IRC log of annotation on 2017-02-03
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:35:59 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #annotation
- 15:35:59 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/02/03-annotation-irc
- 15:36:01 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 15:36:01 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #annotation
- 15:36:03 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 2666
- 15:36:03 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot
- 15:36:04 [trackbot]
- Meeting: Web Annotation Working Group Teleconference
- 15:36:04 [trackbot]
- Date: 03 February 2017
- 15:36:18 [ivan]
- Agenda: http://www.w3.org/mid/104301d27ce6$c53801b0$4fa80510$@illinois.edu
- 15:36:36 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: agenda call for 03-02-2017: http://www.w3.org/mid/104301d27ce6$c53801b0$4fa80510$@illinois.edu
- 15:36:40 [ivan]
- chair: Tim
- 15:54:24 [TimCole]
- TimCole has joined #annotation
- 15:54:43 [uskudarli]
- uskudarli has joined #annotation
- 15:56:10 [tilgovi]
- tilgovi has joined #annotation
- 15:58:28 [azaroth]
- azaroth has joined #annotation
- 15:58:33 [tilgovi]
- Present+ Randall_Leeds
- 15:58:57 [azaroth]
- Present+ Rob_Sanderson
- 15:58:58 [ivan]
- Present+
- 15:59:36 [TimCole]
- Present+ Tim_Cole
- 16:04:06 [ivan]
- scribenick: tilgovi
- 16:04:15 [bigbluehat]
- Present+ Benjamin_Young
- 16:04:40 [TimCole]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:04:50 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:04:55 [TimCole]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/27-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:05:08 [TimCole]
- Topic: Minutes review
- 16:05:22 [TimCole]
- +1
- 16:05:24 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:06:39 [TimCole]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2017Feb/0000.html
- 16:06:50 [tilgovi_]
- tilgovi_ has joined #annotation
- 16:07:32 [TimCole]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/27-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:07:35 [takeshi]
- takeshi has joined #annotation
- 16:07:41 [tilgovi]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/27-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:08:26 [tilgovi]
- RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/27-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:08:33 [TimCole]
- PROPOSED RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:08:50 [tilgovi]
- RESOLUTION: Minutes of the previous call are approved: https://www.w3.org/2017/01/20-annotation-minutes.html
- 16:09:21 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: the intent today is to talk about where we are with the proposed recommendations
- 16:09:52 [TimCole]
- Topic Proposed REcommendation
- 16:10:02 [tilgovi]
- and to talk about issues with the serialization
- 16:10:19 [tilgovi]
- ivan: I looked at it about half an hour ago.
- 16:10:28 [tilgovi]
- we have 21 positive votes and one abstention
- 16:10:36 [tilgovi]
- the abstention has always been there and that's not a problem
- 16:10:56 [tilgovi]
- there is one remark on the annotation protocol
- 16:12:24 [tilgovi]
- unless something comes ins, we certainly have enough votes
- 16:12:41 [bigbluehat]
- q+
- 16:12:42 [tilgovi]
- there are two more that I reached out to in the publication world that would be nice if it came in
- 16:12:51 [tilgovi]
- one is a potential implementer who does epub software
- 16:12:54 [tilgovi]
- unless something comes in, we are okay
- 16:13:51 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: we have enough. as long as we don't have any objections we should be able to publish
- 16:13:52 [tilgovi]
- ivan: exactly
- 16:14:12 [tilgovi]
- ivan: there's nothing left to do other than change the right stuff in the respec
- 16:14:15 [tilgovi]
- it should be fairly mechanical
- 16:14:23 [tilgovi]
- we have to agree upon what would be our target publication date
- 16:14:28 [tilgovi]
- my proposal would be the 21st
- 16:14:46 [tilgovi]
- the date before would be the 16th, that's two days after0 the end. there's some administration to do so I think that's a bit tight
- 16:14:54 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Our hope would be to have the notes approved by then as well, right?
- 16:15:04 [tilgovi]
- ivan: absolutely. so 21st should be the date. everything else should be ready to go by then
- 16:15:07 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: 21st makes sense to me
- 16:15:12 [tilgovi]
- do you need a vote?
- 16:15:15 [bigbluehat]
- s/after0/after
- 16:15:34 [tilgovi]
- ivan: on that? no. what I will need a vote for is that we all agree we want it to be published. I can go to the director and ask for short name and things like that.
- 16:15:42 [tilgovi]
- as soon as possible to get it out of the way
- 16:15:46 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Do we have enough people?
- 16:15:55 [tilgovi]
- ivan: We do have now enough people acting in the group.
- 16:15:59 [tilgovi]
- So, I think, yes we can do that.
