IRC log of annotation on 2015-11-18
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:39:37 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #annotation
- 15:39:37 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc
- 15:39:39 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:39:39 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #annotation
- 15:39:41 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 2666
- 15:39:41 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
- 15:39:42 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
- 15:39:42 [trackbot]
- Date: 18 November 2015
- 15:39:49 [ivan]
- Chair: Frederick
- 15:43:39 [ivan]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/166ABA05-5380-41F8-B054-AE0EB92D96B1@fjhirsch.com
- 15:54:52 [fjh]
- fjh has joined #annotation
- 15:55:53 [fjh]
- trackbot, start telecon
- 15:55:55 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:55:57 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 2666
- 15:55:57 [Zakim]
- I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
- 15:55:58 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
- 15:55:58 [trackbot]
- Date: 18 November 2015
- 15:56:10 [shepazu]
- present+ shepazu
- 15:56:38 [fjh]
- Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0234.html
- 15:56:54 [fjh]
- fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/0234.html (see members list for logistics)
- 15:57:22 [fjh]
- Regrets+ Rob_Sanderson, Randall_Leeds
- 15:57:30 [fjh]
- Chair: Frederick_Hirsch
- 15:57:33 [fjh]
- Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
- 15:57:47 [fjh]
- Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
- 15:58:12 [fjh]
- Regrets+ Davis_Salisbury
- 15:58:26 [ivan]
- Present+ Ivan
- 15:59:56 [TimCole]
- TimCole has joined #annotation
- 16:03:34 [PaoloCiccarese]
- PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
- 16:04:03 [bigbluehat]
- Present+ Benjamin_Young
- 16:04:26 [PaoloCiccarese]
- Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
- 16:05:04 [fjh]
- ScribeNick: TimCole
- 16:06:04 [fjh]
- Topic: Model - Activity Streams vocabulary
- 16:06:24 [tbdinesh]
- tbdinesh has joined #annotation
- 16:06:41 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: AS vocabulary and AS 2.0 spec is still in process, not currently in a place where we can reference in our model
- 16:07:03 [TimCole]
- ... discussion on github has been mostly about vocabulary and referencing semantics
- 16:07:35 [TimCole]
- ... given our own (Web Anno) deadlines, we may want to do term matching but not referencing or reuse directly in our ontologies
- 16:07:39 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:07:55 [TimCole]
- ... this way we are not dependent on AS publication schedule for our own publication schedule
- 16:08:02 [fjh]
- ack ivan
- 16:08:16 [TimCole]
- ... so proposal is not to reference AS vocabulary directly from our own ontologies.
- 16:08:31 [fjh]
- q+ to ask if we are choosing a set of terms, our own, then provide a mapping
- 16:08:46 [TimCole]
- ivan: is this a postponment or are we just plan not to consider it.
- 16:08:48 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:09:23 [fjh]
- ack fjh
- 16:09:23 [Zakim]
- fjh, you wanted to ask if we are choosing a set of terms, our own, then provide a mapping
- 16:09:30 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: more a postponement. we can look again and either get it in later or add a separate note at end of WG loop.
- 16:09:46 [fjh]
- ack shepazu
- 16:09:51 [TimCole]
- fjh: we will use terms we define and then later if we have time provide a mapping to AS.
- 16:10:02 [fjh]
- benjamin: correct
- 16:10:23 [TimCole]
- shepazu: regardless of schedule, if we try to coordinate terminology, can we do this without slowing us down?
- 16:10:30 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: yes.
- 16:10:57 [TimCole]
- shepazu: is discussion just about terminology, or also about structures?
- 16:11:27 [TimCole]
- ... there has been some talk in the past about coming up with a serialization of Web annotation within a AS structure
- 16:11:31 [ivan]
- present+ dinesh
- 16:12:30 [TimCole]
- ... will this idea survive into our new spec? Do we need to abstract model 1 level higher so that the terminology we use for Web annotation could occur in AS structure
- 16:12:30 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:12:33 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: defer defining mapping of Annotation terms with Activity Streams term ot later Note, currently continue with Annotation terms in use
- 16:12:47 [fjh]
- q+
- 16:13:00 [ivan]
- q-
- 16:13:02 [fjh]
- ack ivan
- 16:13:07 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: while we have talked about this a bit, it's not been written up in an issue to date.
- 16:13:34 [fjh]
- ack fjh
- 16:13:34 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:13:34 [TimCole]
- fjh: Doug, could you write this up as a separate issue and proposal.
