00:10:45 <RichardLitt> RichardLitt has joined #social
00:39:18 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
01:00:50 <cmhobbs> cmhobbs has joined #social
01:06:33 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
01:09:31 <RichardLitt> RichardLitt has joined #social
01:23:29 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
02:49:29 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
02:50:47 <nicolagreco> nicolagreco has joined #social
04:49:35 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
05:00:15 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
05:25:08 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
05:57:22 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
05:59:54 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #social
06:01:43 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #social
06:42:51 <nicolagreco> nicolagreco has joined #social
07:11:09 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
07:29:33 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
08:53:28 <nicolagreco> nicolagreco has joined #social
08:57:26 <Shane> Shane has joined #social
08:58:13 <bblfish_> bblfish_ has joined #social
09:56:47 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #social
11:23:34 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
11:35:20 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #social
11:52:28 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
12:08:18 <harry> harry has joined #social
12:30:54 <pfefferle_> pfefferle_ has joined #social
13:21:42 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
13:39:50 <cmhobbs> cmhobbs has joined #social
13:42:04 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
14:04:25 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #social
14:27:59 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #social
14:30:34 <deiu> deiu has joined #social
14:37:15 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
14:50:38 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
15:09:34 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
15:20:15 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
15:33:28 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
15:34:31 <tantek> good morning #social WG!
15:38:13 <tantek> harry, arnaud are you live in IRC?
15:38:48 <Arnaud> I am
15:39:03 <harry> I am as well
15:39:10 <tantek> great!
15:39:12 <harry> I forwarded you all the IEs I could find.
15:39:21 <harry> Tell me if you want to discuss now
15:39:29 <harry> There may be more missing, and I've been trying to get sysreq to fix the system
15:39:49 <harry> but I cannot spend any more time trawling through the archive and arguing with sysreq that their system is broken.
15:40:14 <harry> So, do you want to go through them now?
15:40:21 <harry> or after the call?
15:40:39 <tantek> harry - agreed re: sysreq and their system is broken.
15:40:47 <tantek> I'm happy to raise this to the AB if you like
15:40:49 <harry> My feeling is we should have only *implementers* and that Semantic Web vocabularies do not count as implementaitons.
15:40:56 <harry> Thanks tantek, please do.
15:41:00 <tantek> Here is my proposed alternative process for IE applications:
15:41:25 <tantek> 1. create a W3C account to login to the wiki (which requires agreeing to all the W3C IE participation requirements, contribution licensese etc.)
15:41:41 <tantek> 2. Add yourself to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Applied_for_Membership
15:41:53 <tantek> 3. join IRC here (#social) and ask the chairs to review your application
15:41:59 <Arnaud> I disagree with the "only implementers*
15:42:04 <tantek> ZERO use of email or broken W3C forms
15:42:21 <Arnaud> the w3c too often fails to include users which are hard to get involved
15:42:43 <Arnaud> in my experience users can be very helpful
15:42:55 <tantek> harry I agree that we should ONLY have IEs who are implemeters, and I would add, and are *deploying* *live* on their *own sites* with *public* URLs that they share and we can go verify.
15:43:01 <harry> I agree users could be helpful.
15:43:01 <Arnaud> tantek is back on his soapbox :)
15:43:13 <Arnaud> I guess he never is off though ;-)
15:43:17 <tantek> Arnaud you're wrong about users and involvement etc. especially in the "social web" realm.
15:43:18 <tantek> Very wrong.
15:43:22 <harry> Tantek, we have a number of real working proprietary implementers with large user-bases (IBM, SAP, etc.) thta we can't ignore
15:43:36 <Arnaud> you're entitled to your opinion :)
15:43:49 <tantek> that's how you get endless email garbage threads
15:43:49 <tantek> like most federated/social/decentralized discussions for the past 10 years
15:43:53 <Arnaud> I think you're wrong about requiring people to have a public domain to qualify as expert
15:43:53 <tantek> Arnaud - not my opinion - fact based on email archives of numerous lists for the past decade
15:43:58 <harry> However, the main issue is people who basically denial-of-service attack the WG with weird designs who aren't actual users
15:44:03 <harry> and who are at best hobbyist implementers
15:44:09 <Arnaud> there is plenty of interesting stuff going on behind firewalls
15:44:16 <tantek> Arnaud - domains are cheap - if people can't afford that, they likely aren't real developers or experts.
15:44:21 <Arnaud> the web is not only public
15:44:33 <Arnaud> that's your opinion
15:44:34 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #social
15:44:34 <tantek> and if they can't code simple static HTML pages to put on their domain they are not experts
15:44:41 <tantek> we don't want people that can only write email
15:44:47 <tantek> we have too many of those already
15:44:47 <harry> +1 tantek
15:44:58 <harry> However, I think we need to keep proprietary implementers
15:45:01 <Arnaud> but we don't need to argue over this
15:45:12 <tantek> Arnaud the non-public web can wait for specs to work for the public web
15:45:13 <harry> So let's say "there must be proof of implementation, ideally in a public URL"
15:45:21 <Arnaud> we already agreed that we could all vouch for invited experts
15:45:22 <tantek> no, not ideally
15:45:34 <tantek> sorry, if you can't ship on a public URL you are not a *web* expert
15:45:41 <tantek> you may be a web *academic* but you're not an expert
15:45:45 <harry> "but exceptions are to made to those with proof of employment at an implementer"
15:45:52 <Arnaud> you're free to use your own criteria, just don't force it on others
15:45:54 <tantek> then that implementer can join W3C
15:45:55 <harry> Tantek, in general we are talking about social products at IBM, Boeing, SAP, etc.
15:45:59 <harry> That's pretty non-academic.
15:46:05 <tantek> harry - those are W3C Members
15:46:06 <Arnaud> tantek, to me that's non sense
15:46:08 <tantek> they don't need  IE status
15:46:17 <harry> But we also have non-members, Sugar, Jive, etc.
15:46:20 <harry> with the same issue re IE status.
