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