14:46:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #annotation
14:46:25 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-irc
14:46:27 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
14:46:27 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #annotation
14:46:29 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 2666
14:46:29 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
14:46:30 <trackbot> Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
14:46:30 <trackbot> Date: 09 September 2015
14:47:01 <fjh> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0077.html
14:47:05 <fjh> fjh has changed the topic to: agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0077.html
14:47:23 <fjh> Chair: Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:47:28 <fjh> Present+ Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson
14:47:34 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #annotation
14:47:41 <fjh> Topic: Agenda Review, Scribe Selection, Announcements
14:49:04 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
14:49:11 <fjh> Regrets+ Ray_Denenberg, Ben_De_Meester
14:49:17 <fjh> Regrets+ Doug_Schepers
14:57:12 <ivan> zakim, code?
14:57:12 <Zakim> no conference has been identified yet, ivan
14:57:33 <TimCole> TimCole has joined #annotation
14:57:47 <Jacob> Jacob has joined #annotation
14:57:59 <ivan> zakim, this is WebEx  645 413 954, https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=me422bef2c6690852d7d9a2cf39f591b8 passd annotation
14:57:59 <Zakim> got it, ivan
14:59:45 <tbdinesh> tbdinesh has joined #annotation
15:01:23 <ivan> present+ Ivan
15:01:25 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:01:35 <TimCole> Present+ Tim_Cole
15:01:39 <Jacob> Present+ Jacob_Jett
15:02:44 <PaoloCiccarese> PaoloCiccarese has joined #annotation
15:02:51 <chrisbirk> Present+ Chris_Birk
15:03:23 <fjh> Present+ Benjamin_Young
15:03:50 <PaoloCiccarese> Present+ Paolo_Ciccarese
15:03:51 <tbdinesh> Present+ TB_Dinesh
15:05:42 <takeshi> takeshi has joined #annotation
15:05:46 <Jacob> Like Tim, I'll be leaving a few minutes early.
15:06:03 <fjh> s/Like Tim, I'll be leaving a few minutes early.//
15:06:20 <chrisbirk> Sorry, I'm having some major connection troubles
15:06:34 <fjh> s/Sorry, I'm having some major connection troubles//
15:06:58 <azaroth> azaroth: rob said this
15:07:00 <azaroth> ... and this
15:07:13 <fjh> s/and this//
15:07:18 <azaroth> scribe: Paolo_Ciccarese
15:07:20 <fjh> s/rob said this//
15:07:27 <azaroth> scribenick: PaoloCiccarese
15:07:36 <fjh> Topic: Minutes Approval
15:07:43 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: Minutes from 2 September approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-annotation-minutes.html
15:08:04 <PaoloCiccarese> Topic: Cross-Context JSON-LD Integration, @id and @type
15:08:19 <fjh> RESOLUTION: Minutes from 2 September approved, http://www.w3.org/2015/09/02-annotation-minutes.html
15:08:37 <fjh> s/Topic: Cross-Context JSON-LD Integration, @id and @type//
15:08:39 <fjh> Topic: Cross-Context JSON-LD Integration, @id and @type
15:08:45 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:08:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:08:54 <PaoloCiccarese> fazaroth: the issue is if whether of not we want to try to collaborate with other WGs
15:09:12 <PaoloCiccarese> ... or optimize for our usage
15:10:54 <ivan> q+
15:10:57 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: whether or not we are trying to optimize for developers doing just annotations looking to our spec
15:10:57 <fjh> s/...//
15:11:10 <fjh> rssagent, generate minutes
15:11:14 <PaoloCiccarese> ... or if we need to look at other WGs like Activity Stream
15:11:39 <PaoloCiccarese> ... so if we @id next to id, when we compact a document (in playground) with multiple contexts
15:11:44 <fjh> ivan's summary - https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0099.html
15:11:45 <davis_salisbury> davis_salisbury has joined #annotation
15:12:00 <davis_salisbury> present+ davis_salisbury
15:12:03 <fjh> rrsagent, generate minutes
15:12:03 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-minutes.html fjh
15:12:09 <PaoloCiccarese> ... @id and id will get transferred over and processed by all contexts
15:12:30 <PaoloCiccarese> ... my assumption has been that we would use external context or external integration
15:12:57 <PaoloCiccarese> ... go through all this seems strange to me but possible
15:13:15 <PaoloCiccarese> ... workaround: compartmentalize JSON-LD mapping to include core annotation mapping
15:13:29 <PaoloCiccarese> ... into ActivityStream... include their core and so on
15:13:59 <fjh> s/or optimize for our usage/... or optimize for our usage/
15:14:10 <PaoloCiccarese> ... a lot of inter-working group communication and alignements to make sure of the things to work properly together
15:14:25 <fjh> agenda+ motivatedBy on Annotation
15:14:54 <PaoloCiccarese> ... predicates that we absolutely require will be in one context and we will try to ensure that the mappings will be enforced?