15:46:23 <tantek> so either you're a W3C member and you just join
15:46:26 <Arnaud> but I'm not going to try and convince you
15:46:33 <Arnaud> I understand that's how you see it
15:46:34 <tantek> OR you're at some other big company and your big company should join W3C
15:46:35 <Arnaud> that's fine
15:46:44 <tantek> OR you're an independent in which case you have to *prove* your expertise
15:46:47 <tantek> we are not going to take your word for it
15:46:49 <harry> In general, for *big* companies, as agreed with W3C Management, we give them 6 months.
15:46:57 <tantek> Arnaud - you seem to have no criteria for expert
15:46:57 <harry> For independents, I agree that we can hold to the "public" case.
15:47:13 <tantek> so I don't see how your opinion is helpful to *choosing* experts
15:47:26 <harry> For W3C member companies or those with 6-month IE status that W3C wants to be member companies, then I am OK with behind firewall products.
15:47:28 <tantek> and saying "that's just your opinion" is not helpful
15:47:56 <tantek> harry, right. either people pay to play, or they ship public to play.
15:47:58 <tantek> very simple.
15:48:03 <harry> Arnaud, what do you think of my suggestion?
15:48:39 <harry> For W3C member companies or those with 6-month IE status that W3C wants to be member companies, we accept behind firewall products, otherwise we will require public URIs and working code.
15:48:49 <harry> Then we should revisit the Invited Experts with this new criteria.
15:49:08 <tantek> I strongly agree
15:49:15 <tantek> either join W3C and pay, or ship public URL
15:49:23 <harry> Well, we give them 6 months to join.
15:49:31 <harry> to see if they find the process useful etc.
15:49:38 <tantek> sure that's fine
15:49:41 <rhiaro_> rhiaro_ has joined #social
15:49:46 <tantek> even I'm not sure if our process is useful :P
15:49:54 <harry> hehe
15:49:56 <harry> We'll see.
15:50:19 <tantek> so far I'm not optimisitic - e.g. by the amount of schema handwaving occuring on the wiki
15:50:22 <harry> I'm trying to make sure the WG doesn't descend into insanity by virtue of being spammed by people with useless "ontologies" and code no-one uses.
15:50:36 <harry> We
15:50:38 <tantek> harry - yeah, that's already happened to the mailing list
15:50:42 <tantek> it's become useless
15:50:44 <harry> 'll see re schema.org
15:50:50 <harry> Well, lets correct that by revisting IEs.
15:50:50 <tantek> I'm trying to keep the wiki sane but it's a lot of work
15:51:08 <tantek> harry - schema-org is a who-cares until someone from the oligopoly (Google/MS/Y!/Yandex) joins
15:51:26 <harry> Those IEs that don't fit the criteria and want to talk vocabularies can be redirected to Social IG
15:51:31 <tantek> because there is no evidence of *any* social web usage of any schema-org action/activity
15:51:44 <tommorris> I think Google et al. may have been burned with betting on OpenSocial and watching it fail.
15:51:47 <harry> I'd like to see Google/MS/Y!/Yandex join.
15:52:10 <harry> Anyways, Arnaud - do you agree with my revisiting the IE requirement?
15:52:11 <tantek> harry me as well. so we can table any discussion of schema-org until they do.
15:52:40 <harry> I say we give people who are already IEs a one-month grace period rather than abruptly kick them out, but we announce this.
15:53:01 <harry> One month should be enough time to set-up working code with a URL in this space for an independent.
15:53:02 <tantek> harry - document your IE criteria immediately on the wiki under your name here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Invited_Expert_Approval
15:53:18 <harry> Anyways, I don't hear from Arnaud, so let's add this to agenda.
15:53:20 <tantek> rather, *update* your IE criteria per what you said above
15:53:42 <harry> I am strongly against seeing either wiki or mailing list becoming useless.
15:53:49 <tantek> harry, you don't have to wait for Arnaud - go ahead an update your wiki entry
15:53:49 <tantek> I'll add subheads to make it more obvious
15:53:52 <Arnaud> tantek: in my experience people are granted IE status when they are well known entities
15:53:53 <Arnaud> like David Wood in the RDF WG
15:53:59 <tantek> doesn't matter if you're against it - the email list is a lost cause
15:54:01 <harry> I am kind of against this.
15:54:05 <tantek> unless you start drastically kicking people off
15:54:19 <harry> Many well-known entities are, to quote Ben Laurie, "certifiably insane"
15:54:23 <tantek> Arnaud - someone is not a well known entity unless they have a public URL
15:54:25 <tommorris> An even looser criteria: if you are proposing some technology to base this stuff on, there needs to be an actual implementation of it. I've yet to see an implementation of Hydra or a full implementation of LDP.
15:54:35 <harry> Agreed Tommorris
15:54:35 <tantek> if you don't have a personal website you may as well not exist on the social web
15:54:39 <harry> I'm not into vapourware
15:54:49 <Arnaud> you don't even need to ask David why he should be granted IE status
15:55:05 <tommorris> I've seen LDP implementations but none seem to implement Indirect Containers. I'd rather not build on technology that hasn't yet been implemented. ;-)
15:55:25 <harry> I'd rather not build on anything until it has some real working code and real users.
15:55:36 <harry> I think IBM will likely have real working code and real users for their LDP product
15:55:49 <harry> I am not so sure re the other efforts in this space,.
15:56:12 <harry> So, we should just be fair and clear.
15:56:22 <harry> I'll document my criteria and we can discuss it in the call.
15:56:33 <tantek> I have no idea who David Wood is. URL?
15:56:50 <harry> Re Hydra, all effort on it seems to have stopped about a year ago, unlike say schema.org and ActivityStreams 2.0
15:56:57 <tantek> this isn't the "social word of mouth take my word for it known entity" working group
15:57:03 <harry> hehe
15:57:03 <tantek> this is the "social *web*" working group
15:57:15 <tantek> no public social web URL, no IE status. very simple.
15:58:03 <tantek> harry, I've never even heard of Hydra (except in Captain America and Greek mythology) before seeing it on the wiki
15:58:06 <tommorris> tantek: David Wood = lead author of the book 'Linked Data: Structured data on the Web' (2013, Manning) - http://www.manning.com/dwood/
15:58:16 <tantek> so who bothered to take the time to document Hydra? and why?
15:58:23 <tantek> who is using Hydra actively on their personal public website?
15:58:25 <tantek> URL?
15:58:37 <harry> I think we let the author in as an IE due to his pointing out his work on Github
15:58:46 <harry> I admit we should have looked closer.