- 16:13:38 [TimCole]
- +1
- 16:13:39 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:13:51 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: defer defining mapping of Annotation terms with Activity Streams term ot later Note, currently continue with Annotation terms in use
- 16:14:13 [fjh]
- rrsagent, where am i
- 16:14:13 [RRSAgent]
- I'm logging. I don't understand 'where am i', fjh. Try /msg RRSAgent help
- 16:14:15 [takeshi]
- takeshi has joined #annotation
- 16:14:17 [TimCole]
- ivan: then can Benjamin close the issue on github?
- 16:14:22 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:14:22 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: yes.
- 16:14:28 [fjh]
- Topic: 1 or more roles, issue 104
- 16:14:30 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:14:30 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-14-30
- 16:14:39 [fjh]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/104
- 16:15:26 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: this is about matching roles and motivation, such that you can use multiple roles like you can use multiple motivations
- 16:15:32 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: adopt 1 or more roles per issue 104 proposal
- 16:15:32 [ivan]
- =1
- 16:15:34 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:15:37 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:15:38 [TimCole]
- ... discussion on email list has been positive
- 16:15:40 [TimCole]
- +1
- 16:15:42 [fjh]
- +1
- 16:15:49 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:15:49 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-15-49
- 16:15:49 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: adopt 1 or more roles per issue 104 proposal
- 16:15:51 [PaoloCiccarese]
- +1
- 16:16:09 [TimCole]
- ivan: I will close the issue now
- 16:16:20 [fjh]
- Topic: Model license property
- 16:16:28 [fjh]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/100
- 16:16:34 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:16:38 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: adopt license property per issue 100 proposal
- 16:16:56 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: license proposal had no detractors on github.
- 16:17:14 [fjh]
- q?
- 16:17:15 [TimCole]
- ... proposal is just to use dc property to provide link to license
- 16:17:30 [fjh]
- I suggest editorial discretion for placing in document
- 16:17:48 [fjh]
- ack shepazu
- 16:17:48 [TimCole]
- ... so we just need to focus on the license key to use on annotation and objects within the annotation
- 16:19:06 [TimCole]
- shepazu: concerned that multiple role may complicate things, e.g., you have to process more than a single value, now have to process a structure
- 16:19:26 [TimCole]
- ... will encourage user agents to make multiple roles, etc.
- 16:19:45 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: adopt license property per issue 100 proposal
- 16:19:50 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:19:50 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-19-50
- 16:19:53 [fjh]
- Topic: back to roles
- 16:21:00 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: would vote to defer multiple role discussion to later call to give time for Doug to raise concerns about multiple roles
- 16:21:29 [TimCole]
- ivan: multiple roles issue has been re-opened
- 16:22:03 [fjh]
- RESOLUTION: keep role issue per 104 open to give more time to discuss concerns about structure
- 16:22:11 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: keep role issue per 104 open to give more time to discuss concerns about structure
- 16:22:16 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:22:16 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-22-16
- 16:22:34 [fjh]
- Topic: issue 96
- 16:22:43 [fjh]
- ) https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/96
- 16:22:43 [fjh]
- modified property, make RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96 proposal (if agreed etc)
- 16:22:52 [fjh]
- s/) //
- 16:22:54 [TimCole]
- fjh: issue 96 ties into another issue
- 16:22:55 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:23:48 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: discussion around modify went beyond what the property should be to talk about how to handle issues around annotations moving around (issue 21)
- 16:24:04 [fjh]
- https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/21
- 16:24:16 [PaoloCiccarese]
- q+
- 16:24:20 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: propose for issue 96 whether we should include a modify property as a should in the model
- 16:24:26 [bigbluehat]
- ack shepazu
- 16:24:44 [TimCole]
- shepazu: still reading through this issue
- 16:25:28 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: summarizing: we have a created property on Annotation, proposal is to add an additional property to express last modified date in order to record changes
- 16:25:45 [TimCole]
- shepazu: effectively date created and date modified
- 16:26:10 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: standard date format, as used in html 5
- 16:26:57 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: my proposal would defer to later call the discussion about annotations that have been moved and how to associate replies and so on as annotations move
- 16:27:28 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96
- 16:27:33 [TimCole]
- shepazu: okay, fine with proposal to add date modified and defer movement of annotations
- 16:27:51 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:27:53 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:28:05 [PaoloCiccarese]
- q+
- 16:28:31 [fjh]
- ack PaoloCiccarese
- 16:28:39 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: adopt dcterms:modified property per issue 96
- 16:28:42 [ivan]
- rrsagent, pointer?
