15:47:35 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:47:35 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-annotation-irc
15:48:03 <azaroth> Chairs: Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch
15:48:50 <azaroth> Regrets+ Jacob_Jett, Ben_DeMeester, Davis_Salisbury, Ivan_Herman
15:48:59 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:50:41 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
15:51:22 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
15:51:24 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
15:51:26 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
15:51:26 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
15:51:27 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:51:27 <trackbot> Date: 11 November 2015
15:51:55 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:51:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:52:56 <azaroth> Chairs: Rob_Sanderson, Frederick_Hirsch
15:53:07 <azaroth> Regrets+ Jacob_Jett, Ben_DeMeester, Davis_Salisbury, Ivan_Herman, Chris_Birk
15:53:16 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:53:36 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0178.html
15:54:20 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:54:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:54:52 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
15:57:55 <HayriCanAkyel> HayriCanAkyel has joined #annotation
15:58:20 <csarven> csarven has joined #annotation
16:00:12 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
16:00:13 <suzan_uskudarli> suzan_uskudarli has joined #annotation
16:01:58 <shepazu> present+ shepazu
16:02:15 <TimCole> present+ Tim_Cole
16:02:31 <fjh> Present+ csarven(IRC)
16:02:42 <shepazu> present+ Doug_Schepers
16:02:53 <suzan_uskudarli> present+ Suzan_Uskudarli
16:02:54 <csarven> present+ Sarven_Capadisli
16:03:05 <fjh> Present-  csarven(IRC)
16:03:38 <azaroth> Thanks Tim!
16:03:47 <fjh> ScribeNick: TimCole
16:04:08 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
16:08:18 <azaroth> tilgovi bigbluehat: Can you call in?
16:08:35 <tilgovi> I'm finding the number
16:08:40 <fjh> s/tilgovi bigbluehat: Can you call in?//
16:08:46 <fjh> s/I'm finding the number//
16:09:05 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:09:28 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
16:09:43 <azaroth> Present+ Takeshi_Kanai
16:11:42 <tilgovi_> tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
16:13:17 <TimCole> Topic: Minutes
16:13:18 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4 Nov approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-minutes.html
16:13:33 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 4 Nov approved: http://www.w3.org/2015/11/04-annotation-minutes.html
16:13:54 <TimCole> azaroth: Any announcements?
16:14:32 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
16:14:35 <TimCole> shepazu: following up from TPAC with those who might be interested in the FindText API or other annotation issues
16:14:42 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
16:14:54 <TimCole> ... showing them mock-ups of what annotations might look like in their browsers.
16:14:59 <TimCole> Topic: Working Mode
16:15:09 <azaroth> Link: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0088.html
16:15:40 <TimCole> azaroth: linked doc outlines methods for making faster progress (as compared to this summer)
16:15:53 <TimCole> ... try to take issues more breadth rather than too much depth
16:16:27 <TimCole> ... so we can move on issues that we can get consensus, rather than getting stuck on smaller issues that on which we can't get consensus
16:16:38 <TimCole> ... will support more incremental decisions
16:16:53 <TimCole> ... so we will try to stay to 15 minutes per issue
16:16:59 <shepazu> q+
16:17:11 <TimCole> ... if consensus, great, if not keep on stack for revisiting in the future.
16:17:11 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:17:32 <tilgovi> Present+ Randall_Leeds
16:17:58 <TimCole> shepazu: 15 minutes to discuss the issue on the call, assume that we will have conversations on github and the list before issue comes to call for 15 minutes
16:18:06 <sinancan> sinancan has joined #annotation
16:18:17 <TimCole> ... is this what you are proposing? Or do issues go immediately to call once raised on github
16:18:51 <TimCole> azaroth: the former - we should continue to have conversations outside the calls and then quickly finalize consensus on the call when ready
16:19:12 <TimCole> ... as much consensus as possible off-call before bringing to the call
16:19:58 <TimCole> shepazu: since W3C is doing more asynchronously, we should be sure to call out each decision on list or github rather than relying solely on minutes.
16:20:21 <TimCole> azaroth: any other comments for or against?
16:20:33 <TimCole> no one raised their hands
16:20:46 <azaroth> q?