15:59:08 <harry> I detest people who try to force their particular hobbyhorse solution (that has no users or industrial uptake) down people's throats
15:59:25 <harry> So let's try to avoid that at all costs. That hurts the WG and it hurts the W3C
15:59:38 <tantek> tommorris - that's a nice URL for a *book*. Do you have a URL for David Wood himself?
15:59:48 <tommorris> tantek: nope.
16:00:10 <tantek> I really don't care if someone has published a dead tree book about some concept.
16:00:12 <tommorris> (I was Googling because I keep track of RDF-land but hadn't heard of him.)
16:00:28 <tantek> If you claim to be an expert about "Structured data on the Web" - let's see your *website* with "Structured data"
16:01:00 <Arnaud1> Arnaud1 has joined #social
16:01:00 <harry> good luck with that :)
16:01:40 <tantek> harry - we can ignore people who don't create websites, because it is irrelevant what they propose - they will never build anything.
16:02:02 <tantek> you're not going to email your way into building a website.
16:02:17 <harry> Anyways, my proposal is we suggest the new improved IE criteria for the WG during this call
16:02:23 <harry> and then we give folks a "one-month" grace period
16:02:32 <Arnaud1> this only reflects one use case
16:02:55 <tantek> harry - I agree, let's make that clear on the call
16:03:18 <harry> Well Arnaud, you gotta come up a good criterion. After seeing what's happened on the mailing list, I think we need to beef up the criteria to actual implementations with actual users.
16:03:19 <Arnaud> what's the "new improved IE criteria"?
16:04:05 <Arnaud> I really don't know why you keep referring to what happend on the list as bad
16:04:17 <tantek> Arnaud, W3C SocialWG participation criteria in general: pay to play, or publish publicly on the social web to play.
16:04:24 <Arnaud> first, there has been little traffic
16:04:38 <Arnaud> tantek: no, I don't agree with that
16:04:55 <Arnaud> that is YOUR criteria
16:04:55 <tantek> Arnaud, you're welcome to handhold the academics and armchair enthusiasts then
16:05:01 <tantek> and harry's now
16:05:06 <tantek> read the log
16:05:51 <tantek> Arnaud - where's YOUR criteria? all you've done so far is reject mine. and rejection of criteria is not critieria itself.
16:05:54 <Arnaud> what log? irc?
16:06:04 <tantek> yes. what other log is there?
16:06:08 <Arnaud> gee, read back the log :)
16:06:20 <Arnaud> don't keep repeating the same thing please
16:06:24 <Arnaud> I have no time for this
16:06:37 <tantek> right, I have no time for academics and armchair enthusiasts
16:06:40 <tantek> you apparently do
16:06:40 <Arnaud> you're free to disagree not to ignore what I'm saying
16:06:51 <Arnaud> speaking of which I have a call to be on now
16:06:52 <Arnaud> ttyl
16:07:05 <tantek> Arnaud if you have criteria then document it on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Arnaud
16:07:16 <tantek> so far all you've documented is a rejection of my criteria, which is not criteria
16:07:19 <Arnaud> stop telling me what to do
16:07:24 <tantek> I will keep repeating requests for this until you provide it
16:08:43 <Arnaud> it's in the log, you can put copy/paste in the wiki if you care
16:09:06 <Arnaud> you're good at giving others "clerical actions", so have it your way :)
16:09:36 <harry> This is my proposal:
16:09:36 <harry> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Harry
16:09:58 <harry> I do suggest that Arnaud find alternative criteria.
16:10:04 <tantek> Arnaud - I see no criteria from you in the log - go ahead and provide a permalink to it in the log and I'll happily copy to the wiki: http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2014-09-23
16:10:10 <harry> Being "well-known" is not enough, as lots of unproductive folks are well-known.
16:10:23 <harry> I'd like to keep this WG productive.
16:10:32 <tantek> harry - depends on how we define "well-known"
16:10:35 <tantek> so here's a sample definition
16:10:41 <tantek> when you search for the person's name on Google
16:10:50 <tantek> on the FIRST PAGE you see a result for their PERSONAL WEBSITE
16:10:56 <tantek> if not, they are not "well known
16:10:57 <tantek> "
16:11:10 <harry> Tantek, that's too harsh, no-one controls Google.
16:11:16 <tantek> fine, first TWO pages
16:11:27 <harry> We should let them email us working code and real users as evidence thereof.
16:11:42 <tantek> we should let them email us a URL to working code and real users
16:11:52 <tantek> or drop a URL here in IRC
16:13:19 <harry> Yep
16:13:21 <tantek> frankly, if "well-known" is your criteria, perhaps that's more appropriate for the Social IG
16:13:30 <harry> Exactly, that criteria I think is fine for IG
16:13:32 <harry> just not for WG
16:13:49 <tantek> Social WG should focus on existing implementations and implementers
16:13:49 <tantek> everyone else is welcome to contribute to the Social IG
16:30:30 <rhiaro_> Hola. Apologies I can't make the call this evening, I'll be between trains. I have, however, booked tickets and flights for TPAC. And in less than two weeks, my life will be back to normal and I'll be able to get my shit together and perhaps actually contribute something..
16:30:59 <sandro> I suggest (1) the chairs and staff contact reach consensus on any candidate before they are approved, and (2) approval be based on what needed expertise they bring to the group.
16:31:14 <sandro> There's no need to say anything about running code or "real users".
16:38:57 <elf-pavlik> elf-pavlik has joined #social
16:39:35 <tantek> sandro - exactly. and per Harry and my criteria, we (chairs+contact) are not going to reach consensus on any IE application that does not have a public social website. I for one will veto.
16:41:57 <tommorris> tantek, Arnaud: my apologies for non-attendance. I have an office leaving drinks to go to.
16:45:26 <tantek> tommorris - your explicit regrets are noted. thanks.
16:46:14 <jasnell> tantek: please define what you mean by "public social website" in this case. What's the exact criteria
16:46:58 <tantek> public - URL you can curl
16:47:24 <tantek> social - content posted which mentions other people or other social web content
16:47:35 <tantek> (mentions via URL reference, not just name)
16:47:43 <ShaneHudson> ShaneHudson has joined #social
16:47:44 <tantek> that's a good start
16:47:48 <jasnell> so: any existing implementor of on-premise social software designed to be used behind the firewall is automatically excluded?
