IRC log of annotation on 2016-04-29

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:50:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:50:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-irc
14:50:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
14:50:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #annotation
14:50:42 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
14:50:42 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
14:50:43 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:50:43 [trackbot]
Date: 29 April 2016
14:50:53 [ivan]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/061301d1a15f$abff37d0$03fda770$@illinois.edu
14:51:06 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #annotation
14:51:07 [ivan]
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Apr/0104.html
14:51:19 [ivan]
ivan has changed the topic to: agenda call 2016-04-29: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2016Apr/0104.html
14:51:30 [ivan]
chair: Tim
14:51:50 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
14:52:03 [azaroth]
Chair: Tim_Cole, Rob_Sanderson
14:55:40 [TimCole]
TimCole has joined #annotation
14:58:28 [TimCole]
Present+ Tim_Cole
14:58:56 [fjh]
fjh has joined #annotation
14:59:31 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:00:02 [ivan]
present+ Ivan
15:00:24 [fjh]
Present+ Frederick_Hirsch
15:01:04 [ShaneM]
present+
15:01:05 [shepazu]
present+ shepazu
15:01:12 [ShaneM]
zakim, who is here?
15:01:12 [Zakim]
Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, ShaneM, shepazu
15:01:14 [Zakim]
On IRC I see tbdinesh, fjh, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, mete_pinar, ivan, shepazu, csarven, ShaneM, oshepherd, trackbot, stain, aaronpk, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme,
15:01:14 [Zakim]
... bigbluehat, nickstenn, timeless, Loqi, dwhly, tessierashpool_
15:01:15 [fjh]
ScribeNick: fjh
15:01:34 [tbdinesh]
Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:01:37 [fjh]
rrsagent, generate minutes
15:01:37 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:02:14 [dwhly]
Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:02:44 [fjh]
Topic: Scribe Selection, Agenda Review, Announcements
15:03:13 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:04:17 [fjh]
azaroth: first 30 min for agenda followed by f2f and issue for 2nd half
15:04:41 [fjh]
… had call with PING yesterday, will recap
15:04:57 [fjh]
… no changes to agenda noted
15:05:18 [bjdmeest]
Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:05:23 [fjh]
… no announcements, lets discuss iAnnotate under F2F topic
15:05:35 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Minutes approval
15:05:45 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html
15:05:55 [ivan]
+1
15:05:58 [fjh]
RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2016/04/22-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:11 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Testing
15:06:50 [fjh]
azaroth: need to clarify time frames and tasks to be done
15:06:52 [shepazu]
q+
15:06:56 [fjh]
… and who can help
15:07:00 [ShaneM]
q+
15:07:11 [ShaneM]
zakim, who is here?
15:07:11 [Zakim]
Present: Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, ShaneM, shepazu, TB_Dinesh, Dan_Whaley, Ben_De_Meester
15:07:13 [Zakim]
On IRC I see bjdmeest, tbdinesh, fjh, TimCole, azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, mete_pinar, ivan, shepazu, csarven, ShaneM, oshepherd, trackbot, stain, aaronpk, rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme,
15:07:13 [Zakim]
... bigbluehat, nickstenn, timeless, Loqi, dwhly, tessierashpool_
15:07:33 [fjh]
… how to break vocabulary into smaller tests, need proposal and recipie for implementers to participate and contribute new tests
15:07:52 [fjh]
s/recipie/recipe/
15:08:17 [azaroth]
q?
15:08:18 [fjh]
… also who will test implementations when working with other groups
15:08:21 [shepazu]
q- later
15:08:21 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
15:08:25 [azaroth]
ack shepazu
15:08:49 [PaoloCiccarese]
PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:08:57 [azaroth]
ack ShaneM
15:09:23 [fjh]
ShaneM: purpose of w3c testing is to verify for each feature there are at least 2 implementations that support it
15:09:31 [fjh]
actually it is up to group to set the bar
15:09:50 [fjh]
ShaneM: not to certify implementations
15:10:05 [ivan]
+1 to ShaneM
15:10:27 [fjh]
fjh: +1 to ShaneM re not certifying
15:10:40 [fjh]
shepazu: need to run tests on real implementations
15:11:07 [ivan]
q+
15:11:08 [azaroth]
q+ to ask about /other/ means?
