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