16:58:52 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:58:52 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/09-social-irc 16:58:54 RRSAgent, make logs 411 16:58:54 Zakim has joined #social 16:58:56 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:58:56 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 16:58:57 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:58:57 Date: 09 September 2014 16:58:57 Thanks, I didn't do that yet 16:59:04 DaveSkiba has joined #social 16:59:09 Zakim, what's the code? 16:59:10 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry 16:59:18 dromasca has joined #social 16:59:35 no, akuckartz wont be here today so we need a new scribe 16:59:55 Zakim: +tiborKatelbach 17:00:05 tiborKatelbach: tantek left you a message on 8/22 at 1:56pm: yes, telecon dialing in etc. information is at https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Telecons and be sure to be on IRC as well for minutes, additional converstaion, queuing. 17:00:08 Arnaud: you're next alphabetically, would you mind scribing? 17:00:22 Regrets on my part (busy with something) 17:00:55 trackbot, start meeting 17:00:57 RRSAgent, make logs 411 17:00:59 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:00:59 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now 17:01:00 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:01:00 Date: 09 September 2014 17:01:03 Uh, again? 17:01:08 zakim, this is socl 17:01:09 ok, sandro; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:01:14 I thought it was already started. 17:01:22 it was, evanpro -- my mistake 17:01:26 NP 17:01:32 One thing we need is a scribe 17:01:35 it's just it didn't identify the telecon properly 17:01:39 Actually, I'll just start 17:01:43 zakim, who is on the call? 17:01:43 On the phone I see [IPcaller], +1.503.567.aaaa, +26226234aabb, [IPcaller.a], Tsyesika, Sandro 17:01:43 joining in a second 17:01:52 I'm one of those IP callers 17:02:00 +jasnell 17:02:08 Zakim: aaaa is aaronpk 17:02:14 +Arnaud 17:02:20 zakim, [IPcaller] is evanpro 17:02:20 +evanpro; got it 17:02:20 zakim, aaaa is aaronpk 17:02:21 +aaronpk; got it 17:02:22 i may be IPcaller.a 17:02:25 Tada 17:02:27 +??P12 17:02:36 +wilkie 17:02:50 Zakim, this is social 17:02:50 sorry, harry, I do not see a conference named 'social' in progress or scheduled at this time 17:02:54 +??P15 17:02:56 zakim, [IPcaller.a] is jtauber 17:02:56 +jtauber; got it 17:03:10 zakim, who is on the call? 17:03:10 On the phone I see evanpro, aaronpk, +26226234aabb, jtauber, Tsyesika, Sandro, jasnell, Arnaud, ??P12, wilkie, ??P15 17:03:27 elf-pavlik: is that you? 17:03:35 zakim +tiborKatelbach 17:03:57 zakim aabb is me 17:04:01 jasnell has joined #social 17:04:07 zakim, aabb is me 17:04:07 +tiborKatelbach; got it 17:04:16 zakim, who is on the call? 17:04:16 On the phone I see evanpro, aaronpk, tiborKatelbach, jtauber, Tsyesika, Sandro, jasnell, Arnaud, ??P12, wilkie, ??P15 17:04:21 i'm not on the call btw :s not sure why it thinks i am :P 17:04:23 +[IPcaller] 17:04:28 Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin 17:04:28 +hhalpin; got it 17:04:30 zakim, pedantic is you! 17:04:30 sorry, wilkie, I do not recognize a party named 'pedantic' 17:04:33 ??P15 is me 17:04:34 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:34 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wilkie 17:04:41 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:41 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jasnell 17:04:44 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:44 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wilkie 17:04:46 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:46 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose evanpro 17:04:47 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:47 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Tsyesika 17:04:49 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:50 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose evanpro 17:04:51 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:51 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose jasnell 17:04:52 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:04:52 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro 17:04:55 Sandro :) 17:04:59 Perfect 17:05:04 -??P12 17:05:04 sandro: can you scribe for us? 17:05:05 Tysesika did it last time 17:05:11 Evan is scribing 17:05:17 jasnell has to speak a lot this meeting I imagine 17:05:18 s/scribing/chairing/ 17:05:18 i did what 17:05:20 