16:47:56 <tantek> web = HTML served over HTTP from a URL
16:48:15 <tantek> jasnell - for IE status - yes. if all you have is behind firewall, you don't get to be an IE.
16:48:21 <tantek> You may still join W3C and participate as a W3C member
16:49:24 <tantek> frankly I have yet to see useful standards feedback from any "only behind firewall" contributors.
16:49:36 <tantek> URLs to exceptions welcome
16:51:36 <jasnell> http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/conn, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/business-process-manager/library/documentation/ are two. Both are on-premise software packages designed for behind the firewall usage, both implement Activity Streams in social business scenarios, and both come from a major contributor to this WG
16:52:00 <jasnell> plus, your criteria is not specific enough
16:52:06 <tommorris> I believe IBM are members of the W3C, no?
16:52:09 <jasnell> what URL am I supposed to be able to curl?
16:52:31 <jasnell> if I produce behind the firewall, on-prem software and have a public website to sell my stuff, does that count?
16:52:56 <jasnell> or are we talking about the url of deployed instances of that software?
16:53:09 <evanp_> evanp_ has joined #social
16:53:28 <evanp> evanp has joined #social
16:53:33 <jasnell> the point is: if you're going to attempt to put a restriction like "public social website", you need to be clear what you mean
16:53:44 <jasnell> because your definitions are too vague
16:53:55 <tantek> jasnell - irrelevant because IBM is a W3C member.
16:53:57 <tantek> next
16:54:04 <evanp> Hi all
16:54:08 <evanp> T-5 minutes
16:54:11 <wilkie> hi
16:54:18 <elf-pavlik> hi :)
16:54:22 <evanp> elf-pavlik: hello!
16:54:35 <tantek> like I said, criteria for participation in WG is:
16:54:53 <tantek> EITHER pay to play (W3C member) or publish publicly on the social web to play.
16:55:09 <tantek> ergo if you're a W3C member, you're done. join and participation. no further criteria.
16:55:40 <elf-pavlik> IMO with nice coordiantion with IG and CG we can avoid tensions and still make it possible for everyone interested to participate
16:55:46 <jasnell> what does "publish publicly on the social web" mean?
16:56:36 <wilkie> elf-pavlik: nice work as usual with organization. please, if you want to delegate anything, I can help.
16:56:45 <tantek> jasnell - publish - with permalink
16:56:49 <jtauber> jtauber has joined #social
16:56:53 <Zakim> T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
16:56:55 <tantek> publicly - anyone can view with a web browser with that permalink
16:57:02 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:57:17 <tantek> social - some reference to people (with URLs) in your posts, or in-reply-to such posts
16:57:20 <Zakim> +jasnell
16:57:25 <tantek> web - HTML served over HTTP in response to a URL
16:57:27 <evanp> Zakim: +[IPcaller] is evanp
16:57:33 <evanp> I think
16:57:40 <evanp> Ugh I get this wrong every time
16:57:41 <tantek> jasnell - would you like to know more?
16:57:50 <Zakim> +??P7
16:58:38 <wilkie> the diplomacy in this working group is bizarre!
16:58:54 <evanp> Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me
16:58:54 <Zakim> sorry, evanp, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]'
16:58:58 <evanp> Ugh
16:59:09 <evanp> Zakim, [IPcaller] is evanp
16:59:09 <Zakim> +evanp; got it
16:59:12 <evanp> Hoorah
16:59:14 <jasnell> tantek: imho, that definition is still too vague.
16:59:22 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
16:59:30 <jtauber> Zakim, [IPcaller] is jtauber
16:59:30 <Zakim> +jtauber; got it
17:00:06 <tantek> jasnell - please provide an example that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition
17:00:13 <tantek> s/example/concrete example with URL
17:00:15 <jasnell> this WG has not defined what is or is not "social"
17:00:15 <Loqi> tantek meant to say: jasnell - please provide an concrete example with URL that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition
17:00:23 <evanp> So I have Antonio Tapiador as the next scribe
17:00:29 <evanp> But I'm not sure he's here
17:01:05 <evanp> tantek: OK
17:01:10 <tommorris> I wish you all luck: based on the IRC logs, I have a funny feeling this call may be rather contentious. I'll be in the pub.
17:01:11 <ShaneHudson> Zakim, what is the code?
17:01:11 <Zakim> the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ShaneHudson
17:01:27 <evanp> tommorris: I'll meet you at 2PM EST B-)
17:01:31 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:01:38 <Zakim> +Arnaud
17:01:43 <jasnell_> jasnell_ has joined #social
17:01:48 <MarkCrawford> MarkCrawford has joined #social
17:01:58 <bblfish> zakim, I am IPcaller
17:01:58 <Zakim> ok, bblfish, I now associate you with [IPcaller]
17:02:08 <Arnaud> tommorris: can we trade places? :)
17:02:50 <Zakim> +??P12
17:02:58 <evanp> Zakim, who's on the call?
17:02:58 <Zakim> On the phone I see evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ??P12
17:02:58 <ShaneHudson> Zakim, ??P12 is me
17:03:00 <Zakim> +ShaneHudson; got it
17:03:03 <Zakim> + +1.703.670.aaaa
17:03:23 <evanp> trackbot, start meeting
17:03:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs 411
17:03:27 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:03:27 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 3 minutes ago
17:03:28 <Lloyd_Fassett> Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
17:03:28 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:03:28 <trackbot> Date: 23 September 2014
17:03:48 <Arnaud> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:03:49 <tantek> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23
17:04:05 <evanp> who's on the call
17:04:10 <evanp> Zakim, who's on the call?
17:04:10 <Zakim> On the phone I see evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, [IPcaller.a], +1.503.567.aabb
17:04:13 <MarkCrawford> MarkCrawford has joined #social
17:04:14 <aaronpk> Zakim: aabb is aaronpk
17:04:47 <evanp> scribe: jtauber
17:04:53 <aaronpk> i always forget the comma
17:05:07 <Arnaud> chair: evanp
17:05:13 <wilkie> Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:05:13 <Zakim> +wilkie; got it
17:05:17 <jasnell_> tantek: so, in your opinion "social" only means "public 'posts' with @mentions to other people" and to be a valid example, those posts must be publicly accessible?