- 16:17:07 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: let us move on to the notes
- 16:17:20 [tilgovi]
- on the selectors and states note
- 16:17:34 [TimCole]
- http://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/selector-note/
- 16:17:34 [tilgovi]
- we have to update the affiliation for Benjamin
- 16:17:52 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:18:00 [bigbluehat]
- q-
- 16:18:02 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: otherwise, the substance has not changed in the last two weeks
- 16:18:14 [tilgovi]
- ivan: What Rob commented on is all done.
- 16:18:33 [tilgovi]
- However, I don't claim I understand all the details, but I have the impression that the comment of Takeshi is more for that note and not for the HTML note.
- 16:18:37 [TimCole]
- q?
- 16:18:48 [TimCole]
- ack: ivan
- 16:18:53 [TimCole]
- ack ivan
- 16:19:03 [tilgovi]
- The differentiation there, whether the fragment is the locator or the identifier, it's not the html note that should talk about it. It should be in the selector note, in my view.
- 16:19:07 [tilgovi]
- We can discuss as you want
- 16:19:21 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: let's talk about it now if we can
- 16:19:32 [TimCole]
- https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2017Feb/0000.html
- 16:20:08 [tilgovi]
- ivan: Since it's a note, maybe all we can do is put it into the note and say that when they use it they may be an issue
- 16:20:37 [tilgovi]
- takeshi: I'm wondering if the selector note could give some position for those who directly use the selector as url
- 16:21:12 [tilgovi]
- ivan: To be honest, I would much more trust you to give me text to put there than for me to come up with the text. You have much more experience with the issues around IRIs and URIs
- 16:22:31 [csarven]
- Present Sarven Capadisli
- 16:22:52 [tilgovi]
- takeshi: In the note, the percent character must be percent-encoded in the URL, but the character can be present in the IRI.
- 16:22:55 [ivan]
- Present+ csarven
- 16:23:09 [takeshi]
- % in IRI is just a character
- 16:23:38 [tilgovi]
- s/percent character/special characters/
- 16:24:34 [tilgovi]
- Rob: could we solve it with a note that says systems should take care not to doubly encode characters which are valid in IRIs but not in URLs?
- 16:24:53 [TimCole]
- so in iri ...a%20b... becomes ...a%25%20b... when it is made into url
- 16:24:54 [tilgovi]
- takeshi: No. We can take a simple way that says we don't care, percent characters should be double encoded.
- 16:25:41 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: so where do we put this caveat
- 16:26:28 [csarven]
- Vaguely recall that's how WHATWG URL spec does it
- 16:27:02 [tilgovi]
- ivan: Send me an email and I will add a warning note to the relevant section. Again, I trust you more than myself to say the right thing.
- 16:27:14 [tilgovi]
- takeshi: It must be right, but it's a bit ugly
- 16:27:33 [tilgovi]
- ivan: Well, it's definitely ugly. Every thing with IRIs and this becomes ugly.
- 16:28:12 [tilgovi]
- ivan: I think that's the only issue with the selector note and we are done with it.
- 16:28:17 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Does anyone have a different opinion?
- 16:28:23 [TimCole]
- Topic: HTML Serialization
- 16:28:26 [tilgovi]
- if not, let's move on and talk about the HTML serialization
- 16:28:50 [TimCole]
- https://w3c.github.io/web-annotation/serialization-html-note/
- 16:29:17 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: There's been a lot of edits in the last few weeks. There are a couple items marked in the TODO, but before I get to those are there any concerns about the examples?
- 16:30:00 [tilgovi]
- We have there examples in JSON-LD. Three examples in RDFa. And we have a couple examples of using annotation-based URLs
- 16:30:18 [tilgovi]
- The JSON-LD of course maps directly to the model document.
- 16:30:24 [tilgovi]
- We have the RDFa translated into turtle.
- 16:30:39 [tilgovi]
- And the annotation-based URLs are just URLs that map against the selector note
- 16:31:29 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: There are some editorial things, but I also have a question about some things near the top.
- 16:31:41 [tilgovi]
- The terminology section, I think I copied over the terminology in the selector note.
- 16:31:47 [tilgovi]
- Does someone need to do a read-through?
- 16:32:08 [tilgovi]
- ivan: There is a difference between this note and the selector note.
- 16:32:34 [tilgovi]
- The selector note is a semi-specification. It tries to be precise. It's called a reference note. Therefore, the terminology had to be there and it had to be precise because it repeated the specification of the model document.
- 16:32:37 [csarven]
- I think it might interesting to have another RDFa example that's close to the motivation "Wholly Internal Annotations". The current example is close to the motivation "Lighweight, decentralized Annotation Tools"
- 16:32:50 [tilgovi]
- This note is very different. It is much more of a kind of informative, semi-tutorial kind of note.