evanpro meant to say: sandro: can you scribe for us? 17:05:20 I will volunteer to scribe next week 17:05:29 +[IPcaller] 17:05:33 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:05:33 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose evanpro 17:05:34 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:05:34 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Sandro 17:05:35 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:05:35 Zakim: IPcaller is me 17:05:36 +??P19 17:05:36 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wilkie 17:05:36 Zakim, pick a scribe 17:05:37 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Arnaud 17:05:51 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:05:51 +tommorris; got it 17:05:51 Arnaud chaired twice in a row 17:06:27 scribe: sandro 17:06:38 ACTION: harry to create a scribe list 17:06:38 Created ACTION-1 - Create a scribe list [on Harry Halpin - due 2014-09-16]. 17:06:43 Zakim, ??P15 is me 17:06:43 +dromasca; got it 17:06:56 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Scribes 17:07:08 evanpro: working on scribes list, but it's not quite done yet 17:07:44 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-02-minutes 17:07:44 evanpro: minutes from last week 17:08:03 PROPOSED: approve minutes from last week https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-02-minutes 17:08:15 RESOLVED: approve minutes from last week https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-02-minutes 17:08:49 evanpro: this is the 3rd official meeting. we're behind schedule, for various reasons 17:09:10 .. I've revised the schedule. It's ambitious, but I think we can meet it. 17:09:16 .. I'd like to run throught he schedule 17:09:20 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#sched 17:09:58 +Doug_Schepers 17:10:13 evanpro: For September, our big item is picking an initial social data syntax 17:10:28 .. with the goal of having a draft for TPAC 17:10:59 .. with the intention of by next week we'll have an agreed set of candidates and criteria 17:11:08 .. and two weeks from now we'll have confirmed that direction 17:11:14 .. and then can begin making a draft. 17:11:38 q+ to ask about draft publication schedule 17:11:53 evan: I'm an AS advocate, but I want us to consider other options 17:12:01 Zakim: q? 17:12:05 q? 17:12:09 q- 17:12:11 ack sandro 17:12:11 sandro, you wanted to ask about draft publication schedule 17:12:33 either publication at TPAC or before TPAC is fine with me. 17:12:58 It does tend to help focus discussion. 17:13:04 sandro: goal is to have consensus to publish BEFORE of AFTER tpac? 17:13:16 evanpro: probably after 17:13:16 My proposal is currently documented in the AS2 draft... specifically... JSON + AS2 Vocabulary + (JSON-LD alignment + recommended use of Vcard, Foaf, Org Ont, DC, and Prov ontologies). Other ontologies such as schema.org *could* be used, but would not be specifically recommended 17:13:27 elf-pavlik has joined #social 17:13:33 AS2 working draft is located here currently: http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2.html 17:13:41 q? 17:13:43 q+ 17:13:49 ack elf-pavlik 17:13:54 Thanks 17:13:55 can snapshot that at any time to product FPWD 17:14:13 elf-pavlik: Comparing AS and Schema.Org 17:14:29 evanpro: Topic at the moment is the schedule itself. 17:14:47 +??P20 17:15:06 evanpro: AS / schema discussion is later on the agenda 17:15:26 evanpro: As the existing list of candidates and requirements reasonable? 17:15:38 s/As/Is/ 17:15:41 sandro meant to say: evanpro: Is the existing list of candidates and requirements reasonable? 17:16:01 evan: And can we make the decision within two weeks 17:16:07 q+ 17:16:12 evanpro: Hearing no comments, I'm going to take that as agreement 17:16:19 ack shepazu 17:16:45 shepazu: As a way of getting feedback, you might ask for a specific proposal 17:17:28 this one https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#sched ? 17:17:32 deiu has joined #social 17:17:37 elf-pavlik: yes 17:17:39 elf-pavlik: yes 17:17:55 PROPOSED: The schedule for the Social Data Syntax is as just discussed, closing out candidates & requirements next week, trying to for dececision in two weeks, and draft published after F2F 17:17:58 +1 17:18:00 +1 17:18:01 +1 17:18:05 +1 17:18:07 +1 17:18:08 +1 17:18:09 +1 17:18:10 +1 17:18:11 +1 17:18:15 +1 17:18:16 +1 17:18:18 +1 17:18:18 +1 17:18:31 RESOLVED: The schedule for the Social Data Syntax is as just discussed, closing out candidates & requirements next week, trying to for dececision in two weeks, and draft published after F2F 17:19:12 shepazu: Because this group has decided to work asynchronously, was there a call for consensus on this on the mailing list as well? 17:19:19 evanpro: No, so there should be 17:20:09 do we have this workflow documented on our wiki? 17:20:13 shepazu: How about: Report this proposal to the mailing list, showing consensus on mailing list, and please respond to let us know what you think (giving a deadline). This way you've checked all the boxes in terms of being async. 