16:20:58 <TimCole> azaroth: So, hearing no further comments, we should try this new and improved practice.
16:21:40 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: We will endeavor to confirm consensus around github issues in at most 15 minute timeboxed discussions on calls, per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0088.html
16:21:53 <azaroth> +1
16:21:56 <shepazu> +1
16:21:56 <TimCole> +1
16:22:09 <takeshi> +1
16:22:19 <bigbluehat> +1
16:22:21 <fjh> +1 with chairs judgement as needed
16:22:27 <PaoloCiccarese> +
16:22:30 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:23:02 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: We will endeavor to confirm consensus around github issues in at most 15 minute timeboxed discussions on calls, per https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0088.html with chairs reserving right to adjust as appropriate in real time
16:23:23 <TimCole> Topic: Spliting annotation model into 2 parts
16:23:35 <azaroth> Link:  https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/97
16:23:52 <TimCole> azaroth: Web Annotation and Web-annotation-model, was discussed at TPAC
16:24:31 <TimCole> ... issue raised was that specs aren't satisfying to people interested only in JSON implementation nor to those focused on RDF/linked data and ontologies
16:24:48 <TimCole> ... so we looked at approach being used by Social WG re Activity Streams
16:25:09 <fjh> q+
16:25:15 <TimCole> ... they also want to make sure their outputs are useful to both communities
16:25:54 <shepazu> q+
16:26:19 <TimCole> ... another advantage (suggested by Ivan) currently we have one doc that includes Turtle and JSON-LD, for testing would be helpful for testing to separate
16:26:28 <azaroth> q?
16:26:31 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:26:40 <TimCole> fjh: confused about 2 things
16:27:02 <TimCole> ... would model and serialization still be in one document or would they be separate?
16:27:23 <TimCole> ... which terms would appear only in one, which in both?
16:27:34 <tilgovi> +0
16:27:42 <TimCole> azaroth: Web annotation is just about JSON serialization and would have to include structure
16:28:10 <TimCole> ... second document would describe the ontoogy -- all of our terms and terms from other vocabs on which we rely
16:28:18 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:28:36 <TimCole> fjh: the model doc would be the RDF and not have JSON?
16:28:37 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:28:43 <TimCole> azaroth: basically yes
16:29:13 <fjh> ok, so we would have a stand-alone JSON-LD document + a model document similar to what we have now (with some JSON-LD removed)
16:29:19 <TimCole> shepazu: I think I am in favor of this and this addresses a long-standing concern, but need to see how this will look before confirming that I'm in favor of it
16:29:58 <fjh> q+
16:30:00 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/pull/99 has progress toward this document split
16:30:04 <TimCole> ... need to see to make sure something doesn't get left out, e.g., don't want to have to look in both docs to know that you are a conforming [JSON] implementation
16:30:28 <TimCole> ... want to make sure that the conformance issues are all addressed in one document
16:30:52 <TimCole> ... 2nd would like to revisit the naming of the documents, Web annotation doesn't seem specific enough
16:31:27 <fjh> why not "Web Annotation Model" and "JSON-LD Web Annotation Serialization"
16:31:32 <TimCole> ... Web annotation might sound too broad.  Need to communicate easily.
16:31:47 <TimCole> azaorth: Annotation Model and Annotation Vocabulary?
16:31:54 <azaroth> q?
16:31:57 <TimCole> shepazu: seems in the right direction
16:32:04 <fjh> is vocabuary code for "RDF stuff"?
16:32:11 <azaroth> fjh: yep :)
16:32:13 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:32:40 <TimCole> paoloCiccarese: kind of like model and vocabulary, thought model will include some vocabulary
16:32:59 <TimCole> ... the connection between the two docs is going to have be the @context
16:33:23 <TimCole> ... how do you talk about the @context in model when the terms in the @context are in the vocabulary?
16:34:20 <TimCole> shepazu: Web annotation model need to include terms we expect to see in the JSON, we can still mention the @context in the Model and say see Vocabulary spec for more details about the terminology
16:34:24 <tilgovi> If the model still needs to define the space, I don't think it can really exist without vocabulary terms in it. They'll have to be words about targets and bodies and susch. But I guess it doesn't need tables of definitions, CamelCaseClassNames and namespaces?