- 16:28:42 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-irc#T16-28-42
- 16:29:29 [TimCole]
- paolo: reason why these got conflated is because once you allow last-modified it does open up multiple related issues
- 16:30:21 [TimCole]
- ... so consider a case where annotation is created offline on reader, then it gets transfered to my desktop, then I edit the annotation, then I put it on the Web so how is this handled as to created / modified.
- 16:30:34 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:30:58 [TimCole]
- ... there now may be multiple copies of the annotation, different even though they appear to have the same URI.
- 16:30:59 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:31:16 [fjh]
- Topic: Annotation updated timestamp/alsoKnownAs, `id` / `uuid`, alsoKnownAs, offline annotations
- 16:31:43 [TimCole]
- ivan: we are on a new topic -- these need to be in a new issue(s)
- 16:32:31 [TimCole]
- ... the whole issue of how identifiers interact with date modified, while important to talk about is separate from what key we use for date modified.
- 16:32:53 [PaoloCiccarese]
- q+
- 16:32:54 [TimCole]
- ... there is a concern that this could inflate to a long, range-14 issue
- 16:33:01 [ivan]
- ack ivan
- 16:33:12 [fjh]
- ack shepazu
- 16:33:38 [TimCole]
- shepazu: note, it's useful to think about what updated means in the context of the scenario Paolo raised
- 16:34:00 [fjh]
- we probably should start with looking at offline annotations, how to identify and relate to online annotations
- 16:34:02 [TimCole]
- ... does updated mean that the annotation published somewhere else or does it mean that the content of the annotation changed?
- 16:34:07 [fjh]
- this should be its own issue
- 16:34:16 [TimCole]
- ... personally I think it should be more about the latter
- 16:34:27 [fjh]
- semantics are at the application layer?
- 16:34:33 [fjh]
- q?
- 16:34:34 [ivan]
- +1 to doug
- 16:34:54 [TimCole]
- ... and the issue of 2 people refering to the same URI but meaning different annotations is probably not something this WG can solve
- 16:35:23 [TimCole]
- paolo: it has to be crystal clear what we mean when we change the date modified
- 16:35:28 [fjh]
- versioning is another issue, e.g. what happens if a typo if fixed in an annotation
- 16:36:07 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:36:12 [ivan]
- ack PaoloCiccarese
- 16:36:13 [TimCole]
- ... if you take an annotation that exists and it's not your annotation, you should not change it and then republished with the same URI - bad practice
- 16:36:38 [TimCole]
- ... so we should provide guidance like this explicitly when defining purpose and use of date published
- 16:36:50 [TimCole]
- shepazu: totally agree
- 16:37:05 [fjh]
- use case for discussion - annotation sharing
- 16:37:05 [TimCole]
- ... this has relevance for how we talk about sharing in our specs
- 16:37:23 [bigbluehat]
- let's make more issues ^_^
- 16:37:31 [fjh]
- ack ivan
- 16:37:34 [fjh]
- q+
- 16:37:43 [TimCole]
- ivan: wondering how best to move forward on this
- 16:38:20 [TimCole]
- ... if my understanding of what Paolo is saying, then we probably need some non-normative text in spec (since we can't check it)
- 16:38:33 [TimCole]
- ... could Paolo come up with samples of what that text might look like
- 16:38:55 [TimCole]
- paolo: yes, that's an appropriate way to go, but may need to resolve issue 21 first?
- 16:39:24 [TimCole]
- ivan: it may be just as valid to come up with the text first to provide a framework for how we address issue 21.
- 16:39:50 [TimCole]
- ... this may help keep us from going into an infinite loop over issue 21.
- 16:39:56 [TimCole]
- paolo: oaky.
- 16:39:56 [bigbluehat]
- +1 to getting it all written up somewhere soon
- 16:40:03 [TimCole]
- s /oaky/okay/
- 16:40:25 [fjh]
- ack q?
- 16:40:27 [fjh]
- q-
- 16:40:35 [PaoloCiccarese]
- q+
- 16:40:50 [TimCole]
- fjh: how does this all relate to the offline / online issues when creating annotations?