17:20:21 q+ 17:20:24 How about RESOLVED = what shepazu just said 17:20:27 q+ 17:20:34 ack Arnaud 17:20:52 +1 17:21:06 Arnaud: This sounds like a heavy process. The minutes are published -- this should stick until/unless someone raises a concern on the mailing list. 17:21:31 q+ 17:21:35 Perhaps a summary of resolutions in the minutes E-Mail? 17:22:01 shepazu: When groups I've been in have said they want to work asynchronously, they've accepted the idea that people wont be on calls. If you want to say people have to read the minutes to participate, that's fine, too. 17:22:16 The group could vote for Arnaud or dougs view 17:22:32 +1 doug 17:22:34 q- 17:22:36 Arnaud: Since we've decided to put the minutes in the wiki, we can highlight the resolutions at the top 17:22:50 Arnaud: then they stick a week later, when minutes are approved 17:23:00 +1 doug 17:23:13 shepazu: There's a perl tool that pulls out the resolutions and writes them to a wiki page for the SVG wg 17:23:18 whhaaa 17:23:28 darn it all! nobody told me that last week haha 17:23:46 we have no official tools 17:23:55 shepazu: You can use whatever tools you want 17:24:23 Resolutions can be objected within a week. 17:24:25 evanpro: Sounds like -- bring resolutions to top of minutes, but don't send special email. And people have up to the week later. 17:24:27 That sounds rather reaosnable 17:24:39 0 17:24:39 +1 17:24:40 +1 17:24:42 +1 17:24:44 +1 17:24:45 +1 17:24:47 +1 17:24:49 +0 wishing for better tools, but yeah 17:24:52 +1 17:24:54 +1 17:25:31 RESOLVED: resolutions will be highlighted in minutes, and people not at meeting can bring up their concerns within the following week 17:26:29 evanpro: social client api -- collecting candidates and requirements 17:26:40 evanpro: decision by mid to late october 17:27:36 sounds reasonable 17:27:37 PROPOSED: Social API schedule: gather candidates and requirements by mid October 17:27:40 +1 17:27:45 +1 17:27:47 +1 17:27:53 +1 17:27:55 I'd like to see what other AS 2.0 work besides OpenSocial is in this space 17:27:56 _ 17:27:57 +1 17:28:00 candidates and requirement *proposals* right? 17:28:03 yes 17:28:05 +1 17:28:06 PROPOSED: Social API schedule: gather candidates and requirements by mid October, with confirmed direction shortly thereafter, but no draft approved at TPAC 17:28:08 +1 17:28:13 +1 17:28:13 +1 17:28:17 +1 17:28:17 +1 then... 17:28:29 +0 17:28:35 +1 17:28:38 RESOLVED: Social API schedule: gather candidates and requirements by mid October, with confirmed direction shortly thereafter, but no draft approved at TPAC 17:29:14 I think re federation that's pretty hard - we can modify schedule later. 17:29:18 Focus on API and syntax first. 17:29:22 +1 harry 17:29:22 q+ 17:29:27 evanpro: Server-to-Server / Federation protocol, I'd like to put that off a bit, until we have some bandwidth to look at them, then look at schedule. 17:29:31 ack harry 17:29:32 ack harry 17:30:08 :) 17:30:12 Anyways, just don't worry - we can modify agenda in charter 17:30:15 no big deal 17:30:32 We can move that back 17:30:38 http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html 17:30:39 to later in 2015 17:30:42 A point I've raised in the past: I think that any comprehensive social API and federation protocol are fundamentally intertwined concepts 17:30:42 evanpro: I think federation in the charter is Q1 or Q2 2015 17:31:12 oshepherd, do you want to voice that? 17:31:29 Sorry, my mic is still out of commission 17:31:52 evanpro reads oshepherd's line 17:32:05 a properly designed API will also handle the federation requirement 17:32:17 I don't view those as separate items 17:32:31 evanpro: For example ostatus and pump.io many of the rest endpoints are used for both, so it probably makes sense to consider social api 17:33:03 q+ 17:33:10 ack sandro 17:33:54 sandro: federation protocols first and client api just special case (elf-pavlik tries help scribing) 17:34:42 evanpro: There are many social APIs in use across the web, and we can provide value by standardizing that, without addressing federation. I wouldn't want to delay that in the name of thinking about federation. 