14:05:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:05:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/04/15-annotation-irc
14:05:17 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:05:17 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:05:19 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:05:19 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:05:20 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:05:21 <trackbot> Date: 15 April 2015
14:40:35 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:43:44 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Zakim code 2666# ; agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0072.html
14:43:52 <azaroth> zakim, who is here?
14:43:52 <Zakim> sorry, azaroth, I don't know what conference this is
14:43:54 <Zakim> On IRC I see azaroth, Zakim, RRSAgent, renoirb, Mitar, ivan, trackbot, shepazu, oshepherd, KevinMarks, bret, rhiaro, dwhly, JakeHart, bigbluehat, stain, csillag
14:44:31 <renoirb> renoirb has left #annotation
14:47:58 <paoloC> paoloC has joined #annotation
14:52:20 <stain> hi
14:52:21 <fjh> fjh has joined #annotation
14:52:22 <azaroth> Morning Paolo :)
14:52:31 <azaroth> Morning Frederick :)
14:52:52 <fjh> trackbot, start telecon
14:52:54 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:52:56 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:52:56 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:52:57 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:52:57 <trackbot> Date: 15 April 2015
14:53:15 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Apr/0072.html
14:54:05 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:54:10 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:54:19 <fjh> zakim, this will be annotation
14:54:19 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, fjh
14:55:10 <fjh> Regrets+ Kyrce_Swenson, Bill_Kasdorf
14:56:50 <RayD> RayD has joined #annotation
14:59:25 <fjh> Present+ Doug_Schepers
15:00:12 <RayD> present+ Ray_Denenberg
15:00:52 <csillag> present+ Kristof_Csillag
15:01:16 <paoloC> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:01:23 <MattBookPro> MattBookPro has joined #annotation
15:01:50 <MattBookPro> Present+ Matt_Haas (MattBookPro)
15:02:12 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
15:02:15 <MattBookPro> Ha! Sorry… User name remained default.
15:02:39 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:02:40 <fjh> s/Ha! Sorry… User name remained default.//
15:03:03 <tbdinesh> Present +TB_Dinesh
15:03:36 <tbdinesh> zakim, ipcaller is me
15:03:36 <Zakim> sorry, tbdinesh, I do not recognize a party named 'ipcaller'
15:03:40 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
15:03:42 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:03:51 <Jacob> present+ Jacob_Jett
15:04:20 <bjdmeest> bjdmeest has joined #annotation
15:04:41 <fjh> ScribeNick: Jacob
15:05:00 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
15:05:32 <Jacob> fjh: getting started; will go through protocol doc and discuss where that is after the usual administratives (miniutes approval etc.)
15:05:47 <Jacob> ... then some open discussion; other topics from the group? annonucements?
15:05:51 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:05:59 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: minutes from 8 April 2015 approved, see http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:08 <ivan> Present: Ivan_Herman
15:06:18 <Jacob> RESOLUTION: minutes from 8 April 2015 approved, see http://www.w3.org/2015/04/08-annotation-minutes.html
15:06:19 <fjh> Topic: Protocol
15:06:20 <Jacob> approved
15:06:28 <fjh> see http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/protocol/wd/
15:06:59 <Jacob> Rob: will take questions as we discuss
15:07:40 <Jacob> ... not many changes have been made, just fixed issues
15:07:57 <Jacob> ... will walk through and discuss issues as they come up
15:08:06 <Jacob> ... [in section 3]
15:08:12 <bjdmeest> Present+ Ben_De_Meester
15:08:18 <dwhly> Present+ Dan_Whaley
15:08:36 <Jacob> ... removed some of the focus on multiple containers as we are only worrying about one container
15:09:35 <Jacob> ... annotation graph now within a single container, document discusses support for POST, GET (for description of container), & OPTIONS
15:10:00 <Jacob> ... some additional requirements (carry over from previous version) come from the LPD spec
15:10:55 <Jacob> ... target uri can be static and can be referenced
15:11:27 <Jacob> ... LDP group doesn't mention requirement for ... [missed it] ... as it was mentioned elsewhere
15:11:44 <fjh> q?
15:11:58 <Jacob> ... 3.1.2 container retrieval requirements
15:12:20 <Jacob> ... must say what kind of container (LDP basic container)
15:12:23 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:12:45 <Jacob> ... recommend adding a label so that if a user agent needs to show something to a human it has something to display
15:13:20 <Jacob> ... fleshed out the large containers section; omit annotation uris, container size caps, & paging responses
15:14:05 <Jacob> ... e.g., can set a header on the request that will omit the triples describing the container
15:14:40 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:15:12 <Jacob> ... preferred method is to add pages to the response; LDP specifies three different ways for this but only one is useful to us, the maximum member count
15:16:07 <Jacob> ... walking through the examples, ask for a container with no more than 2 annos
15:17:03 <Jacob> ... client gets the first page, drops off the prefer header, and then pages through until it comes to canonical annotation forms
15:17:22 <TimCole> q+
15:17:26 <Jacob> ... has a different type, i.e., page and not container
15:18:22 <Jacob> ... the page header links through the various pages, allowing the client to link back and forth among the pages, allowing for automated walking through the pages
15:18:25 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:18:52 <Jacob> Tim: understand the page return, what is the case for the container size caps; why do we need to support it?
