IRC log of annotation on 2015-02-04

Timestamps are in UTC.

15:10:45 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #annotation
15:10:45 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/04-annotation-irc
15:10:47 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:10:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #annotation
15:10:49 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be 2666
15:10:49 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM scheduled to start in 50 minutes
15:10:50 [trackbot]
Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
15:10:50 [trackbot]
Date: 04 February 2015
15:12:02 [shepazu]
ivan, kinda jumping the gun, aren't you?
15:19:03 [shepazu]
:)
15:51:23 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:57:07 [RayD]
RayD has joined #annotation
15:57:35 [Zakim]
DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has now started
15:57:42 [Zakim]
+ +1.201.236.aaaa
15:57:48 [Kyrce]
Kyrce has joined #annotation
16:00:20 [Jacob]
Jacob has joined #annotation
16:00:42 [ivan]
zakim, dial ivan-voip
16:00:42 [Zakim]
ok, ivan; the call is being made
16:00:43 [Zakim]
+Ivan
16:01:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.202.707.aabb
16:01:02 [ivan]
Present: Ivan_Herman
16:01:14 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:01:23 [nickstenn]
Zakim: IPcaller is me
16:01:29 [bjdmeest]
bjdmeest has joined #annotation
16:01:29 [Zakim]
+ +1.217.300.aacc
16:01:30 [Zakim]
+Doug_Schepers
16:01:30 [ivan]
zakim, aabb is Rayd
16:01:30 [Zakim]
+Rayd; got it
16:01:36 [nickstenn]
Zakim: [IPcaller] is me
16:01:39 [nickstenn]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
16:01:40 [Zakim]
+nickstenn; got it
16:01:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.617.768.aadd
16:01:46 [ivan]
zakim, who is noisy?
16:01:47 [paoloC]
paoloC has joined #annotation
16:01:47 [shepazu]
Zakim, who's noisy?
16:01:59 [Zakim]
ivan, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rayd (78%), nickstenn (8%)
16:02:01 [Zakim]
+[Ugent]
16:02:07 [bjdmeest]
zakim, Ugent is me
16:02:07 [Zakim]
+bjdmeest; got it
16:02:08 [Zakim]
+ +1.434.971.aaee
16:02:12 [Zakim]
shepazu, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rayd (50%)
16:02:20 [bjdmeest]
Present+ Ben_De_Meester
16:02:22 [ivan]
zakim, aacc is TimCole
16:02:22 [Zakim]
+TimCole; got it
16:02:31 [RayD]
present+ Ray_Denenberg
16:02:32 [ivan]
Present+ Tim_Cole
16:02:37 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
16:02:37 [Zakim]
On the phone I see +1.201.236.aaaa, Ivan, Rayd, nickstenn, TimCole, Doug_Schepers, +1.617.768.aadd, bjdmeest, +1.434.971.aaee
16:02:38 [Jacob]
present+ Jacob_Jett
16:02:40 [Zakim]
On IRC I see paoloC, bjdmeest, Jacob, Kyrce, RayD, tbdinesh, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, tripu, renoirb, MarkS, bigbluehat, shepazu, JakeHart, dwhly, rhiaro, oshepherd_, nickstenn,
16:02:40 [Zakim]
... stain, KevinMarks, trackbot
16:02:51 [Bill_Kasdorf]
Bill_Kasdorf has joined #annotation
16:02:52 [Kyrce]
aaaa is me
16:02:59 [ivan]
zakim, aaee is David_Salisbury
16:02:59 [Zakim]
+David_Salisbury; got it
16:03:13 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
16:03:21 [Zakim]
+ +1.864.787.aaff
16:03:21 [Kyrce]
zakim, aaaa is Kyrce
16:03:22 [Zakim]
+Kyrce; got it
16:03:22 [Zakim]
+Bill_Kasdorf
16:03:31 [shepazu]
Zakim, who's noisy?