15:11:13 [bigbluehat]
in this case don't we test the output of the implementations? their JSON(-LD) serializations of whatever they're storing?
15:11:29 [PaoloCiccarese]
Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:11:59 [fjh]
ShaneM: would like to test output of implementations but also need to test JSON schema, data model representation
15:12:20 [azaroth]
+1 to "representation of the data model" :) that's a nice way to frame it (IMO)
15:12:20 [fjh]
… not to make sure correct
15:12:53 [fjh]
ShaneM: test JSON schema against canned input
15:12:57 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
15:12:59 [fjh]
… 2 kinds of testing
15:13:14 [ivan]
q-
15:13:28 [azaroth]
q?
15:13:34 [fjh]
ShaneM: testing against implementations - need to find them, need to get JSON schema completed
15:13:37 [shepazu]
q+
15:13:45 [azaroth]
ack azaroth
15:13:45 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to ask about /other/ means?
15:15:09 [fjh]
azaroth: what if we create tool for testing but wouldn’t suffice to meet w3c requirements
15:15:29 [fjh]
shepazu: could create annotation bot, e.g. one that finds typos and annotates them
15:15:41 [azaroth]
ack PaoloCiccarese
15:15:51 [ivan]
q+
15:16:07 [bigbluehat]
PaoloCiccarese: yes. you can write it to allow extra properties
15:16:16 [fjh]
PaoloCiccarese: how to we test JSON schema if we have additional properties
15:16:29 [bigbluehat]
it does that by default, in fact
15:16:46 [fjh]
shepazu: can we test the JSON schema and ignore additional material
15:16:48 [TimCole]
So, do we need samples of resources that are meant to be annotated a particular way, and then see if implementations create json-ld that describes the annotation?
15:16:53 [fjh]
azaroth: answer is ye
15:16:56 [fjh]
s/ye/yes
15:17:57 [fjh]
ShaneM: JSON does not know about prefixes, so need to normalize input
15:18:24 [fjh]
bigbluehat: using keynames in anything in profile, more constrained than JSON-LD, require context and ranges for values
15:18:39 [fjh]
… so JSON schema validation should be ok
15:19:07 [fjh]
azaroth: agree
15:19:10 [bigbluehat]
https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#index-of-json-keys
15:19:31 [fjh]
azaroth: if property constraints to false then anything not specified is ok
15:20:27 [bigbluehat]
also: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#model "MUST have 1 or more @context and http://www.w3.org/ns/anno.jsonld MUST be one of them. If there is only one value, then it MUST be provided as a string."
15:20:40 [fjh]
PaoloCiccarese: in general dealing with JSON-LD in JSON environments prefix is handled inconsistently , expanded or not, so what are we going to do
15:21:01 [fjh]
bigbluehat: can use vocabulary how you see fit, for annotation model then have to use key names
15:21:18 [azaroth]
q?
15:21:36 [ivan]
ack shepazu
15:21:45 [PaoloCiccarese]
q+
15:21:46 [fjh]
shepazu: gkellog mentioned framing for normalization
15:21:53 [ShaneM]
unfortunately framing is not mature enough for us to reply upon at this time
15:21:57 [azaroth]
json schema validation with additionalProperties of false: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fge-json-schema-validation-00#page-13
15:22:06 [ShaneM]
at least that is my position
15:22:31 [fjh]
shepazu: we might want to get him on a call
15:22:38 [azaroth]
And the OA json-schema for IDPF: http://www.idpf.org/epub/oa/#h.b2nk2onxjepf
15:22:39 [fjh]
bigbluehat: doing AAA and BBB
15:22:46 [shepazu]
q+
15:23:39 [uskudarli]
uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:23:56 [fjh]
bigbluehat: validate against vocabulary, if web annotation also validate against JSON schema
15:24:01 [fjh]
s/doing AAA and BBB//
15:24:03 [azaroth]
q?