16:34:48 <TimCole> ... so we have some normative vocabulary in the Model document, but make it concrete and complete in the Vocabulary spec.
16:34:51 <fjh> q?
16:34:55 <TimCole> ... would this approach work?
16:35:09 <TimCole> ... we might need to look at the specs to figure this out
16:35:19 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:35:37 <TimCole> azaroth: Propose that the editors make progress on splitting and then bring back for further discussion and refinement
16:35:41 <fjh> q+
16:36:08 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:36:14 <TimCole> paolo: We could just not say much or anything at all about @context in the Model, and talk about @context in the Vocabulary
16:36:33 <TimCole> fjh: I think this could get hopelessly confusing
16:37:04 <TimCole> ... maybe we need 3 docs: Model, JSON serialization doc, RDF doc to explain all the concerns for RDF audience
16:37:15 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
16:37:18 <TimCole> ... leaving any vocabulary out of the Model seems a problems.
16:37:49 <TimCole> shepazu: I think we are talking about much the same thing, but we have differences in exactly how to split out
16:38:01 <alperkaratepe> alperkaratepe has joined #annotation
16:38:17 <TimCole> ... one issue would be how to talk about how we connect with / use outside vocabularies
16:38:28 <fjh> need to see something to understand what it is
16:38:31 <fjh> q+
16:38:34 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
16:38:37 <TimCole> ... but let's make a resolution to let the editors propose something concrete
16:38:50 <fjh> q-
16:38:59 <TimCole> fjh: if the editors can do a couple of sections that might be enough to make concrete
16:39:46 <TimCole> paolo: as a developer, if I look at the model and I see JSON, it wouldn't be a problem not to know why the provenance pattern is the way it is, that's okay with me as a developer
16:40:00 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Editors to generate sketch of the split specs for further discussion
16:40:02 <TimCole> ... I think the editors can have a separate discussion
16:40:05 <TimCole> q+
16:40:21 <azaroth> ack TimCole
16:40:49 <TimCole> azaroth: I think we have a consensus
16:40:54 <fjh> action: azaroth ot work with other editors to create sketch of new document split to make it concrete
16:40:54 <trackbot> Created ACTION-30 - Ot work with other editors to create sketch of new document split to make it concrete [on Robert Sanderson - due 2015-11-18].
16:41:01 <TimCole> TimCole: do we need more editors given the extra documents?
16:41:28 <TimCole> azaroth: I think the 3 current editors could have a sketch by next week, and then see if more help will be needed?
16:41:49 <azaroth> +1
16:41:53 <TimCole> +1
16:41:58 <shepazu> +1
16:42:00 <fjh> +1
16:42:04 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:42:57 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Editors to generate sketch of the split specs for further discussion
16:43:11 <shepazu> q+
16:43:12 <fjh> q+
16:43:27 <TimCole> Topic: Timeframe for Social WG to come to a solid AS spec so as to support what we want to use
16:43:50 <fjh> q-
16:44:17 <TimCole> azaroth: Idea is to give Social time to come up with something, but we don't want to be locked / blocked.  If they can't do this by our need date, we'll create our own micro-ontology for now
16:44:20 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
16:44:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-annotation-minutes.html fjh
16:44:33 <TimCole> ... we would need by mid-January to make decision.
16:44:53 <TimCole> ... by March we need a stable ontology, one way or another
16:45:02 <TimCole> ... mostly effects annotation collections
16:45:22 <TimCole> ... other possible overlaps -- embedded content
16:45:31 <fjh> q?
16:45:33 <fjh> q+
16:45:36 <azaroth> ack shepazu
16:46:08 <TimCole> shepazu: This seems reasonable, and Social WG at TPAC seemed to see this as reasonable
16:46:44 <TimCole> ... but has the Annotation WG told the Social WG what our requirements are? Have we written these down (even informally)?
16:46:57 <TimCole> ... maybe we should include in the proposed action?
16:46:59 <fjh> +1 to sharing with Social WG the needs and time frame
16:47:13 <TimCole> ... I haven't found an exact definition of what we need from Social.