17:35:02 I'm curious how the different options for Social Data Syntax and Social API are going to be evaluated… are there use cases and requirements for these? 17:35:06 .. we do have a submission (embedded experiences), and ?? from open social, which could work very well for social API 17:35:21 http://www.w3.org/Submission/2014/SUBM-osapi-20140314/ 17:35:38 shepazu, i poposed use case https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Check-In_Use_Case 17:36:17 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax_requirements 17:36:26 evanpro: Answering shepazu -- I think we're talking about collecting them for discussion. We do have a social data syntax requirements page on the wiki, but they are very loose and informal. 17:36:47 .. We could get pretty far down the hole in use case analysis 17:36:52 q+ 17:37:01 ack elf-pavlik 17:37:21 elf-pavlik: it's hard to evaluate without use cases. 17:37:24 I find use-cases tend to blackhole in this space, look for running code people use instead. 17:37:25 AdamB has joined #social 17:37:28 elf-pavlik: this came up in considering Hydra 17:37:45 For example, the Social XG made a 50 use-case document that was basically infinite and never finished. 17:37:57 evanpro: 95% of use case analysis is in the activity streams already 17:38:18 + +1.314.777.aacc 17:38:28 http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalUseCases 17:38:36 use-cases in this space are very large 17:38:54 I'd recommend looking for *running code* with *real users* 17:39:17 And see what they are *actually doing* - and include both open-source and proprietary systems in this codebase analysis. 17:39:23 evanpro: current wiki list is very loose; if we did use case justification, it would go on and on. 17:39:38 q+ 17:39:45 For example, IBM has Connections, Evan has pump.io, SugarCRM, SAP Jam, IndieWeb sites 17:39:50 ack tommorris 17:40:14 I'd like to see a list of products and software rather than use-cases, and then look maybe at the problems that real running software is trying to solve. 17:40:32 harry, also Crosscloud :) http://cimba.co/ | http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter.html 17:40:33 Since 90% of the software in the "decentralized" social space is essentially vapourware 17:40:38 zakim, this is aacc 17:40:38 sorry, AdamB, I do not see a conference named 'aacc' in progress or scheduled at this time 17:40:44 tommorris: Looking at use cases for federation protocol, and wondering how it relates to charter requirements. Are we talking about an individual social network (eg facebook or twitter), or .... what are the servers we're federating? 17:41:27 Federation = HTTP REST-based protocol for federating data, including obvious things like blog posts but possibly also personal data. 17:41:52 evanpro: I think the intention is to have multoiple servers under the control of different entities, including consumer oriented social networks and enterprises, able to share data between servers, hetergeneous, like SMTP 17:41:53 Part of the challenge here is that we are not working off a common definition of what a "Social API" means... or what "Social Federation" means... we need proposed definitions 17:42:17 q+ 17:42:19 I think definitions will rathole just as bad as use-cases. Instead, look at working software that claims they have federation or want it. 17:42:22 evanpro: It would be less interesting and not worth our energy to look at how folks should do these things internally. 17:42:23 Ditto API. 17:42:34 ack dromasca 17:43:13 q+ 17:43:24 dromasca: (from Avaya) This definition of federation you just described, this is much beyond social API. it brings up data ownership. not sure that's in current charter. 17:43:40 ack elf-pavlik 17:43:44 Data ownership is probably a separate topic but we should help enable that. 17:43:45 ack elf-pavlik 17:43:59 dromasca: Data ownership will probably be similar to SMTP 17:44:01 elf-pavlik: I think it would help to discuss things more on the mailing list 17:44:16 dromasca: I.E. if you send it to somebody, you probably can't get it back 17:44:36 discuss things *before* teleconf 17:44:46 evanpro: We're putting Federation until after TPAC; concentrate on client api and social data standard now. 17:45:10 -oshepherd_ 17:45:11 evanpro: can we table this Federation talk for now? 17:45:21 +1 17:45:25 +1 17:45:25 +1 17:45:26 +1 17:45:27 +1 17:45:30 +1 17:45:33 +1 17:45:36 +??P20 17:45:37 evanpro: (except where it might require things of the Social API) 17:45:38 +1 17:45:39 +1 17:45:40 +1 17:45:40 +1 17:46:00 topic: Social Data Syntax 17:46:11 evanpro: We have some candidates on the wiki, as well as some loose requirements 17:46:39 evanpro: Hydra, Schema.org, AS2 are all strong candidates 17:46:43 q+ 17:47:03 evanpro:We also included some not-submitted structures, like OGP and Tweets 17:47:18 evanpro: Facebook is not interested in submitting OGP 17:47:38 evanpro: or licencing it for our use 17:47:41 Zakim, who's making noise? 