15:24:18 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:24:37 [fjh]
ShaneM: let’s get something working first, if too constraining reduce the constraints
15:25:27 [fjh]
shepazu: need to make sure this works within W3C testing framework, however many if not most implementations cannot use web framework
15:25:35 [fjh]
… so will need manual validation
15:25:55 [tbdinesh]
q+ process for suggesting test cases and validating tests do what they say
15:26:00 [fjh]
… should focus on that first
15:26:04 [PaoloCiccarese]
FYI: In Annotopia I use Framing and then I do custom validation, which I assume can be swapped with JSON Schema pretty easily as long as the framing produces an agreed upon output
15:26:14 [fjh]
… start with a validator
15:26:32 [fjh]
ShaneM: disagree, doing assertion based tests
15:27:08 [fjh]
shepazu: mean doing tests manually, possibly using a web form to enter inputs and get results
15:27:24 [fjh]
ShaneM: web test environment supports that directly, so don’t need to reimplement
15:27:31 [fjh]
shepazu: didn’t realize that, ok
15:27:37 [azaroth]
q?
15:27:47 [fjh]
… lets talk offline to be clear
15:27:48 [azaroth]
q- process
15:27:54 [shepazu]
q-
15:28:11 [azaroth]
q+ re framing
15:28:12 [tbdinesh]
q+ on process for suggesting test cases and validating tests do what they say
15:28:23 [fjh]
ivan: JSON framing not implemented widely so not sure implementions can use, algorithm defined, but not a REC
15:28:45 [fjh]
… JSON schema should not be normative
15:29:07 [ShaneM]
+1 to not making it normative.
15:29:08 [fjh]
… if normative, then need to make sure absolutely consistent with RDF ??
15:29:21 [bigbluehat]
q+
15:29:35 [azaroth]
+1 to Ivan
15:29:39 [fjh]
… if inconsistency between schema and vocabulary, vocabulary wins
15:29:56 [fjh]
s;??;U;
15:30:14 [fjh]
… need someone to work with on schema
15:30:42 [azaroth]
ack PaoloCiccarese
15:31:07 [ivan]
s/RDF U/RDF Vocabulary/
15:31:07 [fjh]
PaoloCiccarese: framing is essential if you do RDF, no way around it
15:31:47 [fjh]
… but starting point is schema validation, can work on first step of pipeline, can create some RDF test case
15:31:57 [fjh]
… happy to be involved
15:32:04 [azaroth]
ack azaroth
15:32:04 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to discuss framing
15:32:05 [bigbluehat]
2 things you should be able to check: "my RDF uses the Annotation Vocabulary correctly" and "my output JSON format is valid Web Annotation Data Model JSON Serialization"
15:32:30 [bigbluehat]
PaoloCiccarese: you may not need to do both (afaik) ^^
15:32:34 [fjh]
azaroth: framing proposal is not that every implementation has to do it, but that test generator has option to use it
15:32:43 [fjh]
ivan: ok with that, Gregg can do it
15:32:54 [fjh]
azaroth: i can work on JSON schema side
15:32:55 [azaroth]
q?