15:19:09 <Jacob> ... is it separate from the paging responses?
15:19:59 <Jacob> Rob: Size cap and paging are separate options, size cap lets one bypass the paging response altogether
15:20:09 <RayD> q+
15:20:36 <Jacob> ... allows folks to decide which, could drop the size caps if it is not needed
15:21:14 <Jacob> ... if no dynamic response is needed vis a vis paging, then could just link between the containers rather than the headers
15:21:24 <fjh> q?
15:21:43 <Jacob> ... use the size cap to prevent additional annos to be added to full containers
15:22:03 <fjh> ack rayd
15:22:19 <Jacob> Tim: should think about this, could use a platform that doesn't employ LDP at all for folks that don't want to use LDP
15:23:03 <Jacob> Ray: Could clarify by noting that the three strategies in the document are "strategies" by adding such text to the headings in the doc
15:23:12 <paoloC> q+
15:23:16 <fjh> q+
15:23:24 <azaroth> ack paoloC
15:24:17 <Jacob> Paolo: was imagining when one or the other was used; if want to browse the annos in the container, can usually use paging but if I want the latest annos then might not want to use pagination
15:24:31 <Jacob> ... how is the criteria for the annos dictated?
15:25:15 <Jacob> Rob: container contains a list of annos; i.e. container contains anno1, contains anno2, etc.
15:26:27 <Jacob> ... if there are only a certian number of annos that target a specific target uri, then we need a way to constrain the response so only the pertinent annos in the container are returned
15:26:35 <fjh> q?
15:26:58 <shepazu> q+
15:27:09 <shepazu> q+
15:27:15 <Jacob> ... if we had some method for filtering / searching that would also service this use case but that section of the doc is TBD
15:27:52 <Jacob> Paolo: would expect to use a mechanism like this one where an ordering criteria could be added
15:28:09 <Jacob> Rob: use case: ordering the response
15:28:17 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:28:36 <Jacob> Paolo: response with unordered set [of annos] not useful for all use cases
15:28:58 <RayD> q+
15:29:17 <azaroth> ack shepazu
15:29:23 <Jacob> fjh: under the impression that we would pick one of the methods to support
15:30:00 <Jacob> Ray: optional features a concern because they are a barricade to interoperability
15:30:01 <ivan> zakim, mute me
15:30:01 <Zakim> sorry, ivan, I don't know what conference this is
15:30:29 <fjh> I think we will need filtering/search based on target domain, and/or target domain + partial path; will we ilmit the options, think we should, presume paging being a note not an issue
15:30:30 <Jacob> ... wondering if these are features of the protocol or more like strategies of how to employ the protocol?
15:30:52 <fjh> can still have normative language in protocol spec, but we should check if this works
15:30:53 <fjh> q?
15:31:17 <Jacob> ... are they user guides, if yes then should be broken out into a user doc along with all of the specs that users need to employ them
15:31:22 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #annotation
15:31:42 <Jacob> Rob: can add another normative segment that says that the container must be supported
15:31:58 <Jacob> ... use case: want to see all of the annos in the container
15:32:17 <uskudarli> present+ suzan_uskudarli
15:32:33 <Jacob> ... can make paging mandatory but is it too high of a barricade to entry / uptake?
15:32:56 <fjh> to clarify, is doug suggesting paging be in a different/later spec?
15:33:54 <fjh> I submit this hypothesis - if filtering is available, paging might not be necessary if we get the filtering right
15:34:01 <fjh> q+
15:34:31 <Jacob> Doug: Can we put it into a later doc, i.e., version 1 that everyone supports, version/level 2 that weren't sure were necessary for version 1, i.e., a formally iterative approach to spec development to garner a round of feedback to determine when things we think might be necessary are necessary
15:35:05 <Jacob> Rob: agree that we should leave out things that are known to be required but are hard is a good strategy
15:35:13 <fjh> what would be error case if paging were not supported and there was no cap? large page?
15:35:21 <Jacob> ... can leave out things like paging to version 2
15:36:08 <RayD> I dissagree
15:36:17 <Jacob> ... will need paging regardless
15:36:59 <fjh> s/dissagree/disagree with doug that optional features are a problem, for example a cap/
15:37:09 <fjh> q?