17:47:54 harry, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: evanpro (27%), ??P19 (4%) 17:47:55 evanpro: There are some others on here 17:48:04 Twitter is discussing us with Friday 17:48:07 will send email after that! 17:48:28 Twitter is new to open standards space 17:48:33 evanpro: Unlikely they'll submit that, but it's possible 17:49:16 The syntax ought to be: JSON + JSON-JD + minimal set of vocabularies including AS2 and the others documented in the AS2 draft. It should be possible to use schema.org, but it should not be a recommendation of the WG to use schema.org unless schema.org governance is opened up. 17:49:28 elf-pavlik: Hydra may start using the schema.org vocabulary 17:49:40 it's great that schema.org updated terms of service, but governance is still a challenge 17:49:47 +1 17:49:47 schema.org is not a syntax though 17:50:13 The previous good argument was that schema.org did not conform with RFF patent policy 17:50:16 Zakim, who's making noise? 17:50:22 Zakim, mute ??P19 17:50:22 ??P19 should now be muted 17:50:26 harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: evanpro (25%), Sandro (4%), ??P19 (36%) 17:51:33 jasnell: There's the syntax and the vocabs. For the syntax, if we focus on JSON and JSON-LD, that covers that. For Schema.Org, it's fantastic they changed the terms to be compatible with W3C, but governances is still an issue. 17:52:01 I think the main argument is how to harmonize so we can use schema.org nicely with something like AS 2.0. 17:52:03 jasnell: While that's still the case, I don't think W3C should be recommending people to go use it. 17:52:26 jasnell: It's possible for individual developers to use from multiple vocabs 17:52:34 q? 17:52:38 q- 17:52:47 q+ 17:53:07 There should also be concern over Schema.org's quality control 17:53:13 ack sandro 17:53:22 jasnell: so it's possible to use schema. org but util we work something out, we shouldnt recommend 17:53:23 ack sandro 17:54:28 sandro: although schema.org will not turn over the vocabulary entirely it could be dual-homed 17:54:35 +q 17:54:39 sandro: maybe we can align terms between the two 17:55:26 +q 17:55:49 evanpro: if schema.org meets our basic requirements, I'd like to at least consider it on technical grounds. I'm not sure if it does. I'd like to analyse it from those grounds, before we put a lot of effort into dual-homing 17:55:53 ack dromasca 17:55:57 For schema.org we'd also need Google in WG to make any parts of it move forward on Rec track BTW 17:55:58 -Doug_Schepers 17:56:25 dromasca: It's probably too early, since you're right about technical issue need to be addressed first. 17:56:34 we need to separate the syntax and vocabulary discussions a bit. The syntax is the JSON, JSON-LD and basic encoding guidelines (much of what AS2 defines)... the vocabulary is the data model, the set of property names, the semantics, etc 17:56:41 +Doug_Schepers 17:57:11 we can decide on the syntax separately from ironing out all the vocab issues 17:57:18 ack Arnaud 17:57:35 sandro: No promises on governance, but I think it's probably possible, based on talks with DanBri, etc. 17:57:51 q+ 17:58:12 Arnaud: So we could copy schema.org and put it under our own control? And if everyone plays nicely, things keep working. 17:58:46 Arnaud: Also, it seems like this wiki page is a good start. We need to separate syntax from vocabularies. 17:59:03 Arnaud: Can we separate candidates, apples from oranges 17:59:26 -Tsyesika 17:59:59 +1 evanpro 18:00:00 q- 18:00:07 evanpro: From my point of view -- we're not talking about all of schema.org, just the Action section. Separating syntax from vocabs could really confuse users, so I'm wary about separating them. 18:00:15 ack elf-pavlik 18:00:33 KevinMarks has joined #social 18:00:44 evanpro: We've hit the top of the hour. Can we continue another 15 minutes? 18:00:45 +1 18:00:48 +1 18:00:50 +1 18:00:50 +1 18:00:52 +1 (but without me) 18:00:53 +1 18:00:57 +1 18:00:58 +1 18:01:05 +1 18:01:07