17:05:19 <wilkie> I think
17:05:38 <harry-dinner> Zakim, what's the code?
17:05:38 <Zakim> the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry-dinner
17:05:38 <jtauber> approval of last week's minutes
17:05:47 <evanp> +1
17:05:47 <jasnell_> +1
17:05:48 <ShaneHudson> +1
17:05:50 <wilkie> +1
17:05:51 <jtauber> +1
17:05:57 <aaronpk> +1
17:06:08 <elf-pavlik> +0 (didn't have chance to read :( )
17:06:11 <jtauber> evanp: minutes approved
17:07:03 <jtauber> evanp: registration for TPAC: important for people to register to keep room
17:07:09 <wilkie> I don't think I can afford that trip :(
17:07:12 <Arnaud> the right way to scribe this is: resolved: minutes of 16 september approved
17:07:15 <Loqi> it'll be ok
17:07:18 <jtauber> Arnaud: thanks
17:07:19 <Arnaud> resolved: minutes of 16 september approved
17:07:41 <Zakim> +Sandro
17:08:09 <Zakim> + +1.541.410.aacc
17:08:28 <elf-pavlik> evanp: question of use cases...
17:08:53 <harry> note that use-cases are in scope of Social IG
17:08:57 <harry> *not* Social WG
17:08:58 <harry> thanks!
17:09:02 <elf-pavlik> +1 harry
17:09:07 <Arnaud> the right way to scribe change of topic: topic: xxx
17:09:18 <jtauber> topic: question of use cases
17:09:39 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:09:48 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
17:10:04 <evanp> Zakim, ack elf-pavlik
17:10:04 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
17:10:19 <Arnaud> +1 to elf
17:10:23 <bblfish> q+
17:10:30 <evanp> ack wilkie
17:10:30 <wilkie> oops
17:10:39 <bblfish> +q
17:10:39 <wilkie> Zakim, [IPcaller.a] is me
17:10:40 <Zakim> +wilkie; got it
17:10:41 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/schema.org-examples
17:10:47 <evanp> ack bblfish
17:10:50 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/
17:11:02 <Arnaud> +q
17:11:18 <wilkie> Zakim, [IPcaller] is bblfish
17:11:18 <Zakim> sorry, wilkie, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
17:11:47 <bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/
17:11:54 <harry> harry has joined #social
17:12:03 <wilkie> Zakim, wilkie is bblfish
17:12:03 <Zakim> +bblfish; got it
17:12:13 <harry> Zakim, what's the code?
17:12:13 <Zakim> the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
17:12:32 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:12:40 <evanp> ack wilkie
17:12:49 <sandro> q+ to say a few illustrative use cases might be a reasonable compromise
17:12:51 <harry> q+
17:12:52 <wilkie> sorry
17:12:55 <evanp> ack Arnaud
17:13:03 <Zakim> +[IPcaller]
17:13:08 <harry> Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
17:13:08 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
17:13:14 <jasnell> At the very least, this WG ought to define: (A) what is a "Social System" and (B) what constitutes "Social Data"
17:13:26 <elf-pavlik> Arnaud: appreciates concern about timeline, but we don't need to make it a huge effort
17:13:50 <wilkie> are there existing use case analysis??
17:14:05 <harry> Yes, please see Social XG
17:14:08 <markus> markus has joined #social
17:14:10 <elf-pavlik> Arnaud: agrees with elf, picking specific use cases we care about addressing
17:14:14 <harry> rather infinite use-case documents.
17:14:24 <jtauber> elf-pavlik: you keep beating me to it :-)
17:14:24 <harry> We define all of that in the Social XG report.
17:14:25 <markus> zakim, code?
17:14:25 <Zakim> the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
17:14:34 <Zakim> +??P4
17:14:39 <markus> zakim, ??P4 is me
17:14:40 <Zakim> +markus; got it
17:15:01 <evanp> Zakim: q?
17:15:06 <evanp> Zakim, q?
17:15:07 <Zakim> I see sandro, harry on the speaker queue
17:15:07 <sandro> q?
17:15:08 <harry> Zakim, who's making noise?
17:15:11 <evanp> ack sandro
17:15:11 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say a few illustrative use cases might be a reasonable compromise
17:15:15 <bblfish> zakim, who am I?
17:15:15 <Zakim> I don't understand your question, bblfish.
17:15:18 <Zakim> harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (34%)
17:15:22 <harry> Zakim, mute Sandro
17:15:22 <Zakim> Sandro should now be muted
17:15:25 <harry> Zakim, unmute Sandro
17:15:25 <Zakim> Sandro should no longer be muted
17:15:42 <harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/Main_Page
17:15:43 <wilkie> harry: yes. I've read that. exactly. it seems the challenge is not coming up with the use cases again and again or refining them but rather now applying knowledge to create a flexible social vocab/syntax with what we have
17:15:46 <aaronpk> can someone add : as an alternate for , in Zakim? or where is the source code so I can hack it up?
17:15:53 <harry> Yes, so do it in the Social IG
17:15:59 <harry> We have technical and implementation work to do here.
17:16:07 <jtauber> sandro: what are people's elevator pitch for involvement in this group?
17:16:09 <wilkie> harry: +1
17:16:28 <jtauber> sandro: capture use cases lazily when we disagree
17:16:45 <bblfish> +1 for that
17:16:51 <harry> q?
17:16:57 <evanp> ack harry
17:17:03 <tiborkat> tiborkat has joined #social
17:17:23 <jtauber> harry: use cases are off topic for this group and use case discussion should move to IG
17:17:51 <Zakim> +??P21
17:17:53 <Arnaud> if there is already a list we can point to and adopt that's great
17:17:57 <tantek> zakim, p21 is tantek
17:17:57 <Zakim> sorry, tantek, I do not recognize a party named 'p21'
17:17:57 <jasnell> q+
17:17:58 <jtauber> harry: happy for some use cases to be attached to spec
17:18:02 <tantek> zakim, ??p21 is tantek
17:18:02 <Zakim> +tantek; got it
17:18:03 <wilkie> is the social XG use cases linked on the wg wiki?