16:03:37 [bigbluehat]
Zakim: aaff is me
16:03:40 [Mitar]
Mitar has joined #annotation
16:03:42 [Zakim]
shepazu, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Rayd (6%), David_Salisbury (18%)
16:03:43 [bigbluehat]
Zakim: aaff is bigbluehat
16:03:47 [bigbluehat]
...still
16:03:51 [ivan]
zakim, who is here?
16:03:52 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Kyrce, Ivan, Rayd, nickstenn, TimCole, Doug_Schepers, +1.617.768.aadd, bjdmeest, David_Salisbury, [IPcaller], +1.864.787.aaff, Bill_Kasdorf
16:03:55 [Zakim]
On IRC I see Mitar, Bill_Kasdorf, paoloC, bjdmeest, Jacob, Kyrce, RayD, tbdinesh, Zakim, RRSAgent, ivan, tripu, renoirb, MarkS, bigbluehat, shepazu, JakeHart, dwhly, rhiaro,
16:03:55 [Zakim]
... oshepherd_, nickstenn, stain, KevinMarks, trackbot
16:04:03 [shepazu]
Zakim, aaff is bigbluehat
16:04:04 [Zakim]
+bigbluehat; got it
16:04:04 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller.a]
16:04:07 [tbdinesh]
zakin, [ipcaller] is me
16:04:11 [bigbluehat]
heh... comma vs. colon
16:04:15 [RayD]
I just muted so there should be no noise
16:04:23 [bigbluehat]
:-P
16:04:23 [ivan]
zakim, ipcaller is tbdinesh
16:04:23 [Zakim]
+tbdinesh; got it
16:04:57 [Matt_Haas]
Matt_Haas has joined #annotation
16:05:12 [ivan]
zakim, pick a victim
16:05:12 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Doug_Schepers
16:05:14 [csillag]
csillag has joined #annotation
16:05:39 [ivan]
zakim, pick a victim
16:05:39 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose tbdinesh
16:05:49 [Zakim]
+Matt_Haas
16:06:05 [Matt_Haas]
present+ Matt_Haas
16:06:15 [ivan]
Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUHAyuepzjpjnz1rRY+inah4ZLQCQHAAjkXCtr+93eVevA@mail.gmail.com
16:06:19 [ivan]
scribenick: nickstenn
16:06:29 [ivan]
Topic: minutes approval
16:06:43 [ivan]
mintues : http://www.w3.org/2015/01/28-annotation-minutes.html
16:06:55 [nickstenn]
RESOLUTION: minutes approved
16:06:59 [ivan]
Topic: Use cases
16:07:06 [takeshi]
takeshi has joined #annotation
16:07:37 [nickstenn]
paoloC: benjamin and I have been discussing the latest use cases, related to reviews
16:07:47 [nickstenn]
... we added a page called "reviews as annotation"
16:07:52 [Zakim]
+??P20
16:07:58 [nickstenn]
... essentially related to a user that wants to review a particular resource
16:08:11 [csillag]
Zakim, +??P20 is me
16:08:11 [Zakim]
sorry, csillag, I do not recognize a party named '+??P20'
16:08:13 [nickstenn]
... we should allow for mechanisms such as aggregations of reviews of a single resource from multiple places
16:08:37 [ivan]
zakim, P20 is csillag
16:08:37 [Zakim]
sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named 'P20'
16:08:37 [nickstenn]
... this brought up the topic of motivations, which is later on today's agenda
16:08:45 [ivan]
zakim, ?P20 is csillag
16:08:45 [Zakim]
sorry, ivan, I do not recognize a party named '?P20'
16:08:59 [paoloC]
https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Reviews_as_Annotation
16:09:07 [nickstenn]
... in this specific case the presence of a proper review motivation could allow for searching and filtering
16:09:11 [nickstenn]
bigbluehat: could we hear from RayD?
16:09:15 [ivan]
q?
16:09:37 [nickstenn]
RayD: I didn't quite understand how the motivation solves the query problem
16:09:54 [nickstenn]
paoloC: motivation would address the issue that you have different kinds of annotation on a given resource (comments, +1, pictures, etc.)