15:37:37 <Jacob> Ray: disagree that mentioning these in the spec will cause any interop problems
15:38:06 <azaroth> s/agree that we/disagree that we/
15:38:48 <shepazu> q+
15:38:56 <Jacob> ... mention that paging / filtering can be solved by developing a protocol for SRU, can come up with a simple profile that will save some work
15:39:00 <ivan> ack RayD
15:39:09 <ivan> ack fjh
15:39:22 <RayD> http://www.loc.gov/standards/sru/
15:39:24 <azaroth> q+
15:39:28 <TimCole> q+
15:39:31 <Jacob> fjh: seems that if filtering is done correctly then maybe paging isn't necessary
15:39:51 <Jacob> ... don't understand why it is necessary server side
15:40:42 <Jacob> Rob: imagine a large container full of lots of annos, would still need paging to go through the 10s of thousands of annos
15:40:56 <paoloC> q+
15:40:57 <Jacob> ... still need paging with filtering
15:41:08 <fjh> q?
15:41:13 <fjh> ack shepazu
15:41:13 <ivan> ack shepazu
15:42:01 <Jacob> Doug: to what extent are these docs meant to solve particular use cases and to what extent is the doc specifying features
15:42:20 <Jacob> Rob: paging a feature
15:43:09 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:43:10 <Jacob> ... omit anno a feature and container size cap a developer use case
15:43:26 <fjh> ack TimCole
15:43:27 <ivan> ack TimCole
15:43:50 <Jacob> Tim: agree that options can be problematic for interoperability
15:44:05 <fjh> +1 to limiting optional features
15:44:13 <Jacob> ... but, some kind of way to deal with containers that get to big is a necessity for the protocol
15:44:28 <Jacob> ... e.g., OAI-PMH faced this issue
15:45:30 <Jacob> ... in that case as the repositories grew the clients that harvested metadata didn't, so there was a lag between implementation of features that aided with scaling up
15:45:46 <fjh> q?
15:45:46 <azaroth> q?
15:45:48 <Jacob> ... would like to see a single solution for this rather than three, would prefer paging to the others
15:45:56 <azaroth> ack paoloC
15:46:20 <Jacob> Paolo: would prefer both containers and paging so that it is possible to just peek in the container
15:46:29 <Jacob> ...ok with just having one solution as a start though
15:47:25 <Jacob> ... e.g., text mining use case, produces tons of data, so paging is very helpful to manage the data
15:47:58 <Jacob> Rob: proposal: remove the container size cap, and require both omit anno uris and paging
15:48:44 <fjh> q?
15:49:39 <paoloC> q+
15:49:53 <Jacob> Paolo: if I only want 10 annos, on page 1, and there are other pages but the server still gives back multiple pages and so need to get 'page 1'
15:50:57 <Jacob> ... another q, if search is implemented, generating perfect pagination details might not be possible, because cannot always tell what the last page is going to be
15:51:34 <Jacob> ... counters will not always reflect actual numbers, because they are imperfect
15:51:59 <Jacob> Rob: next would always have to be true, first would have to be known but last can be unknown
15:52:15 <azaroth> q?
15:52:24 <azaroth> ack paoloC
15:52:30 <RayD> q+
15:52:51 <Jacob> ... can we drill into the optional features, should they be specified?
15:52:59 <azaroth> ack RayD
15:53:03 <Jacob> ... answer will impact the documents
15:53:31 <Jacob> Ray: want to add something to agenda for next week?
15:54:10 <fjh> Topic: F2F Agenda
15:54:11 <fjh> https://www.w3.org/annotation/wiki/Meetings/f2f/SF_Q1_2015
15:55:41 <Jacob> fjh: determining the best way to make use of the time; can work through issues that we have stuff for on the calls so should focus on more ambiguous things like robust anchoring, possibly protocol, fpwd (for same), etc
15:56:02 <Jacob> ... possibly using a use case like foot notes
15:56:25 <Jacob> ... may be an unconference type of meeting where various issues get worked through
15:57:03 <fjh> q?
15:57:08 <Jacob> ... can get additional topics from Hypothes.is, Rob, Doug, Ivan, others, waiting for some feedback from list
15:57:12 <ivan> same here
15:57:42 <Jacob> ... would help to know ahead of time, what folks want to focus on so time can be allocated
15:58:36 <azaroth> Any proposals are welcome!
15:58:42 <Jacob> Ray: would like to know if there is interest in search requirements and an approach for it; may or may not be useful
15:59:06 <azaroth> +1
15:59:08 <Jacob> fjh: good topic, would be helpful and appropriate
15:59:26 <Jacob> ... anything else for f2f agenda?
16:01:16 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:01:41 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:01:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/04/15-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:02:41 <tantek> tantek has joined #annotation
17:00:18 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
17:01:59 <bengo> bengo has joined #annotation
18:03:22 <Zakim> Zakim has left #annotation
18:27:14 <bengo> bengo has joined #annotation
18:29:32 <bengo> bengo has joined #annotation
18:44:05 <renoirb> renoirb has joined #annotation
20:18:06 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation
22:20:32 <tilgovi> tilgovi has joined #annotation