Meeting Minutes, 2016-09-09

Minutes are here:

Text version below



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



              Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference

09 Sep 2016



   See also: [3]IRC log



          Shane McCarron, Tim Cole, Rob Sanderson (azaroth), Ben
          De Meester, Benjamin Young (bigbluehat), TB Dinesh,
          Randall Leeds

          Rob, Tim



     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]Minutes Approval
         2. [6]Announcements
         3. [7]Issue updates?
         4. [8]Testing
     * [9]Summary of Action Items
     * [10]Summary of Resolutions

   <scribe> scribenick: azaroth

Minutes Approval

   PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:


   <TimCole> +1

   <bjdmeest> +1

   <ivan> +1

   RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved:



   TimCole: We have successfully republished the three documents
   in CR
   ... TPAC is fast approaching. We won't have any meetings there,
   but need to think about schedule for the calls

   ivan: I'll be out
   ... I leave on Sunday so here next week, but out the following

   ShaneM: I'll be tied up too
   ... 4pm in Lisbon?
   ... I have a meeting at 4pm on Friday.

   Ivan: I'll be fried :)

   TimCole: Cancel Sept 23rd meeting

   azaroth: My regrets for next week.

   TimCole: Okay, cancel 23rd but will meet next week
   ... Will meet on the 30th. Any other announcements or

Issue updates?

   TimCole: There was an issue closed

   Ivan: Sarven said that he was okay to close it, so I did

   TimCole: What about the i18n issues?

   ivan: No idea :( Anyone on the social web group might know

   TimCole: Would it be okay to reach out to Richard?

   Ivan: I can do that.

   bigbluehat: Social picked a very different solution for i18n
   issue. DPUB on the other hand did the same as us
   ... they went with no text direction stated. Web manifests and
   ourselves have it as an explicit property
   ... Social are trusting the bidi character will be recognised
   and implemented

   TimCole: That's okay, we'll see what happens at the end of CR
   ... Any editorial progress?

   azaroth: None, have been waiting for i18n issue to resolve
   before making any further changes

   TimCole: Any other issue related topics?


   TimCole: Posted a short note about the state of the model
   testing. A couple of issues have come up
   ... Haven't gotten new reports from implementers.
   ... For sections 1-4 of the model, we now have 173 assertions,
   organized into 10 tests
   ... broken down along validation of MUST, or whether a feature
   is implemented
   ... 10 tests means that if you run the suite, you paste your
   annotation in 10 times
   ... the advantage of it is that if you want to test only the
   requirements or a particular feature you can do so by running
   only a subset of tests
   ... impressed by how quickly they run
   ... could probably reduce it however to fewer tests
   ... Shane, do you see any issue with the test runner software
   having one test with 173 assertions?

   ShaneM: No, the system doesn't care
   ... we moved the text box. It might not be merged yet though
   ... I don't have merge capability. The code codes reviewed and
   hopefully someone merges it.

   <bigbluehat> TimCole: which server are you looking at? or

   ShaneM: The people who have merge capability don't seem to pay
   attention to our requests

   ivan: You should try to talk to Philippe about this
   ... He's the one responsible for getting WGs to do things
   properly. We went down this route for testing, but we shouldn't
   be thwarted by issues like this
   ... at the end of the day, it's his responsibility

   ShaneM: I can ping him now?

   ivan: It may need a longer discussion.

   ShaneM: There just needs to be someone on staff who takes care
   of this sort of stuff

   ivan: I don't have a practical proposal, but the current way
   doesn't work
   ... it has created barriers for us many times already, which
   isn't acceptable
   ... we're bound to deadlines, and accountable to W3M, but that
   means we need to be able to do what we have to do

   ShaneM: From our perspective, I should have stayed on top of
   the PRs...

   ivan: No, don't take it on you, you shouldn't have to chase
   people, there should be a process

   ShaneM: There's 173 outstanding requests, so it's not just us

   ivan: I discussed this with Ralph as well. There's something
   fundamentally wrong. We can come back to this in Lisbon



   TimCole: One question is whether we should go down to a few

   <ShaneM> bigbluehat:
   [14] r?