16:10:12 [nickstenn]
... but a "reviewing" annotation would provide the ability to filter down to only those which are reviews
16:10:24 [nickstenn]
RayD: absolutely, but how do we even find all the annotations in the first place?
16:10:38 [nickstenn]
paoloC: this sounds like it could be a requirement for the protocol part
16:11:06 [shepazu]
q+
16:11:08 [nickstenn]
RayD: there may be a need for a mechanism where if I create an annotation on a resource then I can notify that server [of the resource] that I created that annotation
16:11:09 [Jacob]
So I'm confused, is this a question about querying and retrieval results or one of aggregation?
16:11:14 [ivan]
q?
16:11:37 [nickstenn]
... otherwise if I'm a user and I want to get all the annotations for a given resource I need to know where they are before I can query with them
16:12:07 [nickstenn]
paoloC: this covers quite a lot -- possibly federation of annotations, notification of publishers that an annotation has been created, etc.
16:12:12 [Bill_Kasdorf]
q+
16:12:15 [ivan]
ack shepazu
16:12:26 [nickstenn]
shepazu: I acknowledge that this is a useful piece of functionality.
16:12:29 [raphael]
raphael has joined #annotation
16:12:37 [nickstenn]
... and this group can try to provide mechanisms that make some aspects of this easier
16:12:47 [nickstenn]
... but it's not a solveable problem in terms of standards
16:13:00 [RayD]
disagree that it is not a solvable problem
16:13:07 [nickstenn]
... at most we can provide mechanisms
16:13:13 [Zakim]
+ +33.4.93.00.aagg
16:13:16 [nickstenn]
... but those mechanisms don't in and of themselves solve the problem
16:13:27 [nickstenn]
... the ecosystem that makes use of the mechanisms will do that
16:13:45 [ivan]
q?
16:13:53 [nickstenn]
... to take the example -- we should provide a mechanism for notifying page authors that annotations have been created about their pages
16:13:54 [RayD]
+q
16:14:03 [csillag]
zaki, P20 is csillag
16:14:13 [csillag]
zakim, P20 is csillag
16:14:13 [Zakim]
sorry, csillag, I do not recognize a party named 'P20'
16:14:18 [nickstenn]
... but if you're looking for a review of a paper that you're not the publisher of -- that doesn't mean that the publisher will reveal that information
16:15:26 [nickstenn]
... there could be another mechanism -- you could, for example, watch a given page ... but it's difficult to see how with a decentralised architecture we'll be able to design a mechanism which allows you track all annotations anywhere
16:15:43 [ivan]
ack Bill_Kasdorf
16:16:21 [ivan]
ack RayD
16:16:29 [shepazu]
+1 to Bill_Kasdorf
16:16:37 [MGU]
MGU has joined #annotation
16:16:37 [nickstenn]
Bill_Kasdorf: to avoid the complications that could be implied by this use case, it could be useful to restrict the use cases to refer to a particular group or set of annotations
16:16:47 [nickstenn]
RayD: I think shepazu may be overcomplicating the issue
16:16:54 [bigbluehat]
+q
16:16:56 [nickstenn]
... as far as I'm concerned we're talking about mechanism
16:17:13 [nickstenn]
... if the mechanism is provided, then in my book the problem is solved
16:17:20 [ivan]
ack bigbluehat
16:17:27 [nickstenn]
... if a publisher refuses to republish, that's a problem that is clearly out of scope for the WG
16:18:25 [ivan]
+1 to bigbluehat
16:18:26 [nickstenn]
bigbluehat: something that I think would help as paoloC and I collate use cases, is if the use cases could specify which piece of the standards processes they're addressed towards (from model, protocol, interface, etc.)