17:18:09 <evanp> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea
17:18:15 <jtauber> harry: use cases for spec should be drafted first by editor of spec
17:18:22 <ShaneHudson> +1 for what harry is saying
17:18:34 <evanp> Zakim, q?
17:18:34 <Zakim> I see jasnell on the speaker queue
17:18:39 <evanp> ack jasnell
17:18:54 <jtauber> jasnell: we don't have a shared definition of what a social system is
17:19:05 <bblfish> zakim, who is making noise
17:19:06 <Zakim> I don't understand 'who is making noise', bblfish
17:19:06 <evanp> tantek: mute please
17:19:07 <Zakim> +tiborKatelbach
17:19:10 <harry> PROPOSAL: Use-cases happen in Social IG. Editors may add "use cases" to their specs and can argue those later.
17:19:12 <evanp> your keyboard is too loud
17:19:14 <tiborkat> zakim: +tiborkat
17:19:17 <harry> Zakim, who's making noise?
17:19:24 <harry> q+
17:19:29 <Zakim> harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (60%), tiborKatelbach (9%)
17:19:37 <evanp> ack harry
17:19:44 <harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport
17:19:57 <jtauber> harry: we spent a long time working on definitions in incubator
17:20:12 <MarkCrawford> q+
17:20:26 <jtauber> harry: definition discussion can take place in IG
17:20:56 <harry> Move the XG's use-cases and definition discussion to the IG.
17:21:09 <jtauber> evanp: possible resolution: accept XG use cases and move discussion to IG
17:21:26 <harry> +1
17:21:27 <evanp> +1
17:21:30 <tiborkat> +1
17:21:31 <ShaneHudson> +1
17:21:32 <MarkCrawford> +1
17:21:33 <jtauber> +1
17:21:35 <bblfish> -1
17:21:35 <aaronpk> +1
17:21:36 <sandro> -1
17:21:37 <wilkie> +1
17:21:41 <bblfish> q+
17:21:43 <markus> +0
17:21:47 <elf-pavlik> -1
17:21:48 <tantek> +1 with ok to add more use-cases two w3.org/wiki/socialwg
17:21:52 <tantek> s/two/to
17:21:55 <Loqi> tantek meant to say: +1 with ok to add more use-cases to w3.org/wiki/socialwg
17:21:56 <evanp> ack MarkCrawford
17:21:59 <jasnell> Need time to review XG definitions again prior to deciding
17:22:08 <harry> Sandro and Henry Story both dissented.
17:22:11 <harry> And Elf.
17:22:18 <sandro> q+
17:22:33 <jtauber> MarkCrawford: use cases is primary deliverable of IG
17:22:39 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:23:12 <jtauber> MarkCrawford: more than happy to direct IG on particular set of use cases the WG would find useful in short term
17:23:22 <evanp> ack bblfish
17:23:50 <jtauber> i can't hear bblfish to scribe
17:24:00 <evanp> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Use_cases <-- I added a link to the XG use cases
17:24:09 <wilkie> evanp: so did I!
17:24:14 <sandro> harry: the final report wasn't a list of use cases    [ I think]
17:24:26 <harry> Zakim, mute bblfish
17:24:26 <Zakim> bblfish should now be muted
17:24:43 <harry> Please type your point bblfish.
17:24:47 <harry> q?
17:24:50 <harry> ack sandro
17:24:54 <bblfish> zakim, unmute
17:24:54 <Zakim> I don't understand 'unmute', bblfish
17:25:13 <jtauber> sandro: difference between listing use case and accepting use case
17:25:23 <pfefferle> pfefferle has joined #social
17:25:36 <jtauber> sandro: all for IG enumerating possible use cases but WG doesn't want to accept all use cases as requirements
17:25:40 <harry> q+
17:26:07 <bblfish> my point was that the http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport is not a list of use cases. That is mostly just a list of existing technologies
17:26:28 <tantek> +1 on accepting a *subset* of XG use-cases per sandro clarification
17:26:33 <tantek> thank you sandro
17:26:40 <harry> Sorry, bblifsh, you are wrong
17:26:45 <harry> neutral use-cases are here:
17:26:46 <harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea
17:26:47 <evanp> bblfish: sorry, when I said "XG use cases" I meant http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea
17:26:49 <bblfish> and I agree with Sandro that we have to here agree on the use cases, plus we need to narrow them down to what this group is doing
17:27:01 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
17:27:04 <elf-pavlik> http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/hydra/console/?url=http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/hydra/api-demo/
17:27:31 <sandro> zakim, who is making noise?
17:27:43 <Zakim> sandro, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: evanp (44%)
17:27:50 <harry> q?
17:27:54 <aaronpk> at this point we might as well do IRC-only conferences
17:27:56 <evanp> ack harry
17:28:00 <tantek> Aside: I am opposed to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23#Meeting_with_Schema.org_team_.40TPAC without having any such representative join the wg. All schema-org members are W3C members thus they should join the socialWG if they want to participate in the meeting.
17:28:29 <jtauber> harry: compromise: let IG work out use cases
17:28:39 <tantek> +1 to let IG work out use-cases
17:28:41 <elf-pavlik> i -1 since i didn't ask about heavy pile of use cases, but one or two we can excercise in our conversations
17:28:49 <bblfish> The deliverables are very vague harry
17:28:49 <jasnell> tantek: +1, definitely agree
17:28:51 <elf-pavlik> so this resolution didn't address my proposal
17:29:21 <Zakim> -elf-pavlik
17:29:30 <MarkCrawford> We can stage our work in the IG so that we are only looking for a few related to the focus of the WG as a first step
17:29:31 <tantek> jasnell - for clarification in minutes do you mean in reference to the schema-org special meeting proposal?
17:29:33 <jasnell> proposal: give us a week to review the XG final report, defer this conversation for next week
17:29:39 <jasnell> yes
17:29:41 <bblfish> q+
17:29:43 <Zakim> +??P7
17:29:45 <tantek> +1 harry to IG being used for use-case discussion
17:29:46 <ShaneHudson> The purpose of the IG is for this exact thing
17:29:58 <tantek> if you want to bring a use-case to the WG, you MUST provide a URL to your use-case documentation.