15:32:57 [azaroth]
ack tbdinesh
15:32:57 [Zakim]
tbdinesh, you wanted to comment on process for suggesting test cases and validating tests do what they say
15:33:13 [bigbluehat]
https://github.com/bigbluehat/testing-json-ld <-- this thing
15:33:18 [fjh]
tbdinesh: can make more test cases, what is process for doing this
15:33:25 [fjh]
… what if I want to test multiple targets
15:33:28 [bigbluehat]
these https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/tree/master/web-annotation/tests
15:33:37 [bigbluehat]
happy to move these into the w3c space on GH
15:33:38 [fjh]
… need wiki for tests, so we can look at them, know what they are doing
15:33:42 [fjh]
ivan: agree
15:33:48 [bigbluehat]
PRs welcome ^_^
15:33:54 [fjh]
tbdinesh: need list of needed tests
15:33:54 [azaroth]
ack bigbluehat
15:34:52 [fjh]
bigbluehat: instead of one big JSON schema, use one per MUST, using defaults in JSON schema, see link above
15:35:12 [bigbluehat]
https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld/blob/master/web-annotation/tests/verify-target-present.json
15:35:16 [fjh]
… need to decide some types, string etc
15:35:24 [fjh]
… deal with arrays and streams appropriately
15:35:37 [fjh]
… different approach than giant schema
15:35:48 [bigbluehat]
https://github.com/BigBlueHat/testing-json-ld#screenshot
15:35:48 [azaroth]
In my experience, many small tests is better
15:36:09 [azaroth]
as the mega schema will stop as soon as it hits the first error
15:36:18 [azaroth]
Also there's no distinction between error and warning
15:36:21 [azaroth]
(MUST vs SHOULD)
15:36:29 [azaroth]
so you stop after the first warning even
15:36:37 [tbdinesh]
for example, for motivation renarration i need to define new motivation and then its input validation for those uses
15:36:40 [fjh]
bigbluehat: uses quads, relies on human involvement, but a starting point
15:36:53 [ShaneM]
azaroth: yes. that's how the WPT works
15:36:58 [ShaneM]
atomic tests are key
15:37:05 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Agenda for F2F
15:37:07 [azaroth]
https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/F2F_Berlin_2016
15:37:09 [fjh]
azaroth: contintue this on next call
15:37:22 [fjh]
s/contintue/continue/
15:37:30 [fjh]
azaroth: comments on agenda, proposals?
15:37:38 [ivan]
q+
15:37:44 [TimCole]
q+
15:37:55 [fjh]
… how many observers do we have?
15:38:01 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:38:38 [fjh]
ivan: suggest we change agenda, focus on topics related to going to CR
15:38:45 [fjh]
… if time, include others
15:39:07 [fjh]
… remove client-side APIs, search, robust anchoring etc
15:39:38 [fjh]
… need to close all issues to go to CR, be clear on testing strategy, before going to CR
15:39:42 [azaroth]
+1
15:39:44 [azaroth]
q?
15:39:44 [fjh]
… this is first priority
15:39:46 [azaroth]
ack TimCole
15:40:29 [fjh]
TimCole: agree with Ivan, however suggest meeting in 3rds, 1st afternoon on testing, morning on issues, put otther items we want to do before charter expires as last third
15:40:29 [ivan]
q+
15:40:45 [fjh]
… if we don’t have time then we can slip them to later calls
15:40:53 [fjh]
+1 to TimCole
15:41:31 [azaroth]
ack ivan
15:41:36 [fjh]
… we should break down testing to sub-topics, schema, framing, implementations etc
15:41:58 [azaroth]
and +1 from me too
15:42:03 [fjh]
+1 to ivan’s sugestion to prioritize
15:42:21 [fjh]
s/sugestion/suggestion/
15:42:36 [fjh]
azaroth: will revise agenda, we can discuss next wweek
15:42:43 [fjh]
s/wweek/week/
15:43:26 [TimCole]
q+
15:43:41 [fjh]
dwhly: not much new to report on iAnnotate, planning continues, please attend and remember to register
15:43:49 [azaroth]
Can you drop a link to the registration page?
15:44:02 [fjh]
… lots of participants, about 120, increasing daily, max will be 150
15:44:04 [tbdinesh]
iannotate.org
15:44:28 [fjh]
… remember Sat 1 day developers meeting, sign up for that separately
15:45:04 [fjh]
… working on panel on harrassment and page owner consent over annotation, should be interesting
15:45:11 [fjh]
… Genius will be there
15:46:08 [shepazu]
+1
15:46:24 [fjh]
… +1 to Ivan, however perhaps have some time in F2F to talk about consent, or on a call before, then input into panel discussion
15:46:46 [fjh]
… at iAnnotate, not definitive statement, but suggestions or additional information
15:46:51 [azaroth]
TOPIC: Issues
15:47:06 [TimCole]
ack Ti
15:47:08 [fjh]
issue-195
15:47:08 [trackbot]
Sorry, but issue-195 does not exist.
