser with an HTML file to give it the endpoint and just
   click go

   bigbluehat: Should be fine to do that
   ... can be incorporated with other testing frameworks. Could
   import to WPT. Distance is unknown

   ShaneM: that makes our story consistent, which is important

   TimCole: Any questions?
   ... Interop question about client A sends annotation to a
   server and then client B reads it in some fashion
   ... do we understand how that's going to work?

   ShaneM: Don't need to do it, so don't put it in the plan

   ivan: Yes, lets not require it in the official documents
   ... but the director would love to see it
   ... if we can do it, even as partially a mock up, that would be

   <shepazu> +1

   ivan: We know Europeana have a server. Need clients.

   TimCole: Server seems easier than getting clients that annotate
   the same content

   ivan: Yes. Europeana have annotations on images. Maybe Rob can
   pick up one of their annotations
   ... to display and reuse the annotation. That would be already
   great. Clearly independent

   <ShaneM> note that bigbluehat is implementing a server right
   now in WPT

   ivan: Not sure how much work it would require

   TimCole: Have some content here that might be shared with

Extra Admin

   ivan: One thing we need to resolve is to set a date for end of
   CR period can't be end of September as the charter runs out
   ... I propose the end of September but maybe there are other
   dates in mind?

   TimCole: Availability of implementations to test
   ... schedule in July/August is hard

   ivan: Can't set the date earlier
   ... and can't make it later

   TimCole: So 3 month CR

   ivan: which is quite reasonable
   ... sometimes it's longer, but it's reasonable

   TimCole: A little optimistic, but that's what we've got to do

   ivan: If we can't close CR in terms of proving all the
   features, then it stays open until we get it. The end date is
   just that implementers don't have to rush

   TimCole: What happens in september if we're not there?

   ivan: We ask for an extension, and leave the CR open
   ... horror stories about groups with CR open for 2 years

   shepazu: if it gets to be 6 months and we haven't exited CR,
   can re-examine the criteria and drop features or postpone them
   ... would be more important to have a REC than a perfect one

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about dropping features

   ivan: Yes, that's fine. If we need another month, that's easuy

   ShaneM: Curious about process in the W3C for dropping features

   ivan: We reissue a CR

   ShaneM: That's too bad

   shepazu: We're very close to completing some of its
   deliverables, if we request a bit more time that won't be
   ... 99% odds that they'll keep it open while we try to finish

   ShaneM: don't disagree. Let's say there's 20 features, and 1
   doesn't demonstrate interop, was hoping to say you could just
   drop the feature without going back to the beginning

   shepazu: Can do if we mark the feature at risk
   ... if we mark something as at risk, and when we transition we
   remove the feature

   ivan: We have two features at risk -- one is the social web
   work on activitystreams, the one from us is
   ... so date is fine, for my planning, when do we think it will
   be done?
   ... meaning there's actions on shane, gregg and a few editorial

   bigbluehat: AS2.0 is moving to CR ... still



   ivan: all of them are minor

   <ivan> [24]


   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about moving them to non TR

   ShaneM: For 251, I wouldn't put them in TR/ but anywhere else
   ... might want to update them in the future

   ivan: Shane when do you think you can get yours done

   <shepazu> ShaneM++

   ShaneM: Before the end of the day

   <Loqi> ShaneM has 4 karma

   ivan: So can go to the direction on Tuesday

   TimCole: Discussion around vocab for
   ... what do we do to validate the vocab document

   ivan: Not really testing of it, it's abstract that's serialized
   at least into JSON-LD as per the model
   ... not sure what we'd test
   ... we could test that the json-ld context against a processor
   produces turtle

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to say that technically the
   implementation of the vocab is the context

   ShaneM: Implementation is the context
   ... way you demonstrate interop could be feeding it to three
   JSON-LD processors and make sure that they accept it
   ... we did that for HTML5 modularization

   ivan: Know of two processors

   TimCole: Lets put that in

   ShaneM: Will put that in to the document

   TimCole: Let's adjourn and talk in 2 weeks

   bye all!@

   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: ShaneM to write up drafty test process document
   for model, server, and clients [recorded in


Summary of Resolutions

    1. [26]The WG asks the Director to authorize the publication
       of the Protocol, Model, and Vocab documents as Candidate
       Recs, with a publication date on the 5th of July, 2016
    2. [27]Minutes of the last week's call are approved:

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [28]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([29]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/06/10 16:11:21 $


Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 16:14:13 UTC