17:30:00 <evanp> ack bblfish
17:30:10 <tantek> otherwise you're not done discussing it, and continue on IG list
17:30:22 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:30:31 <tantek> who is scribe?
17:30:31 <jasnell> q+
17:30:37 <harry> q+
17:30:40 <tantek> I don't see any minuting happening.
17:30:43 <jtauber> bblfish: there has to be more open and agreement about what the use cases are before we start spec
17:30:58 <harry> No, the Interest Group has official status and is not open to everyone.
17:31:06 <harry> It requires an IE status. It just has no patent commits.
17:31:12 <harry> You should read the charters bblfish.
17:31:20 <jtauber> bblfish: WG isn't bound by IG
17:31:21 <elf-pavlik> harry, CG then most peole can join
17:31:23 <Arnaud> the problem is more about scope, the IG is much more open ended
17:31:32 <sandro> q?
17:31:39 <Arnaud> I think it's reasonable to have the IG develop use cases
17:31:57 <Arnaud> but the WG ought to agree on which ones are relevant to this WG
17:32:07 <harry> So, we let the development of use-cases happen in IG
17:32:08 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
17:32:14 <harry> and then they bring them up to WG when mature.
17:32:15 <harry> Makes sense.
17:32:36 <sandro> Possible proposal: postpone discussion of use cases, except when they illustrate a design decision
17:32:58 <jtauber> elf-pavlik: asking for some simple scenarios not complete use cases
17:33:06 <evanp>  http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0
17:33:14 <Zakim> -ShaneHudson
17:33:37 <jasnell> q-
17:33:38 <Zakim> +??P3
17:33:40 <MarkCrawford> If you tell me for which expected functionality of the spec you want use cases, we will get those for you.
17:33:46 <ShaneHudson> Zakim, ??P3 is me
17:33:46 <Zakim> +ShaneHudson; got it
17:33:49 <tantek> SWAT0 and its components are a good starting point, and quite challenging :)
17:33:50 <evanp> -1
17:33:57 <jtauber> evanp: what's feeling around single use case we use to measure different systems
17:33:59 <tantek> 30 seconds? no chance ;)
17:34:11 <tantek> (and I helped write it)
17:34:45 <tantek> hey that was close! nicely done evanp :)
17:35:16 <tantek> +1 evanp starting with SWAT0 as our first/single/primary use-case
17:35:27 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:35:30 <wilkie> +1
17:35:30 <sandro> +0.5 starting with SWAT0
17:35:37 <ShaneHudson> +1 That is very clear about how it needs to work
17:35:40 <bblfish> the swat one seems better
17:35:42 <harry> Addition: No other use-case discussion.
17:35:43 <harry> +1
17:35:53 <harry> That happens in the IG.
17:35:56 <MarkCrawford> +1
17:35:57 <jtauber> +1
17:36:00 <ShaneHudson> +1 to the addition
17:36:02 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:36:04 <markus> +0.8... this seems to be too broad for me... where's the limit? access control, login, ...
17:36:15 <aaronpk> +1 for SWAT0 since it actually covers a wide range of needed behavior
17:36:17 <tiborkat> +1
17:36:23 <evanp> +1
17:36:30 <bblfish> +1 for swat0, but not for limiting to that.
17:36:38 <jasnell> +0
17:36:44 <tantek> +1 for swat0 and limiting to that in this WG until IG has more to contribute
17:36:48 <jtauber> do we scribe "resolved" for straw polls?
17:37:35 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion
17:37:40 <markus> my vote doesn't take harry's addition into consideration
17:37:49 <markus> strongly object to that comment
17:38:22 <sandro> +1 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion
17:38:22 <bblfish> but you seem to have decided already what the specs are harry
17:38:30 <harry> RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is initial test case.
17:38:40 <sandro> s/test/use/
17:38:42 <Loqi> sandro meant to say: +1 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion
17:38:49 <Arnaud> err... harry we have an objection! no resolution
17:38:59 <ShaneHudson> Arnaud: Wasn't that for the addition?
17:38:59 <jasnell> link for SWAT0?
17:39:04 <evanp> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0
17:39:17 <jtauber> evanp: ask IG to provide additional use cases before TPAC
17:39:32 <tantek> harry, RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case
17:39:39 <tantek> *use* case
17:39:48 <Loqi> aww, cheer up
17:39:48 <Arnaud> ok, I'm good with that resolution
17:40:02 <harry> PROPOSAL: Only the chairs can decide when to introduce new use-cases into the discussion, and then the rest of the use-case discussion should happen in the IG or be off-topic
17:40:03 <bblfish> thanks sandro for spotting that
17:40:11 <tantek> we can start talking test cases when we we have one or more drafts being implemented on the way to a CR
17:40:16 <tantek> do we have any such working drafts?
17:40:26 <harry> RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case
17:40:36 <harry> Although at some point would like to see test-cases :)
17:40:40 <jtauber> evanp: reasonable to have social data syntax use cases for TPAC?
17:40:57 <sandro> Harry, it's already up to the chairs to decide that.   Don't limit their power via the Exception Proves The Rule.
17:41:21 <harry> Sandro, that's a proposal to clarify the scope.
17:41:22 <jtauber> MarkCrawford: happy to ensure focus of IG is requirements of WG over next few weeks
17:41:33 <elf-pavlik> i propose to move it to mailing list and go on with other agenda points soon
17:41:35 <evanp> +1
17:41:36 <jasnell> alternative PROPOSAL: Anyone can propose a use case discussion on the mailing list or wiki but the chairs will decide whether the use case is put on the agenda/queued for discussion.
17:41:44 <harry> And ask people to move use-case discussion to IG until appropriate, as judged by the WG chairs.
17:42:21 <harry> jasnell, the WG mailing list is not appropriate for an open-ended use-case discussion by anyone. That's why we have the IG.
17:42:28 <evanp> Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax by TPAC (end October)?
17:42:34 <harry> We need to clarify what forum is useful for which kind of discussion.
17:42:38 <ShaneHudson> From the IG?
