Social Web Incubator Group

 

7994

<jsalvachua> Hello, to all

<karl> Last Week in Social Web Incubator Group

Does it just involve typing what's spoken to IRC?

If so, I can do that - I can type pretty quickly.

<dom> ScribeNick: tinkster

<dom> Scribe: Toby

<karl> cheers for tinkster

danbri and hhalpin details, so I'm scribing.

Harry's agenda had a typo for IRC channel. This is the correct one.

No roll call. Anyone new?

<AlexPassant> I was there only on IRC last week

Alex Passant - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-social-web-talk/2009May/0020.html

DERI Galway.

Interested in social/semantic stuff.

Do we approve minutes from last meeting?

Any objections?

We'll generally assume minutes approved unless we hear otherwise.

First, we'll hear about Christine's taskforce proposal.

<dom> Christine's TF proposal

<dom> Last week meeting minutes

Christine: task forces concept not just my idea. Helped to write it and adopted formula from workshops.

People at workshops and after expressed interest in specific topics.

Task forces illustrate depth and bredth of topics.

Christine doesn't percieve "mobile" as separate topic. Is relevant to all task forces.

This is why she doesn't propose such a task force.

<DKA> +1 to not splitting mobile off.

Christine's task force proposal is not the only way this could be split up.

Distributed and privacy/trust seem to have a lot of people interested.

<jsalvachua> +1 not splitting mobile

Julian from Vodaphone has joined us and will be introducing himself.

Vodaphone R&D, research initiatives group.

Interested in context and standardising that here.

DKA notes task forces have been successful in Mobile Web Best Practices.

MWBP task forces have sometimes had own calls, own face to faces.

DKA speaks about definition of task forces.

Key feature is that they have a lead.

<cperey> task force has leader and people/participants!

<raphael> +1 to not split mobile too

<cperey> we need to have a critical number of experts

Dom: leader + charter. People can decide whether to join.

<cperey> make sure task force scope is well defined

<danbri> hi

<danbri> sorry late, trying join

Needs more than 1 participant.

For every task force we want to launch, there is an overhead - identify leader, etc.

e.g. a mobile web task force was set up for an open source implementation. Made sense to split it off, have own calls, have face to faces to work on code.

Different deliverables from main working group.

Any software development would certainly make sense as a task force.

Let's identify one or two task forces to split off and then phase in others if/when needed.

<danbri> ..ooOO( 7 task forces, vs 7 email threads...? )

What are people's priorities for task forces?

<cperey> It is not required that all task forces begin at the start of the incubator's activity. There may be delays either due to lack of appropriate leader or contributors, dependencies or lack of time on behalf of the incubator group's members.

<AdamB> how should the task forces map back to the XG charter?

Christine: sorry for echo on line. Agrees that some can be spun off later - sometimes deirable when there are dependencies.

<AdamB> or should i ask, do they need to?

Christine: important to have a higher level "Landscape" task force. How does everything look big picture?
... I want to be invoolved in that one.

<cperey> yes, I would like to lead that

DKA: agrees landscape tf makes sense.

<cperey> looks like he is

<hhalpin> I am online.

<cperey> both are on line

Thanks.

<danbri> i'm not getting audio here

hhalpin: agrees on having task forces.

<danbri> may i make my point by irc please?: for now re "task forces", let's start by seeing them as email threads ...

<jsalvachua> +1 for task forces to start and focus the work

<hhalpin> I'd say 2 or 3.

<cperey> agree that they need to be clarified based on interests

<danbri> if we get > 10 messages in 1 of these threads, and more than 3 participants in that thread, then let's call it a Task Force ...

DKA: Scoping for task forces need more quantification. Don't want to split off 7 immediately. 2 is a good place to start.
... all Christines listed areas are good places, but don't necessarily need all of them to spin off separately.

<hhalpin> notes that we also had a poll on task for projected participation in past...

<hhalpin> let me find that URI

Landscape and Business areas - mergeable?

Christine: there is overlap, but Landscape intended to look at technical aspects, and look for gaps.
... metrics is muddy.

<Zakim> karl, you wanted to ask about Landscape Task force future?

Karl: Landscape seems to be about surveying. Incubator is 1 year (maybe two if we're lucky).

<hhalpin> Maybe one thing we can say, if we wanted to start 2 or 3 task forces in order to get some work done, which 2 or 3 would be best?

Karl: Should we have a continuing forum for discussing developments after the XG is finished?

Christine: Landscape is a "living framework". On a wiki?

<karl> http://delicious.com/search?p=socialweb ? does it answer the needs or what is needed?

Christine: capture the state of the art and then "colour on top of it to make it more rich".

<hhalpin> I guess my question with Landscape is that it's more or less what the entire XG is supposed to be doing...

DKA? agrees with christine about living document.