15:15:11 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we can't avoid @id
15:15:45 <PaoloCiccarese> ... there is a possibility that other terms will collide in addition to @id
15:15:53 <azaroth> q?
15:15:56 <fjh> q?
15:15:57 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:16:27 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: I think that there is one fundamental place where we should be careful about
15:16:51 <PaoloCiccarese> ... the distinction between only those that implement our own or multiple
15:17:06 <azaroth> q+ to note integraters are implementers
15:17:34 <PaoloCiccarese> ... or better people that are not implementers but they want to add the annotation
15:17:52 <PaoloCiccarese> .... implementers are those that can do wonders so I am less worried about the difficulty for them
15:18:03 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I am more worried about the end users complexity
15:18:25 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I am against compartmentalizing that brings complexity on users
15:18:48 <fjh> q+
15:18:55 <PaoloCiccarese> ... for @id and @type, personally I don't care about the '@' but it seems that many people don't like that
15:19:05 <PaoloCiccarese> ... so the idea of mapping that came around
15:19:28 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I don't want to spend too much time on this but I keep -1
15:19:58 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I understand compacting creates an issue, but there is an expand that will create all the statements with URIs
15:20:30 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we can try to synchronize with AS but there are many others vocabularies and the approach does not scale
15:20:34 <PaoloCiccarese> ... in general
15:20:48 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we cannot solve the problem
15:20:49 <azaroth> q?
15:20:53 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:20:53 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note integraters are implementers
15:21:15 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: I don't think we should be optimizing for end users but for developers
15:21:43 <PaoloCiccarese> ... the reason being that we are past the days of people opening up the code and typing in command line
15:21:53 <TimCole> q+
15:22:11 <PaoloCiccarese> ... the majority of the annotations will be produced through developers
15:22:46 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I agree that the expand would work by turning all into RDF but will be the opposite of what we are trying to do
15:23:04 <PaoloCiccarese> .... I agree with the scale issue but we can at least try to not break the main ones
15:23:24 <azaroth> q?
15:23:27 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:23:48 <PaoloCiccarese> fjh: is the '@' really scaring the implementers?
15:23:57 <bigbluehat> the cost to value ratio seems in favor of sticking with @id & @type
15:24:08 <bigbluehat> JS devs will write annotation['@id'] vs. annotation.id
15:24:10 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:24:11 <bigbluehat> not...terrible.
15:24:11 <azaroth> q+ to note @ isn't great in javascript anno.body['@id']
15:24:22 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:24:49 <PaoloCiccarese> TimCole: (I cannot hear properly)
15:25:08 <bigbluehat> url is used in ActivityStreams to mean something alongside @id fwiw
15:25:29 <PaoloCiccarese> ... do we have to map type to @type or to RDF:type
15:25:47 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: @type already maps to rdf:type
15:25:52 <bigbluehat> see this example for @id & url being used together in AS2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#h-example-2
15:25:59 <fjh> q+
15:26:03 <ivan> q+
15:26:07 <Jacob> Tim already qualms about mapping @id to id
15:26:23 <azaroth> q?
15:26:43 <PaoloCiccarese> TimCole: I don't like to map the id to @id as they are used for many things
15:26:47 <fjh> q-
15:26:50 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:27:18 <azaroth> PaoloCiccarese: Was thinking about id and type. I remembered that I raised the issue to the JSON-LD people, and they said just use the quotes
15:27:40 <azaroth> ... It seems too complicated to do, so maybe just step back and use the @s
15:27:42 <azaroth> q?
