- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:14:02 +0200
- To: W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <D9E6F6CC-DB83-41E3-B2AD-0A9750602E03@w3.org>
Minutes are here:
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html <https://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html>
Text 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
10 Jun 2016
[2]Agenda
[2] http://www.w3.org/mid/014301d1c25e$e2541290$a6fc37b0$@illinois.edu
See also: [3]IRC log
[3] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-irc
Attendees
Present
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
Regrets
Jacob
Chair
Tim
Scribe
Rob (azaroth)
Contents
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
+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,
2016
<ivan> Remaining editorial issues:
[11]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
[11] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
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:
[12]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
[12] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
<ivan> +1
ivan: Shane, do you want to be on the call for the testing
issues
<PaoloCiccarese> +1
ShaneM: I'll be there :|
ivan: That's it :)
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the last week's call are approved:
[13]https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
[13] https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
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
Testing
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>
[14]https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-teste
r
[14] https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-tester
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>
[15]https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/pull/3
[15] https://github.com/Spec-Ops/web-platform-tests/pull/3
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]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation-tests
[16] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation-tests
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
server
... 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]http://www.w3c-test.org/
[17] http://www.w3c-test.org/
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>
[18]https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13LRf2-OCJlKplQE5MTV
3breguuRhUyhQW8IZ_jQMBjw/edit?usp=sharing
[18] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13LRf2-OCJlKplQE5MTV3breguuRhUyhQW8IZ_jQMBjw/edit?usp=sharing
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
validate
... 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
together?
... 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
clunkiness
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
useful
... 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
results
... 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>
[19]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/C
RTransitionRequest.md
[19] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/blob/gh-pages/admin/CRTransitionRequest.md
ivan: One of the things I forgot. Have created CR transition
request text
... supposed to present about testing and implementation on the
call
... don't have to have a detailed presentation
... but a draft description would be good to make the request
smooth
... want to send request monday or so
<ShaneM> ACTION: ShaneM to write up drafty test process
document for model, server, and clients [recorded in
[20]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#action
01]
[20] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#action01]
<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>
[21]https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-teste
r/blob/master/test/musts.js
[21] https://github.com/BigBlueHat/web-annotation-protocol-tester/blob/master/test/musts.js
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
[22]https://github.com/azaroth42/MangoServer
[22] https://github.com/azaroth42/MangoServer
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
great
<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
Europeana
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
controversial
... 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
Composite/List/Independents
... 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
things
bigbluehat: AS2.0 is moving to CR ... still
<ivan>
[23]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
[23] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/milestones/V1%20CR
ivan: all of them are minor
<ivan> [24]https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/251
[24] https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/251
<Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask about moving them to non TR
space
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
[25]http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#action
01]
[25] http://www.w3.org/2016/06/10-annotation-minutes.html#action01
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:
https://www.w3.org/2016/06/03-annotation-minutes.html
[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 $
[28] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/scribe/scribedoc.htm
[29] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/
Received on Friday, 10 June 2016 16:14:13 UTC