<mischat> agreed hhalpin, the landscape sounds like what the final report will be

Adam: start with charter - this might reduce number of task forces.

<cperey> I think that the landscape task force will contribute to the final deliverable

<cperey> yes, section in the XG report

DKA: Landscape/Business/other? task forces will probably contribute chapters to end deliverables.

<cperey> It is central to the XG's "view" on the world and its own work

<karl> Is there a need for a task force for Landscape when there are already plenty of sites covering social web?

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/99999/SocialWebXGCharter/results

<hhalpin> Results of Task Force Questionnaire from March.

Karl: plenty of websites out there about the social web. Some business info, some development. Do we need yet another website for delivering information?

<hhalpin> General results from questionnaire had "business" and "landscape" merge, and with "Distributed Architecture" and "Interoperability" merging as well, with context and user-experience kept separate.

What should be on the wiki? How do we select info to include?

<mischat> hehe

Christine: for people in the group to decide what's included. She's not married to any particular structure. Should be technical and lead to us identifying areas that need more attention.

<hhalpin> On the results of questionnaire, we had most popular task forces being 1) interoperability/distributed architecture 2) privacy and 3) user experience and 4) contextual data

Landscape can help us figure out if new technologies are needed, or maybe that no new technologies needed.

As most people seem to be interested in privacy, interop, etc, then perhaps not enough people interested in Landscape to do that work?

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group will create a task force focusing on "landscape and business." Christine Perey to lead task force and edit task force report.

Landscape would look at obstacles to growth of social web.

<hhalpin> The whole point of the XG is future W3C standardization.

What work is already being done which could be standardised?

40/50 people telecons are not going to be productive, so task forces are almost a requirement.

How should it be dividided is the real question?

<danbri> 24 ppl on phone?

<karl> the deliverables of Task Forces could drive the themes

<bblfish> oops sorry for coming in late

The landscape stuff should be what the *entire* XG is looking at. It's other topics that want task forces.

<petef> hhalpin speaking now

<cperey> task forces should/would be focused on topics

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group will three task forces: privacy; user experience and context.

<cperey> Privacy seems to be very popular

Task forces for privacy, interop, another thing (anyone catch it?)

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group will three task forces: privacy; user experience and context. Landscape will be a deliverable of the main working group.

Ah, DKA has.

From this structure, the landscape should organically emerge.

<mischat> distributed architecture task force seems important too .

<cperey> what about distributed/decentralized architectures?

<petef> DKA< there was a fourth too: distributed architectures and data portability

DKA has proposed a resolution to task forces. He agrees with hhalpin that Landscape is key.

<hhalpin> Privacy, User Experience, Context, Distributed Architecture.

<hhalpin> That's 4. Perhaps too many.

<jsalvachua> i think that interoperability and distributed may be interesting (merged)

Landscape still needs a leader even if it's being worked on by whole XG.

<hhalpin> We could do a WBS Questionnaire.

<cperey> not too many, if there are sufficient people

<hhalpin> Landscape leader will be editor of final report deliverble.

<cperey> no need to delay getting a poll now

<AlexPassant> +1 for merging distributed architecture and interoperability

<cperey> Privacy, User Experience, Context, Distributed Architecture.

<karl> Social Web Privacy on delicious

<jsalvachua> +q

<cperey> Landscape=final deliverable?

<hhalpin> CPerey, yes.

I can't scribe and put myself on the queue.

<cperey> Miguel Martin wanted to do the distributed architecture

jsa: distributed architecture

<hhalpin> Distributed Architecture + Portability.

<cperey> it is of high interest

<hhalpin> That's popular.

<jsalvachua> Joaquin salvachua :)

<hhalpin> Joaquin.

<karl> small goals are achievable.

<uldis> if landscape / overview is a deliverable of the main group, will there be anyone focusing on it? that is, if we don't mention such a group (for landscape), who will work on it?

jsalvachua: reintroduces himself. Interested in running distrib arch and portability.

<hhalpin> Landscape will be worked on by the editors.

<petef> I would be interested in working on that too, with jsvalchua

<jsalvachua> perfect petef :)

<mischat> no

Privacy, User Exp, Context - leaders?... anyone?

<hhalpin> So, in general, each of the task force will contribute use-cases and add technical details to technical document.

<hhalpin> Then towards end of XG lifespan, we synthesize this work collectively.

Does is make sense to combine them. Mischa says no.

<hhalpin> Into landscape.

<hhalpin> Which is given by the final report.

<cperey> hi Claudio!

claudio: interested in context, but what is the scope?

claudio: talking to Philip Oscar (?) to understand whether Telecom Italia (?) work might fit in here or another group.