15:47:37 [fjh]
TimCole: dan do you have material to share
15:47:43 [azaroth]
proposal is: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/195#issuecomment-213490285
15:47:46 [fjh]
dwhly: in progress
15:48:13 [fjh]
TimCole: CR make take precedence over privacy work (?)
15:49:02 [shepazu]
s/CR make take precedence over privacy work (?)/Privacy in CR documents takes precedence over future privacy work/
15:49:07 [fjh]
TimCole: lets look at issue 195
15:49:49 [fjh]
azaroth: selectors and sub-selectors, merged using refined by to allow state or selector, so now question can have both, proposal is yes
15:50:14 [TimCole]
Proposed Recommendation: Accept proposal and close issue #195
15:50:26 [azaroth]
PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Allow a State to be refined by a Selector.
15:50:28 [fjh]
… had support for proposal from Ivan and Jacob, no concerns from anyone
15:50:35 [TimCole]
+1
15:50:38 [ivan]
+1
15:50:38 [azaroth]
+1
15:50:42 [fjh]
+1
15:50:42 [PaoloCiccarese]
+1
15:50:50 [ShaneM]
+0
15:50:51 [bigbluehat]
+1
15:51:00 [fjh]
RESOLUTION: Allow a State to be refined by a Selector.
15:51:02 [tbdinesh]
+1
15:51:10 [ivan]
rrsagent, pointer?
15:51:10 [RRSAgent]
See http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-irc#T15-51-10
15:51:17 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/205
15:51:46 [fjh]
TimCole: should we close
15:51:57 [azaroth]
Agree it's incomplete
15:52:10 [fjh]
ivan: document incomplete now, allow two selectors or states on top level, spec silent on meaning
15:52:40 [fjh]
… refinement covers various use cases
15:53:07 [fjh]
… two means conjuction
15:53:24 [fjh]
s/conjuction/conjunction/
15:53:35 [fjh]
… don’t really like this, could disallow
15:53:44 [fjh]
… my preference
15:53:51 [fjh]
TimCole: take to github
15:54:03 [fjh]
ivan: we had disagreement so we need to decide
15:54:05 [TimCole]
https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/206
15:54:11 [fjh]
TimCole: let’s take it next week
15:54:35 [fjh]
ivan: text position selector is under specfied as noted in the issue
15:54:57 [fjh]
… should we say anything in model about encoding
15:55:16 [ivan]
q+
15:55:20 [fjh]
azaroth: we don’t, agree spec is incomplete, as Takeshi noted as well
15:55:23 [TimCole]
ack iv
15:55:46 [fjh]
ivan: if we use HTML5 then encoding is defined
15:56:02 [ShaneM]
technically it is part of the wrapper
15:56:45 [fjh]
ivan: cannot have our own definition that conflicts with HTML5
15:56:53 [fjh]
… wrapper
15:56:53 [azaroth]
q+
15:57:04 [TimCole]
ack aza
15:57:14 [fjh]
azaroth: Takeshi made web page of various languages and frameworks
15:57:29 [fjh]
… on how dealing with characters
15:58:16 [ivan]
q+
15:58:27 [fjh]
TimCole: Rob, Benjamin, Paolo willing to help with schema issue
15:58:33 [fjh]
… anybody else?
15:58:34 [ShaneM]
me me me
15:58:50 [shepazu]
ShaneM
15:58:51 [shepazu]
shepazu
15:59:07 [fjh]
… ask that group to get something started
15:59:19 [TimCole]
ack iv
15:59:49 [fjh]
ivan: to speed up if others could look at 205, 191 and give opinion
16:00:16 [fjh]
… please work on the list, before call, so we can resolve them. its been 3 weeks
16:00:26 [fjh]
… these are technical?
16:00:47 [fjh]
s/191/206, 191/
16:01:36 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:36 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:01:50 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
16:01:50 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:01:50 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Tim_Cole, Ivan, Frederick_Hirsch, ShaneM, shepazu, TB_Dinesh, Dan_Whaley, Ben_De_Meester, Paolo_Ciccarese
16:01:58 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:58 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/29-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:01:59 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items