15:27:45 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:27:45 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note @ isn't great in javascript anno.body['@id']
15:28:08 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:28:10 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: retain @ signs in @id and @type
15:28:12 <fjh> q+
15:28:13 <ivan> Proposal: revert the @id/@id and @type/type decision, and put this in the document as a note (asking for comments).
15:28:41 <fjh> q+
15:28:44 <azaroth> q?
15:28:52 <PaoloCiccarese> Ivan: let's propose to do that and put a note in the document for asking for comments from the community
15:28:54 <azaroth> +1
15:28:58 <Jacob> +1
15:28:58 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:29:03 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:29:45 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: let's make sure the request for comments is clear in the document
15:29:57 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: retain @ signs in @id and @type, reverting earlier decsion, and adding note to document
15:30:03 <ivan> +1
15:30:06 <azaroth> +1
15:30:09 <Jacob> +1
15:30:10 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:30:13 <fjh> +1
15:30:16 <TimCole> +1
15:30:17 <bigbluehat> +1
15:30:20 <takeshi> +1
15:30:29 <davis_salisbury> +1
15:30:33 <PaoloCiccarese> RESOLUTION: retain @ signs in @id and @type, reverting earlier decsion, and adding note to document
15:30:34 <tbdinesh> +1
15:30:46 <fjh> rrsagent, where am I?
15:30:46 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-irc#T15-30-46
15:31:36 <PaoloCiccarese> fjh: let's wait a week for feedback
15:31:44 <fjh> waiting week to update context file
15:31:55 <fjh> Topic: motivatedBy on annotation
15:32:02 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:32:06 <TimCole> http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/AnnoLevelMotive.html
15:32:20 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:33:05 <fjh> Thanks to Tim, Ray and Ivan for really useful proposal document!
15:33:10 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: move towards a complete decision about roles and motivations Tim and Ivan created a document
15:33:19 <PaoloCiccarese> ... discussion on the list with a lot of support
15:33:42 <PaoloCiccarese> ... everyone seem agreeing with some discussion points
15:34:01 <PaoloCiccarese> ... it seems I was the only one with concerns
15:34:15 <TimCole> q+
15:34:40 <PaoloCiccarese> ... section 3.1 advise that there could be two vocabularies for motivations and roles and that I think i sa mistake
15:34:52 <PaoloCiccarese> ... will increase confusion and double the numbers of items
15:34:54 <fjh> s/i sa/is a/
15:35:03 <PaoloCiccarese> section 3.3 I see it as out of scope
15:35:08 <fjh> q?
15:35:12 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:35:20 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: section 3.3 I see it as out of scope
15:35:37 <fjh> q+ PaoloCiccarese
15:35:37 <PaoloCiccarese> TimCOle: main points: staying with a single vocabulary
15:35:56 <fjh> s/COle/Cole/
15:36:16 <fjh> q?
15:36:19 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I don't feel strongly about it ( I am not sure)
15:36:20 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:36:49 <azaroth> PaoloCiccarese: Want to understand the problem you mentioned, I think it was 3.3.  I think there should be one vocab. Either way it is going to be confusing.
15:37:16 <azaroth> ... If we have two they mimic and will be confusing. If we have two properties that do very slightly different things, it will be confusing too.  So just do one to keep it tight.
15:37:18 <azaroth> q?
15:37:20 <ivan> q+
15:37:23 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:38:03 <Jacob> i.e., hasMotivation on bodies instead of hasRole?
15:38:27 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: to say we have hasRole on the annotation
15:38:27 <Jacob> Got it. I think those are equivalent.
15:38:30 <azaroth> q+
15:38:34 <PaoloCiccarese> ... maybe that reduces the confusion
15:38:36 <PaoloCiccarese> q+
15:38:37 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:38:45 <fjh> why not have same range for two different properties
15:38:54 <fjh> q+
15:39:16 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: that would really change the semantics. Motivation associated to the Annotation is informational only and it is the reason why the Annotation was created.
15:39:23 <PaoloCiccarese> ... the hasRole is an actionable property
15:39:37 <PaoloCiccarese> ... something the client should be paying attention to
15:39:42 <fjh> +1 to azaroth that meaning of Motivation and Role is useful
15:40:06 <azaroth> q?