   TimCole: easy to make that change now

   <bigbluehat> yeah. working on that one now

   TimCole: would just require all the assertions in one big test

   azaroth: Would it be possible to copy the annotation from the
   first test to the second test, and so forth? then it would
   populate the text box with that annotation

   ShaneM: If it's the same annotation, that might be possible. If
   it's a different annotation, it wouldn't make sense

   TimCole: Still need to deal with section 5 of the model, as
   it's not annotations
   ... you'd paste in a collection or a page, which are
   fundamentally different
   ... as many /clients/ won't implement that, it'll be a bit

   azaroth: We'd probably want annotation server implementers to
   do the collections and pages

   TimCole: Should this be a fourth set of tests?

   azaroth: Easier at the end of CR if it was part of the model
   testing, just a different section
   ... (explains issue)

   ivan: We have entries in the model that are relevant to the
   server, so closer to the protocol
   ... how does it affect the reporting?

   TimCole: if there's one series of tests that starts with
   annotations and then the collection, the client developers
   won't know what to do with the collection and page tests

   azaroth: and the server implementers won't necessarily have
   anything useful for the first part

   ShaneM: What if those tests were added to the protocol suite?

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to ask if we should be pulling ajv
   into the protocol tests to see what features of the data model
   are used there? OR add a protocol exerciser to the model tests

   ShaneM: or add server tests to the model tests to hit a server
   and get the content?

   ivan: My reaction was the same as your first option -- those
   tests should be performed by the protocol testing procedure

   <ShaneM> protocol !== data model though

   ivan: that's where they come into the picture
   ... so the server/protocol implementers will test some of the
   model, which is fine
   ... the reporting is tricky

   TimCole: one thing we could do is name the tests for the
   collection and page carefully, and give different URLs to the
   ... so the client people would only get annotations, and the
   server people would only get collections and pages

   +1 if that's possible

   scribe: we could do that with regexps or folder names perhaps

   ShaneM: Have a PR on the regexps

   TimCole: The problem would be that the results would be
   incomplete -- it would only have collection or annotation
   tests. Would that merge okay?

   ShaneM: I don't know the answer

   azaroth: We really need that to work, as a client might not do
   all the tests and we want to know what they did do

   TimCole: I'd prefer that, as it keeps everything together in
   the right place

   ShaneM: THe test description needs to clearly lay out the
   expectations for what to put in the text box

   TimCole: We may need to move all the tests into a different
   child folder. Everything in this folder is for the annotation,
   and everything in this folder is for the collections
   ... number of tests... since we can't currently retain the
   annotation between tests, might be better to reduce the number
   of tests and put lots of assertions
   ... one for all the MUSTS and one for all the optional SHOULDs
   and MAYs
   ... would expect most of them to fail, but should get some for


   ShaneM: I'm fine with that

   TimCole: Even clicking the button 10 times if the annotation is
   copied would be a pain
   ... Last big issue for model testing is the process for
   uploading results
   ... Single client implementation will create multiple types of
   ... First type might exercise specific resources, second might
   do text bodies
   ... but might not have one annotation that does both
   ... so want client implementers to run multiple annotations
   through both the tests
   ... affects some of the counts and how to name the files
   ... need to not count the same implementation twice
   ... instructions get a bit complicated for what should be
   ... e.g. that the readme needs to be updated
   ... Illinois developer reported that the instructions were long
   and cumbersome

   ShaneM: Don't have a problem with people having to read
   instructions. Issue is that we're all learning about this way
   of testing
   ... don't have to upload the annotations if you don't want to

   TimCole: Could create codes for people that we invite
   ... but they'd need to fill out the other information
   ... and can't do that for everyone up front

   ivan: Try to invite people, but hard to invite folks not in the
   ... have to actively bring people in
   ... if they come they'll have questions and someone will have
   to help them get over the hurdles
   ... don't remember how difficult for the RDFa testing, for
   ... might have been a bit more automatic, but there were
   instructions about what to set up
   ... there's always something like that, there's always some
   help and intervention needed

   TimCole: Would shorten things if we can set up the base line as
   a template
   ... then don't need to describe it... just say to copy the
   ... can set up the folders for them to make it easier

   ShaneM: If you don't understand github, there's no way you'll
   be able to do this
   ... would be nice if there /was/ a way to upload of course

   TimCole: Have to rename file from the results, then fork the
   repo, create a PR, add the results, annotations and update the
   readme file
   ... so not terribly complicated but harder with no examples
   ... who can help with instructions and Readme?

   azaroth: Can try to take a look early next week

   TimCole: We'll make some edits before Monday
   ... anyone else?