16:18:38 [shepazu]
q+
16:18:47 [ivan]
ack shepazu
16:19:06 [Zakim]
+??P4
16:19:13 [MGU]
Zakim, ??P4 is MGU
16:19:13 [Zakim]
+MGU; got it
16:19:46 [nickstenn]
shepazu: there could well be different protocols here
16:19:57 [nickstenn]
... activity streams and LDP are different protocols for different use cases
16:20:02 [paoloC]
q+
16:20:19 [ivan]
ack paoloC
16:20:21 [nickstenn]
ivan: we may end up with use cases that we cannot solve in this group, and that's ok
16:20:43 [nickstenn]
paoloC: as our problem is categorization -- search is one of the issues, notification, discovery, etc.
16:21:07 [nickstenn]
q+
16:22:07 [nickstenn]
... protocol can be multiple protocols
16:22:10 [ivan]
ack nickstenn
16:22:12 [ivan]
q+
16:22:12 [nickstenn]
... should we split protocol into "search", "notification", etc
16:22:17 [shepazu]
(I'm assuming that the query would be querying a specific web resource, which may be an aggregator from multiple resources)
16:22:45 [bigbluehat]
https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Use_Cases#List
16:22:48 [bigbluehat]
we're using tag ^^
16:22:55 [bigbluehat]
s/tag/tags
16:23:15 [bigbluehat]
+q
16:23:20 [ivan]
q-
16:23:47 [ivan]
ack bigbluehat
16:24:07 [nickstenn]
nickstenn: two things -- nervous about strictly categorising use cases
16:24:37 [nickstenn]
... and yes, we should certainly consider splitting up the protocol, but perhaps not into the smallest possible pieces -- it's a question of the technical tradeoffs
16:24:38 [shepazu]
+1 to have use cases apply to multiple deliverables, though I think there's value in being organizational
16:24:55 [ivan]
q?
16:25:07 [nickstenn]
bigbluehat: the categorisation isn't strict -- they're just tags that flag up which deliverables a particular use case might cover
16:25:09 [nickstenn]
good good, just checking :)
16:25:43 [shepazu]
+1
16:26:07 [nickstenn]
paoloC: should we provide an example of how a "review" annotation could be modelled with the current model?
16:26:23 [nickstenn]
bigbluehat: absolutely we should try to provide examples
16:26:45 [nickstenn]
... separately i think the "reviews as annotations" use case probably has multiple different use cases wrapped up within it
16:27:21 [RayD]
+q
16:27:28 [nickstenn]
Topic: Protocol
16:27:31 [ivan]
Topic: protocols
16:27:43 [ivan]
ack RayD
16:28:23 [ivan]
scribenick: RayD
16:28:33 [shepazu]
https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Feb/0040.html
16:28:47 [nickstenn]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
16:29:06 [RayD]
rob has put together an early draft of what the protocol should look like discusses a REST API
16:29:25 [RayD]
for operations on annotations, referencing LDP
16:30:16 [RayD]
to enable interoperability and Nick raised issue that the draft spec is a compromise between two points of view
16:30:55 [RayD]
bulk users - interet archives, on one hand, and on the other hand user facing clients
16:31:01 [shepazu]
(academic and scientific services)
16:31:25 [RayD]
quite different needs. larget ones place higher importance on interoperability
16:31:45 [ivan]
q+
16:31:46 [shepazu]
+1 to nickstenn's categorization
16:32:05 [RayD]
proposal - split these two and consider the protocols separately.
16:32:22 [ivan]
ack me
16:33:06 [paoloC]
+1
16:33:10 [paoloC]
q+
16:33:11 [nickstenn]
q+
16:33:20 [RayD]
Ivan: understand what you say. if you have a client, fact that client might not use the protocol is normal
16:33:37 [RayD]
issue comes up when you need to share annotations.
16:33:43 [ivan]
ack paoloC
16:33:43 [ivan]
q?
16:34:33 [RayD]
Paolo: require client to buy in to the protocol. server supports one protocol
16:35:07 [RayD]
hard to ask developers to jump on to technologies they're not familiar with.
16:35:25 [ivan]
ack nickstenn
16:35:29 [RayD]
each client will have it's own way of doing things.
16:36:05 [RayD]
nick: happy with us choosing to focus on the interoperability protocol.