<cperey> The mission of this task force is to document those principles which the task force members believe to be the appropriate use & approaches to control of abuse of contextual data in social networks. One of the deliverables of this task force is a report mapping the current uses of context in social networking. A best practices guide could also be envisioned,

<cperey> location, proximity

DKA: christine's notes mention context = location, proximity, more.

What goes into context information? Mapping them to existing standards/vocabs.

<hhalpin> For example of context, look at this:

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/TR/dcontology/

Wide scope of context - abuse of context info - is this better handled by privacy task force?

claudio is mostly interested in context as in device capabilities.

<cperey> +1

<hhalpin> maybe think geolocation API, how does that work with an API like OpenSocial or Social Data?

mischat: people can hear him.

He's from Garlik.

Looked into life logging and working out autobiographies from web activity.

AlexPassant, I knew it was some kind of silly spelling.

;-)

<DKA> +1

Interesting = Analysis of photographs to figure out what people were doing at the time.

<raphael> Misha refers to work from Mor Naarman, http://infolab.stanford.edu/~mor/ previously at Yahoo Berkeley now in New York

<hhalpin> The real key is that likely all task-forces work will have to merge.

<hhalpin> The entire point of the task forces is to get small enough groups to allow productive telecons to produce text.

<hhalpin> for the deliverables and to have detailed technical conversations as well.

Can mischa lead a task force or edit a document about this? No, he's still working on PhD and that takes much of his time. But he'll add his thoughts about context to the wiki.

<cperey> ...but context also includes more

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group will four task forces: privacy; user experience; distributed architecture and context. Landscape will be a deliverable of the main working group.

claudio: Still thinks this is a little too general. Probably not interested in leading context task force. Context might have to be something which is launched further along, not initially. Wait until needs are clarified?

<mischat> context related project in EU : http://livingknowledge-project.eu/

<hhalpin> We can always launch a contextual task force later as needed, or do it in larger group telecons.

<DKA> ACTION mischat to write some thoughts into the wiki on context, channeling Mor Naaman.

<dom> ACTION: mischat to write some thoughts into the wiki on context, channeling Mor Naaman [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action01]

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: the group will four task forces: privacy; user experience; distributed architecture. Landscape and context documents will be deliverables of the main working group.

<mischat> dom that dom :)

<mischat> got that dom

me: Could context be an area of user experience? Providing different experiences based on context?

<danbri> i only see 3 there

<petef> DKA s/four/three ?

hakan: we should have a look at what's already been done in presence area. Can we use what's already there?

<danbri> "the group will initiate THREE task forces: privacy; user experience; distributed architecture."

hakan: will add links and info to wiki about this topic.

<hhalpin> Let's check to see if we have a lead for privacy and user-experience.

How can I add actions?

<DKA> ACTION: hakan to provide some info into the wiki on existing work on context. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action02]

me: am interested in privacy, but not enough to lead.

<cperey> this (presence work in the past) is landscape!! thank you!!

<danbri> +1 on 2 or 3 for starters being fine

<karl> It would be good to have a precise description of what are the deliverables of each task force.

Who wants to lead privacy; and user experience?

<hhalpin> Volunteers for privacy task force?

<bblfish> I will be looking at Access Control

<bblfish> Is that privacy?

<DKA> ach hh

<cperey> precise definitions of task forces are for the participants

<hhalpin> The key is not just to list technologies, but to inspect them.

<DKA> +1 to mischa's comments

<hhalpin> To determine what are compatible with current user and business practice, both on a social level and technical level.

mischat: XRIs - are people interested in these? Garlik can provide insight on what sort of personal info is out there on the web. But what do people want?

<hhalpin> However, note that usage of XRIs *may* prove to be sticking point if W3C wanted to push standards that use XRIs due to RF issues.

<cperey> This task force will explore how specific approaches to ensuring user and user data privacy and trust can improve the security and reduce risks of users. This task force is also responsible for the development of best practices recommendations on privacy in social networks.

"Best Practices for Privacy in Social Networks" could be an outcome. What are people's perceptions of privacy?

Can mischat provide information about privacy on Wiki?

<mischat> yes i can add to

<mischat> wiki

<DKA> ACTION: mischat to provide some data on privacy to the wiki. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action03]

<cperey> 6 min to close of meeting

<hhalpin> Do we still not have a Privacy Task Force Leader?

hhalpin: Don't we have a privacy leader??

<Zakim> karl, you wanted to tell about privacy scope

karl: would be happy to lead on privacy if the scope is very focussed.

<hhalpin> Maybe give Karl an action to clarify the privacy task force :)

karl: user stories might be a way to focus on what is needed.

<hhalpin> +1 to user stories

<mischat> +1 to user stories

<hhalpin> User stories then become part of use-case document...

<cperey> how is user stories = or not to use cases?

<DKA> ACTION: Karl to provide some user stories regarding privacy. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action04]

DKA supports the idea of user stories as a way of exploring these topics - equally works for context.