15:40:09 <tbdinesh> if it is information only, there is no problem if vocabolary overlaps
15:40:26 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: I understand but on the other hand if we are asking ourselves the question whether the values should be the same or different
15:40:46 <PaoloCiccarese> ... there is confusion when merging the vocabularies
15:41:01 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we will have confusion somewhere if we merge, the question is where it is more harmful
15:41:02 <azaroth> ack PaoloCiccarese
15:41:52 <azaroth> PaoloCiccarese: I agree and disagree with everything :) Motivation is something informational, but disagree that it's not operational. One thing is rendering, it could be, but a processing intensive system that motivation could be something you look at and do something as a reaction
15:42:02 <Jacob> Seems like motivation would be actionable in the highlighting use case.
15:42:07 <azaroth> ... in our case we do argumentation, so no matter the bodies are, it's actionable
15:42:38 <azaroth> ... The two vocabs would be merged 100%, so in the example on the list, I used community specific vocabularies like for argumentation
15:42:51 <azaroth> ... the motivation is to disagree.  The disagreement might only be a motivation, not a role
15:43:21 <azaroth> The role might be comment or statement. Complicated to either split or merge. Lots of duplications if they're split, lots of weird situations where they're merged
15:43:49 <azaroth> ... I like the split to hasRole as I had to use it already. Would make clear in the document that the vocabs are extensible.
15:44:00 <azaroth> ... Not completely true that all motivations are roles
15:44:21 <azaroth> ... It isn't perfect, and there will be some confusion. Don't see another good solution.
15:44:23 <azaroth> q?
15:44:44 <azaroth> ... I don't understand why we wouldn't allow motivation on a simple text body.
15:44:50 <ivan> q+
15:44:58 <azaroth> ... Meaning is to give why the annotation is created, not to give a role
15:45:12 <azaroth> ... But then the temptation is to use it as a role as the vocabs are the same
15:45:15 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:45:20 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: retain MotivatedBy on annotation as well has having hasRole (acknowledging issues to be worked)
15:45:38 <tbdinesh> motivation is role-vocabolary context
15:45:45 <PaoloCiccarese> fjh: we need to agree on the co-existence of both motivatedBy and hasRole
15:46:02 <azaroth> +1
15:46:03 <PaoloCiccarese> ... can we agree and have a resolution?
15:46:05 <ivan> +1
15:46:06 <Jacob> +1
15:46:07 <davis_salisbury> +1
15:46:11 <TimCole> +1 retain motivatedBy
15:46:14 <tbdinesh> +1
15:46:22 <PaoloCiccarese> RESOLUTION: retain MotivatedBy on annotation as well has having hasRole (acknowledging issues to be worked)
15:46:28 <PaoloCiccarese> +1
15:47:09 <azaroth> q?
15:47:11 <azaroth> ack ivan
15:47:15 <PaoloCiccarese> fjh: counter arguments of purity and pragmatic attitude
15:47:24 <azaroth> q+ to disagree re purity
15:47:57 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: are we keeping the same vocabularies?
15:48:08 <PaoloCiccarese> fjh: we did not work that out yet
15:48:28 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: semantically speaking the 3.3 use case
15:48:47 <PaoloCiccarese> ... and in a purist way it is wrong, the problem is that it is very close to some other use cases in section 4
15:48:57 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we make a statement on annotation and not on the body
15:49:21 <fjh> rrsagent, where am i?
15:49:21 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-irc#T15-49-21
15:49:36 <fjh> pragmatic vs pure
15:49:37 <PaoloCiccarese> ... on the other hand, people will use it that way
15:49:55 <PaoloCiccarese> ... as it is simple and quick
15:50:06 <PaoloCiccarese> ... we should probably leave with that kind of impurity
15:50:13 <azaroth> q?
15:50:19 <azaroth> ack azaroth
15:50:19 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to disagree re purity
15:50:21 <TimCole> agree with what you said.
15:50:35 <Jacob> I think this is something we'll have to live with.
15:50:39 <fjh> discussing 3.3 http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/model/wd/AnnoLevelMotive.html#expressing-motivation-for-an-annotation-having-a-single-simple-textual-body
15:50:46 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: if we say that this is invalid, people will still use it. We can say it is not the preferred way
15:51:22 <PaoloCiccarese> ... in HTML5 there is a family of attributes with very strong restrictions in the text and people use it differently anyway
15:51:45 <fjh> q+
15:52:17 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: from a pragmatic point of view, I receive an annotation with a simple textual body and a motivation and I want to process it in the same way as another annotation with the same body in a role I cannot
15:52:42 <PaoloCiccarese> ... by saying you can do it it so say you cannot process this
15:52:52 <Jacob> azaroth isn't this also a problem for highlighting?