16:36:08 [Jacob]
q+
16:36:27 [ivan]
ack Jacob
16:36:29 [RayD]
bulk data stores will need a way to to bulk annotations
16:37:11 [RayD]
tim: is there anything we can learn from other groups? other contexts?
16:37:56 [RayD]
ivan: comparison with CSV - don't see connection.
16:38:23 [paoloC]
q+
16:38:35 [RayD]
don't need to use protocol if don't care abut interoperability
16:38:59 [ivan]
ack paoloC
16:39:32 [RayD]
paolo: client to server protocol for guidance to new users.
16:39:43 [ivan]
q+
16:39:55 [RayD]
been looking at nicks work, inspiring, but not everyone's going to do that
16:40:15 [RayD]
interoperability not just a matter of protocol, also a matter of model.
16:40:41 [RayD]
annotation has to be formed so that it is understandable.
16:40:50 [ivan]
ack ivan
16:40:52 [nickstenn]
q+
16:40:53 [RayD]
i.e can't just stick it in a pdf
16:41:23 [RayD]
ivan: wonder how client side API comes into picture and how do two relate.
16:41:27 [ivan]
ack nickstenn
16:41:48 [RayD]
nick: closing word. won't address question about client side.
16:42:12 [RayD]
concerned about how we define interoperability. Paolo's definition might be too broad.
16:42:37 [RayD]
interoperability means two people reading the spec can talk to each other.
16:42:54 [ivan]
Topic: Data Model
16:43:00 [ivan]
scribenick: nickstenn
16:43:40 [tbdinesh]
tbdinesh has joined #annotation
16:43:46 [nickstenn]
ivan: there's a discussion about verbs vs nouns for motivations
16:43:58 [nickstenn]
paoloC: we had these discussions many times in Open Annotation
16:44:07 [nickstenn]
... most annotation systems talked about "types"
16:44:15 [nickstenn]
... we moved away from "types" to "motivations"
16:44:51 [nickstenn]
... [who?] introduced the concepts of "goals" and "expectations" into Annotation Ontology
16:45:14 [RayD]
+q
16:45:22 [nickstenn]
... in this framework the type was a noun, goals and expectations were all nouns
16:45:23 [Jacob]
Bob Morris at Harvard
16:45:29 [Jacob]
is the who
16:45:37 [nickstenn]
... but they were all different
16:45:41 [nickstenn]
s/[who?]/Bob Morris at Harvard/
16:46:11 [nickstenn]
... not sure why expectations didn't make it into the model, but we picked up motivations from SKOS
16:46:23 [nickstenn]
... we did go back and forth between nouns and verbs multiple times
16:46:41 [nickstenn]
... but overall I don't really mind -- these are just concepts with labels
16:46:49 [Bill_Kasdorf]
+1 to types as nouns and motivations as verbs
16:47:08 [Bill_Kasdorf]
. . . and that types are locally defined
16:47:48 [ivan]
q?
16:47:58 [Jacob]
q+
16:48:34 [paoloC]
q+
16:49:06 [ivan]
ack RayD
16:49:07 [nickstenn]
TimCole: nouns for types makes a lot of sense, but motivations seemed like a special case of type that we wanted to keep "pure" -- there are so many meanings of rdf:type, and we didn't want to pollute the motivation namespace with those uses
16:49:18 [Jacob]
q-
16:49:44 [nickstenn]
RayD: for what it's worth, the current motivations aren't actually verbs, they are nouns -- gerunds.
16:50:18 [nickstenn]
... my proposal was not to suggest that we go back to RDF classes/types, but simply to go to the verb infinitive form rather than the gerund form
16:50:58 [nickstenn]
... what is substantive here is that I want to be able to filter "reviewing" annotations as a narrower class than a comment
16:51:15 [ivan]
ack paoloC
16:51:37 [nickstenn]
paoloC: we can always attach multiple motivations
16:51:40 [Jacob]
+1 for Ray's infinitive suggestion
16:51:52 [nickstenn]
... and thus can query using SKOS
16:51:57 [Jacob]
or really +2 I guess...
