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