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