16:52:53 [nickstenn]
... on a personal note the addition of "-ing" on the end of each motivation did seem like a bit much
16:53:07 [nickstenn]
... although I'd probably lean towards the short form
16:53:58 [paoloC]
q+
16:54:03 [bigbluehat]
put the bikes in the shed and close the door...ignore the color ;)
16:54:15 [ivan]
ack paoloC
16:54:22 [nickstenn]
s/put the bikes in the shed and close the door...ignore the color ;)//
16:55:03 [shepazu]
q+
16:55:07 [nickstenn]
paoloC: i would just say that unless someone feels incredibly strongly we should probably not change them
16:55:11 [nickstenn]
... after all we're not going to be creating these annotations by hand
16:55:13 [ivan]
ack shepazu
16:55:33 [shepazu]
q+
16:55:37 [shepazu]
http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
16:55:45 [ivan]
ack shepazu
16:55:49 [shepazu]
https://plus.google.com/u/0/113218107235105855584/posts/cx1C2LVxe8D?cfem=1
16:56:07 [nickstenn]
shepazu: I got a weird message on G+ [see above]
16:56:07 [nickstenn]
s/weird //
16:56:21 [raphael]
For what is worth, I don't think we should discuss the naming of the motivations any further, and that we should not change their current naming
16:56:52 [nickstenn]
... the message raises a question about the protocol that's been published as a FPWD
16:57:11 [nickstenn]
... but it hasn't been approved for publication so it needs to be changed to an editor's draft
16:57:48 [nickstenn]
... are we inclined to published this right away?
16:58:13 [nickstenn]
nickstenn: I don't think Rob was suggesting that it was even close to ready for publication
16:58:24 [nickstenn]
ivan: AOB?
16:59:39 [Bill_Kasdorf]
We need to add a motivation: plagiarism
16:59:47 [raphael]
+1
16:59:57 [Jacob]
+1
17:00:05 [Bill_Kasdorf]
Sorry, verb form: plagiarize
17:00:31 [Zakim]
-Rayd
17:00:32 [Zakim]
-raphael
17:00:33 [Zakim]
-David_Salisbury
17:00:33 [MGU]
MGU has left #annotation
17:00:34 [Zakim]
-Kyrce
17:00:34 [Zakim]
-TimCole
17:00:35 [Zakim]
-nickstenn
17:00:37 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller.a]
17:00:39 [Zakim]
-Ivan
17:00:39 [Zakim]
-bigbluehat
17:00:39 [Zakim]
-bjdmeest
17:00:40 [Zakim]
-Bill_Kasdorf
17:00:43 [ivan]
rrsagent, draft minutes
17:00:43 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/04-annotation-minutes.html ivan
17:00:49 [Zakim]
-??P20
17:01:04 [Zakim]
-tbdinesh
17:01:23 [takeshi]
takeshi has left #annotation
17:01:30 [Zakim]
-Matt_Haas
17:01:37 [Zakim]
- +1.617.768.aadd
17:02:27 [Zakim]
-Doug_Schepers
17:03:58 [Kyrce]
Kyrce has left #annotation
17:07:28 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, MGU, in DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM
17:07:29 [Zakim]
DPUB_(ANNO)11:00AM has ended
17:07:29 [Zakim]
Attendees were +1.201.236.aaaa, Ivan, +1.202.707.aabb, +1.217.300.aacc, Doug_Schepers, Rayd, nickstenn, +1.617.768.aadd, bjdmeest, +1.434.971.aaee, TimCole, David_Salisbury,
17:07:29 [Zakim]
... +1.864.787.aaff, Kyrce, Bill_Kasdorf, bigbluehat, tbdinesh, Matt_Haas, +33.4.93.00.aagg, raphael, MGU
18:05:23 [ivan]
trackbot, end telcon
18:05:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:05:23 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
18:05:31 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:05:31 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/02/04-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
18:05:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:05:32 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items