16:47:38 <TimCole> azaroth: we have discussed, and they've been good about accommodating our needs
16:48:20 <TimCole> ... I have talked with James S. about adding a language attribute, but they have a slightly different use, so may not be able to have language in their model in a way we can use
16:48:30 <TimCole> ... no conflict, just less aligned
16:48:52 <TimCole> ... but yes, what we are missing is an articulation of the exact requirement
16:49:19 <TimCole> ... to some degree these are administrative, e.g., do we need them at CR level by March
16:49:45 <TimCole> shepazu: I think more important to clarify the exact technical requirements, can we write this down?
16:50:20 <azaroth> q?
16:50:23 <TimCole> azaroth: We have been talking more on their turf, so yes we should write down and make visible from our side
16:50:26 <azaroth> ack fjh
16:50:57 <TimCole> fjh: Along similar line, did azaroth get a sense of their current timeline
16:51:18 <TimCole> azaroth: not really, Social didn't meet at TPAC, we talked to chairs
16:51:47 <TimCole> ... Social WG has a f2f in December in San Fran and azaroth has joined and plans to attend f2f
16:51:56 <TimCole> ... this will help get a better sense of their timeline.
16:52:27 <TimCole> ... Rob & Benjamin should write up the points of alignment, bring back to Annotation call, then to Social
16:52:28 <fjh> this should help greatly, thanks Rob
16:53:25 <TimCole> shepazu: my sense at TPAC is there is not yet agreement within Social as to whether they will be able to meet timeline
16:53:59 <TimCole> azaroth: my sense from their calls is that they have a strong divide also along the JSON / RDF-linked data lines
16:54:45 <TimCole> ... James S. has had some success in finding the points of consensus, and so I am helpful that AS will get to the point we need, other Social deliverables less clear
16:54:50 <azaroth> q?
16:55:28 <danbri> danbri has joined #annotation
16:57:39 <TimCole> s/helpful/hopeful
16:58:02 <TimCole> Topic: Do we have consensus on closing the following?
16:58:16 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Close https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/103
16:58:17 <shepazu> +1
16:58:23 <azaroth> +1
16:58:29 <TimCole> azaroth: 1 can we close http vs. https?  Seems consensus that this is out of scope for us.
16:58:31 <TimCole> +1
16:58:48 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Close https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/103
16:58:48 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:58:59 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Close https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98
16:59:30 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
16:59:35 <azaroth> +1
16:59:39 <TimCole> azaroth: 2. Can we close the issue re reasoning with annotations? The specs we do should remain silent about this.
17:00:10 <TimCole> shepazu: does this mean that the vocab/ontology spec doesn't talk about reasoning?
17:00:37 <TimCole> azaroth: yes. vocab/ontology should stay simple rather than trying to nail down all the reasoning issues.
17:00:38 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
17:00:42 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
17:00:43 <shepazu> +1
17:01:53 <TimCole> paolo: it's not the annotation body itself but it's the rdf that is carried with the annotation. we are talking about the structure which does not necessarily carry enough for reasoning
17:02:06 <TimCole> shepazu: there could be some work in the future on this, but for now let's close
17:02:23 <tilgovi> q+
17:02:23 <TimCole> azaroth: out of scope for the current work
17:02:28 <azaroth> ack TimCole
17:02:30 <azaroth> ack tilgovi
17:02:59 <TimCole> tilgov: Had some difficulty following the conversation on this
17:03:40 <TimCole> ... the choice of which resource ends up the target and what ends up as the body unless you have some kind of explicit relationship between the two, possibly in lieu of roles
17:03:49 <TimCole> ... but can close for now and revisit later.
17:03:52 <TimCole> RESOLUTION: Close https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/98
17:04:12 <TimCole> azaroth: we are adjourned.
17:09:47 <azaroth> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:09:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/11-annotation-minutes.html azaroth
17:52:14 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
18:17:25 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:29:26 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
18:55:14 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
19:02:05 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
19:08:40 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
19:33:45 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
21:09:16 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
21:16:16 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
22:11:30 <danbri> danbri has joined #annotation
22:26:33 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
22:48:58 <oshepherd> oshepherd has joined #annotation