- 16:40:54 [fjh]
- ack PaoloCiccarese
- 16:41:06 [TimCole]
- bigbluehat: yes, we need to address this
- 16:41:11 [bigbluehat]
- agree with where PaoloCiccarese is heading ;)
- 16:41:19 [bigbluehat]
- it's shepazu's "sharing" scenarios also
- 16:41:30 [bigbluehat]
- "movement of annotations around (and off/on) the Web"
- 16:41:57 [TimCole]
- paolo: but I also think about annotation storage, repositories, but once in storage someone can now re-publish and do things with these annotations
- 16:42:19 [bigbluehat]
- +1 to what PaoloCiccarese just said
- 16:42:32 [fjh]
- q+
- 16:42:34 [TimCole]
- ... so this is where problem of identity comes in and where being explicity about what can be / should be done with annotations that have been aggregated / stored.
- 16:42:45 [TimCole]
- shepazu: yes, this is an important issue.
- 16:43:20 [TimCole]
- paolo: saying that offline / online is not a complete characterization.
- 16:44:21 [fjh]
- online annotations can also go offline, be collected etc, leading to similar issues
- 16:44:23 [TimCole]
- ... once annotations that have been online go into storage they may not be retrievable and if I do things to the annotation while in storage (url is now uri) and then republish, I may create problems
- 16:44:33 [TimCole]
- ... so this is more than just update / modify
- 16:45:11 [TimCole]
- shepazu: it's deeper than just sharing, we need to address (at least talk about these scenarios)
- 16:45:20 [fjh]
- number of possibilites where URL cannot be used, purchased annotations, collected etc
- 16:45:28 [TimCole]
- ivan: can anything be put into the standard that would normatively control what's allowed?
- 16:46:37 [TimCole]
- paolo: not a lot without becoming infinitely complex, but we still need to address in a non-normative way
- 16:46:53 [shepazu]
- q+
- 16:46:56 [fjh]
- q-
- 16:47:04 [TimCole]
- ivan: for example this is main reason why provenance model is so complex
- 16:47:16 [TimCole]
- paolo: yes, this was my experience on Domeo
- 16:47:35 [fjh]
- ack shepazu
- 16:47:47 [TimCole]
- ... when you consider semantics it gets even more complex
- 16:48:11 [TimCole]
- ... happy to cut the normative part as thin as possible, but having non-normative will help
- 16:48:15 [fjh]
- +1
- 16:48:44 [TimCole]
- shepazu: would like to add that just because we can't control what someone does out in the wild, doesn't mean we can't make the spec on this normative
- 16:49:06 [fjh]
- doug makes valuable point that conformance target could be authoring tool
- 16:49:08 [TimCole]
- ... it's a conformance criteria on the authoring tool (rather than just the model itself)
- 16:49:24 [fjh]
- q?
- 16:49:27 [TimCole]
- ... it will help people know (or be told) that they are doing it wrong.
- 16:49:58 [TimCole]
- ivan: the example for what you suggest is the normative text on how you are supposed to use the data- attributes in HTML 5
- 16:50:10 [TimCole]
- ... I think these are normative, but may not be testable.
- 16:50:19 [TimCole]
- paolo: I would be okay with that approach.
- 16:50:28 [fjh]
- +1 to doug
- 16:51:05 [TimCole]
- shepazu: we have different conformance criteria for different agents, so we should be okay as long as we make clear conformance is on the authoring agents.
- 16:51:24 [fjh]
- Topic: Minutes Approval
- 16:51:31 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 11 Nov approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/att-0203/minutes-2015-11-11.html
- 16:52:47 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: Minutes from 11 Nov approved, https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Nov/att-0203/minutes-2015-11-11.html
- 16:52:52 [fjh]
- Topic: Meetings
- 16:53:58 [fjh]
- proposed RESOLUTION: No call next 25 Nov (US Thanksgiving)
- 16:54:06 [TimCole]
- RESOLUTION: No call next 25 Nov (US Thanksgiving)
- 16:54:35 [fjh]
- Topic: Other Business
- 16:54:59 [TimCole]
- shepazu: talking with browser vendors about potential implementation of our data model
- 16:55:04 [fjh]
- Doug, Ivan can help with call after next week
- 16:55:11 [TimCole]
- ... also reaching out to content vendors
- 16:55:15 [TimCole]
- q+
- 16:55:25 [fjh]
- ack TimCole
- 16:55:52 [TimCole]
- adjourn
- 16:55:56 [fjh]
- Topic: Adjourn
- 16:56:30 [ivan]
- Present+ takeshi
- 16:56:39 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:56:39 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html ivan
- 16:56:55 [ivan]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 16:56:55 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 16:56:55 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been shepazu, Frederick_Hirsch, Ivan, Benjamin_Young, Paolo_Ciccarese, dinesh, takeshi
- 16:57:03 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 16:57:03 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/11/18-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
- 16:57:04 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:57:04 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items