15:52:56 <TimCole> q+
15:53:04 <azaroth> ack fjh
15:53:06 <fjh> proposed RESOLUTION: start with single vocabulary as range for motivatedBy and hasRole and keeping property names distinct
15:53:07 <PaoloCiccarese> ... I see no way around that problem
15:53:22 <TimCole> +1
15:53:23 <azaroth> +q
15:53:25 <PaoloCiccarese> RESOLUTION: start with single vocabulary as range for motivatedBy and hasRole and keeping property names distinct
15:53:26 <azaroth> +1
15:53:27 <tbdinesh> no. not single vocab
15:53:28 <azaroth> q-
15:53:31 <Jacob> +1
15:53:38 <fjh> q?
15:53:41 <azaroth> ack TimCole
15:54:22 <PaoloCiccarese> TimCole: I don't see a strong distinction in terms of actionability, there are things like discovery where many community will use both in similar ways so that they can discover
15:54:38 <PaoloCiccarese> ... hasRole: comment and motivation: commenting
15:54:52 <PaoloCiccarese> ... how much the simple text body is trying to say?
15:55:10 <azaroth> { "motivatedBy": "bookmarking", "body": "I should read this" } != { "body" : { "role": "bookmarking", "text" : "I should read this" }
15:55:17 <PaoloCiccarese> ... there are many useful things that community are going to do with terms no matter where they appear
15:55:32 <PaoloCiccarese> ... it is also a matter of how we present this in the model
15:55:57 <fjh> azaroth - we need explanation of why != in terams of meaning to users
15:56:05 <fjh> s/terams/terms/
15:56:10 <azaroth> fjh: Agreed
15:56:17 <PaoloCiccarese> ... 3.1 and 3.2 to be done and leave 3.3 open
15:56:39 <fjh> I believe I know the answer, the annotation is not being bookmarked
15:56:54 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: I will be happy to detail how that should be used
15:57:10 <TimCole> +1 to Rob's suggestion.
15:57:20 <ivan> +1
15:58:04 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: 3.1 and 3.2 examples will be in the document
15:58:12 <azaroth> proposed RESOLUTION: Be silent in the specification regarding the combination of motivation and simple textual body to see how it is used in practice
15:58:20 <ivan> +1
15:58:21 <azaroth> +1
15:58:26 <fjh> +1
15:58:29 <tbdinesh> +1
15:58:45 <PaoloCiccarese> RESOLUTION: Be silent in the specification regarding the combination of motivation and simple textual body to see how it is used in practice
15:59:36 <azaroth> q+
15:59:46 <fjh> ack azaroth
15:59:51 <PaoloCiccarese> azaroth: 2 more decisions
16:00:08 <fjh> ivan: ready to publish WD?
16:00:08 <PaoloCiccarese> ... #1 if to allow roles on EmbeddedContent
16:00:38 <PaoloCiccarese> ... more concerns about having roles on the multiplicity constructs
16:01:00 <PaoloCiccarese> ... if Choice, Composite and List should have ?roles
16:01:23 <PaoloCiccarese> ivan: to be able to move on in a more constructive manner we should have a new document asap
16:03:27 <fjh> ivan: suggests we get to revised Model draft that can become WD, noting open issues within, including decisions to date
16:03:32 <fjh> azaroth: yes can do this
16:03:47 <fjh> +1 to preparing new WD for publication
16:04:11 <fjh> Topic: Adjourn
16:05:33 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:05:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-minutes.html ivan
16:05:41 <ivan> trackbot, end telcon
16:05:41 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:05:41 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Frederick_Hirsch, Rob_Sanderson, Ivan, Tim_Cole, Jacob_Jett, Chris_Birk, Benjamin_Young, Paolo_Ciccarese, TB_Dinesh, davis_salisbury
16:05:49 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:05:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/09/09-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
16:05:50 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:05:50 <RRSAgent> I see no action items