<pchampin> same question as cperey

Would someone want to provide context user stories?

<DKA> ACTION: Julian to provide some user stories regarding context. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action05]

<hhalpin> Cperey, pchampin: user stories, once mature, will be part of use-case document.

julian could.

<danbri> if someone has a template, i could probably contrib a tv-related story

<DKA> ACTION: Hakan to provide some user stories regarding context. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action06]

Someone else (who?) could.

<hhalpin> (actions are good!)

DKA = actions equal progress!

<cperey> yes

<karl> user stories will help to refine task forces I guess

Will Christine edit the landscape document? Christine says yes.

<cperey> I would be happy to shape landscape wiki area

<hhalpin> Note that landscape wiki = (probably equals) = editor of final report for W3C :)

<hhalpin> Oshani, do you want an action on that context + privacy?

<oshani> sure

<hhalpin> ACTION: Oshani to provide use-cases for privacy and context on wiki [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action07]

Editing a document vs contributing to wiki. Wiki is good to start with, but we need to ultimately provide documents.

Item #3 on agenda.

<danbri> danbri: "Can you hear me? Is this thing on?"

<mischat> no we cant hear you

<danbri> pls continue my actions

Can't hear danbri.

<cperey> we should continue this discussion abou how to work onj the next call

<danbri> noting that harry made a start, and i tweaked his page ...

About time to finish off...

<hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/InvitedGuests

<danbri> re wiki, i am thinking something a bit like http://esw.w3.org/topic/ScheduledTopicChat in spirit but less IRC-ish

hhalpin: Was a slow start because of wiki editing issues, but here's a list of people we could invite here.

<danbri> hhalpin, i edited that a bit earlier

<danbri> confirm that wiki editing works now :)

me: I really want to look at OMB spec.

<jsalvachua> hhalpin, my w3c user does not works for the wiki

<danbri> re list of people/projects, i'd rather have a list of topics and problems ...

Do we have consensus on having invited guests?

<petef> +1 for biweekly guest telecons

<danbri> ... which is what i consider my action to address

<cperey> I would like to suggest that we have the guest telecons to be separately

<mischat> jsalvachua: when was the last time you checked

<jsalvachua> 1 hour ago

<danbri> not: "we'd like you to come and talk to us. " but "we'd like you to come and talk about x"

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we should have guest speaker telecons - guests to be organized by chairs.

Guest telecons will be separate from main telecon. Will be bi-weekly.

<DKA> +1

<danbri> where my action is specifying some Xs and a template for X

<cperey> but a task force telecon could happen in the same week as guest speaker telecon

<hhalpin> Maybe test for consensus or ask questions?

<mischat> can we add to list of Guest speakers ?

<hhalpin> mischat: yes, that's why the guest speakers are on the wiki

DKA(?): Main objection was that it might be a distraction, and information is already available in other ways, but that shouldn't stop us.

<cperey> I would like there to be an effort to bring in Facebook as an invited guest

<melvster> list of speakers id add: Kevin Marks (opensocial etc.) , Brad Fitzpatrick (Google social graph API)

<DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we should have optional guest speaker telecons - guests to be organized by chairs.

<DKA> +1 to the proposal.

<petef> although there are already enough speakers on the wiki to last a year

It's always possible to skip particular guest telecons if you're not interested.

<danbri> lots of them will be too busy, for sure

<cperey> I have to sign off

<danbri> we don't know who, so good to have a nice list

Some people listed on wiki might not be available.

<cperey> bye

<hhalpin> Any objections?

<danbri> if we make it very problem-focussed we could get folk who might otherwise be unable to justify the time

PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we should have optional guest speaker telecons - guests to be organized by chairs.

<petef> +1

<hhalpin> Danbri: we can tweak the kind and type of inviation...

<mib_4d0quw9x> +1 (Hakan)

<jsalvachua> +1

RESOLUTION: we should have optional guest speaker telecons - guests to be organized by chairs.

<danbri> :)

<hhalpin> ACTION: hhalpin and danbri to invite guest speakers and investigate their schedule [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/05/13-swxg-minutes.html#action08]

<danbri> i pinged chris saad earlier re dataportability too

Evan P of OMB interested in contributing.

<danbri> i can bring it up on next week's dataportability call too

<hhalpin> karl: big news would definitely be important

Next week: pick up discussion on task forces.

Bye everyone!

<jsalvachua> karl, looks interesting

<mischat> bye all

<hhalpin> bye everyone, only a few minutes over!

<petef> thanks all, bye

<mib_4d0quw9x> bye

<danbri> cheers, sorry to be partially conneted

<jsalvachua> bye

<AdamB> bye

Is there anything I need to do as scribe to finish off?

thanks

no problem.

<yuk> i don't miss me in the attendee

<yuk> thank you