- 16:33:13 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:33:19 [tilgovi]
- My vote would be to remove 1.4 altogether
- 16:33:22 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:33:29 [csarven]
- +1
- 16:33:37 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:33:45 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Let's go ahead and remove that. I can do it after the call.
- 16:33:47 [csarven]
- re 1.4 removal (I have no audio)
- 16:34:42 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: The other section I was not sure what to do with is 1.3.
- 16:35:15 [tilgovi]
- The natural inclination may be to give the annotation an identifier based on the URL of the page in which it is embedded.
- 16:35:18 [tilgovi]
- Do we want to say anything about that?
- 16:35:28 [tilgovi]
- Right now we say you need an IRI but it does not have to be dereferenceable.
- 16:35:36 [csarven]
- Point to canonical sources (WA model/protocol/vocab where appropriate) instead of duplicating info all around
- 16:35:39 [tilgovi]
- An ID on a script tag is not really a way to identify the annotation properly
- 16:37:27 [tilgovi]
- Rob: It's not normative text, and 1.3 sort of makes it look (with the lowercase must)
- 16:37:42 [tilgovi]
- Recommending what we think you should be by way of example is a good way to get it in front of people without making it a spec
- 16:38:01 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Does that mean I can get rid of 1.3?
- 16:38:03 [tilgovi]
- ivan: yes.
- 16:40:07 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Now the question is how to get consensus from the WG for these notes.
- 16:40:16 [tilgovi]
- With the calendar we want to start that before next week and end it the week after.
- 16:41:18 [tilgovi]
- ivan: Let's not over-administrate this. I don't think we'll get anything on the email. Most active participants are here.
- 16:41:30 [tilgovi]
- We can vote here, we can ask the director, and we can give people five days to object in email.
- 16:41:52 [tilgovi]
- Rob: If that's sufficient that sounds better than the longer approach.
- 16:44:44 [ivan]
- for the selector note, the shortname proposed: https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-states/
- 16:46:20 [TimCole]
- https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-html/
- 16:47:28 [ivan]
- Proposal: the Working Group asks the Director to publish the Selector and State note as a Working Group Note, with the short name 'selectors-states'
- 16:47:52 [ivan]
- Proposal: the Working Group asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Selector and State note as a Working Group Note, with the short name 'selectors-states'
- 16:48:15 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:48:18 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:48:18 [TimCole]
- +1
- 16:48:21 [csarven]
- +1
- 16:48:28 [tilgovi]
- +1
- 16:48:30 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:48:48 [ivan]
- RESOLUTION: the Working Group asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Selector and State note as a Working Group Note, with the short name 'selectors-states'
- 16:49:45 [ivan]
- Proposal: the Working Group asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Embedding Web Annotation in HTML note as a Working Group Note, with the short name 'annotation-html'
- 16:49:50 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:50:27 [csarven]
- +1
- 16:50:29 [ivan]
- Proposal: the Working Group asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Embedding Web Annotation in HTML note as a Working Group Note (modulo the editorial changes agreed upon today), with the short name 'annotation-html'
- 16:50:34 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:50:35 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:50:35 [csarven]
- +1
- 16:50:36 [TimCole]
- +1
- 16:50:41 [tilgovi]
- +1
- 16:50:47 [takeshi]
- +1
- 16:50:51 [ivan]
- RESOLUTION: the Working Group asks the Director to authorize the publication of the Embedding Web Annotation in HTML note as a Working Group Note (modulo the editorial changes agreed upon today), with the short name 'annotation-html'
- 16:51:23 [csarven]
- w00t w00t
- 16:53:01 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: Is there anything we need the larger group to talk about?
- 16:53:04 [tilgovi]
- Rob: I don't think so.
- 16:53:31 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: It would be nice to have some opinions to embed.
- 16:53:55 [azaroth]
- s/opinions/testimonials/
- 16:53:55 [TimCole]
- q?
- 16:53:57 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: I don't have anything else for today.
- 16:54:28 [tilgovi]
- TimCole: If there's nothing else I think we're ready to adjourn. We will plan to meet next week. Hopefully a brief meeting.
- 16:55:07 [tilgovi]
- Unless there's something that comes up, after the 17th we're done and work transitions to the community group.
- 16:55:47 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 16:55:47 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/03-annotation-minutes.html ivan
- 16:56:03 [ivan]
- trackbot, end telcon
- 16:56:03 [trackbot]
- Zakim, list attendees
- 16:56:03 [Zakim]
- As of this point the attendees have been Randall_Leeds, Rob_Sanderson, ivan, Tim_Cole, Benjamin_Young, csarven
- 16:56:11 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, please draft minutes
- 16:56:11 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/02/03-annotation-minutes.html trackbot
- 16:56:12 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, bye
- 16:56:12 [RRSAgent]
- I see no action items