   <tbdinesh_> I will ask someone in my team to do that

   TimCole: Shared some of this with Randall and Nick but don't
   know if they've had a look at it yet
   ... Probably they'll say it's too long, Benjamin gave the same
   ... Rob do you have annotations from a client

   azaroth: Yep, I can do that

   TimCole: Thanks Dinesh

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk aout updating process

   ShaneM: in terms of update process, just do a single PR
   ... I've already corrected the files that weren't named
   correctly for her

   TimCole: By the end of the day we should have the right set of
   reports for 1 implementation with 3 annotations
   ... going to rearrange the tests

   ShaneM: I'll withdraw the PR to put in the new tests then

   ivan: Looking at the 3 result files. Protocol looks pretty good
   ... no information about the two implementations

   ShaneM: The implementation details are in the readme
   ... no way to have the implementation details in the response

   ivan: Can the results file have a link to where to go for where
   to find the things?
   ... Management will have no idea what to do with the file
   ... no facility in WPT reports for how to do it, so would have
   to do it by hand
   ... Ahh, don't do it by hand. Just needs to be clear that
   there's a readme file



   ivan: in the HTML file, through, I'd just like a
   static link to say go here to understand these

   TimCole: We could put that link at the top of the file?

   ShaneM: If that satisfies Ivan's requirement?

   ivan: If that link is on the report, that's fine
   ... can it not say fail for optional things?

   ShaneM: We've talked about that :( It has to say fail at the
   ... we just need to say it's optional

   ivan: If I look at the model, there's lots of fails
   ... the impression is that it looks bad
   ... don't know what to do though

   TimCole: For any given annotation, for optional features, it
   might have only very few features
   ... so just need two greens across the row
   ... even if there's 100 fails

   ivan: As a reporting issue, it could be a problem
   ... at the transition call there'll be a long discussion as to
   what is going on



   TimCole: We can reduce down what we think of as a feature

   <ShaneM> oops...

   <ShaneM> Take a look at that

   TimCole: we have a test for 'is this a selector' and then 7
   tests for what sort of selector
   ... will see more green for general selectors than for specific
   ... need to talk about this before the end of the month
   ... or put them into skipped

   ivan: it's more the reporting

   <ShaneM> "what is skipped

   ivan: from high up, if what's optional is put somewhere else in
   the report, it gives a different view

   TimCole: THere'll be the top part with lots of greens, the
   MUSTS, and then 100 something mostly reds for the optionals

   ivan: Psychologically speaking I'd try to find a diffrent color
   than red
   ... but at least we need to separate them

   TimCole: a skip would not show up in red?

   ShaneM: what's a skip?

   TimCole: In the test format, there's an option to skip?

   ShaneM: ahh, that's just flow control on assertions

   TimCole: If I skip an assertion, they wouldn't show up?
   ... there'd be a blank box?

   ShaneM: Probably?

   ivan: You understand the problem though, it will create issues

   ShaneM: The fundamental problem is that the Web Platform (in
   general) does not envision the notion of optional
   ... but we have it. I don't know how to represent that except
   by naming the assertion clearly
   ... That's not reflected in the report, but we could

   ivan: Is it possible?

   ShaneM: It is. The WPT people hate that we've made our subtest
   names complicated but whatever
   ... putting mandatory or optional at the beginning will make
   them more complicated

   azaroth: Could we leave failed optional as a blank box

   ivan: that would be better

   TimCole: I'll play with flow control this afternoon

   ivan: Gregg has done full vocab testing?

   azaroth: I have as well

   ivan: The report is empty though


   scribe: ...

   ShaneM: I'm doing my best

   <Zakim> ShaneM, you wanted to talk about protocol testing...

   ShaneM: I can do it by hand

   ivan: Once we've done it, it's a small report we can do by hand

   TimCole: Sorry for not talking about HTML serialization
   ... or protocol testing

   ShaneM: Lets work on the sequencing thing and see if we can
   figure it out

   TimCole: No reason to test selectors if you don't have a
   specific resource
   ... the more consolidated tests will make it easier
   ... Worried that the report will correctly have blank cells

   ShaneM: Suggest reorganizing tests first

   TimCole: Thanks all


   <ivan> trackbot, end telcon

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

    1. [17]Minutes of the previous call are approved:

   [End of minutes]

    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [18]scribe.perl version
    1.144 ([19]CVS log)
    $Date: 2016/09/09 16:10:24 $


Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 16:12:34 UTC