17:42:43 <evanp> ShaneHudson: yes
17:42:47 <ShaneHudson> +1
17:42:51 <wilkie> +1
17:42:53 <harry> +1
17:43:04 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:43:06 <jasnell> harry: I didn't say open ended use-case discussion. I said propose a use case discussion that the chairs can choose to accept or not
17:43:08 <Arnaud> harry, but anyone can propose the WG adopts a use case developed in the IG
17:43:09 <jtauber> straw poll: Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax from the IG by TPAC (end October)?
17:43:13 <bblfish> +1 but it's still something that the group has to then agree to here
17:43:18 <tantek> +1 with deadline the *Tuesday* before TPAC so we have a chance to review
17:43:18 <jtauber> +1
17:43:30 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:43:35 <jasnell> +1 for asking the IG for use cases
17:43:38 <harry> Yes, but you have that discussion on the IG list, not the WG list. When you think you have something ready after discussion at the IG, then you can propose to the WG.
17:43:40 <markus> +1 if the IG is fine with that
17:43:46 <MarkCrawford> +1
17:43:55 <harry> We need to keep signal-to-noise ratio on WG mailing list and wiki better.
17:44:11 <harry> And we need more people to contribute to the IG
17:44:52 <ShaneHudson> I agree with Tantek that it would be good to have it ready before TPAC to review
17:44:54 <jtauber> yep
17:45:22 <jtauber> resolved: ask IG for initial use cases for social data syntax before TPAC
17:45:30 <tantek> aside: federatedsocialweb (dot) net - where all SWAT0 was initially documented, expired and has been taken over by a spammer :( :( :(
17:45:33 <harry> RESOLUTION: Initial use cases from the IG for social data syntax by TPAC
17:45:33 <Loqi> it'll be ok
17:45:54 <harry> agenda+ IE status
17:45:58 <harry> agenda?
17:46:21 <wilkie> +1
17:46:21 <bblfish> what is a "direction for a sodical data syntax?"
17:46:26 <jtauber> straw poll: ready to start deciding direction for social data syntax
17:46:32 <harry> +1 for jasnell's efforts to align to schema.org without using the same URIs
17:46:48 <elf-pavlik> q+
17:46:56 <evanp> ack harry
17:47:05 <tantek> -1 I still don't understand what this has to do with AS2 or anything. vocabs yes. but syntax?
17:47:13 <jasnell> q+
17:47:19 <tantek> q+
17:47:23 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
17:47:56 <tantek> q+ to oppose working with schema-org without documentation of concrete real world *socialweb* usage, and having schema-org companies joing the wg
17:47:58 <evanp> ack jasnell
17:48:28 <elf-pavlik> jasnell: requir JSON-LD as minimal requirement
17:48:34 <bblfish> +1 for JSON-LD
17:48:41 <tantek> -1 for requiring JSON-LD
17:48:49 <tantek> +1 for JSON-LD as an *option*
17:48:53 <harry> We could always have the @context as an "option"
17:48:56 <elf-pavlik> +1 require JSON-LD
17:49:03 <harry> That is what AS2.0 wants.
17:49:09 <wilkie> +1 for JSON-LD
17:49:09 <harry> s/wants/did
17:49:11 <Loqi> harry meant to say: That is what AS2.0 did.
17:49:19 <markus> +1 for JSON-LD.. obviously
17:49:19 <bblfish> +q
17:49:29 <sandro> +100 jasnell redefine activity streams as an ontology, and look at alignment with schema.org.    no strong feelings about json-ld.
17:49:40 <elf-pavlik> jasnell: explains as:Activity vs as:Actions
17:49:44 <tantek> sandro by ontology do you mean vocab?
17:49:45 <harry> Also, I'd prefer to use the term "vocabulary" rather than "ontology" lest we sound silly
17:49:59 <markus> doesn't make sense to make it optional.. we can nevertheless ensure that JSON-only clients can process documents
17:50:13 <sandro> yes, I mean vocab.   James used the word "ontology", and vocab owl:sameAs ontology.
17:50:13 <elf-pavlik> +1 markus
17:50:17 <evanp> Zakim, q?
17:50:17 <Zakim> I see tantek, bblfish on the speaker queue
17:50:30 <elf-pavlik> +q
17:50:35 <tiborkat> +1 for json-ld
17:50:40 <evanp> ack tantek
17:50:40 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to oppose working with schema-org without documentation of concrete real world *socialweb* usage, and having schema-org companies joing the wg
17:50:41 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:51:02 <jasnell> my proposal was NOT to align with schema.org. my proposal is to define AS2 as an ontology, required JSON-LD as MUST implement.
17:51:02 <harry> Notes that I'd like to see schema.org folks come to face-to-face to discussion.
17:51:11 <harry> So I'd rather do that than BOF
17:51:19 <harry> on Thursday, which conflicts with things.
17:51:19 <harry> q+
17:51:21 <elf-pavlik> harry, i would like to discuss it *today*
17:51:42 <jasnell> real world example: github has adopted schema.org/Actions
17:51:47 <elf-pavlik> tantek: asks to find real world examples of schema.org uses
17:51:56 <elf-pavlik> tantek, github - social coding
17:52:12 <jtauber> tantek: without social web usage of schema.org or particpating schema.org companies in the WG, schema.org discussion should be out of scope
17:52:12 <evanp> Zakim, q?
17:52:12 <Zakim> I see bblfish, harry on the speaker queue
17:52:17 <evanp> ack bblfish
17:52:19 <aaronpk> agreed with tantek
17:52:40 <ShaneHudson> I also agree with tantek's concerns
17:52:43 <harry> I think we already have disagreement over JSON-LD from tantek.
17:52:44 <jtauber> bblfish: JSON-LD as a basic syntax
17:52:52 <harry> Everyone is happy with it as an option though.
17:53:09 <tantek> I am opposed to requiring *any* particular syntax from this WG
17:53:10 <elf-pavlik> -1 harry
17:53:20 <tantek> I am *for* providing syntax *options*
17:53:21 <jtauber> bblfish: don't mix syntax with semantics/pragmatics
17:53:24 <elf-pavlik> also markus just raised concern about optional requirement
17:53:32 <harry> Note that the charter requires JSON as a basis.
17:53:49 <tantek> -1 on JSON-LD as a required basis
17:53:51 <jasnell> the AS2 ontology approach allows us to use JSON-LD and HTML5 syntax options, and also allows turtle
17:53:54 <jasnell> etc
17:53:57 <elf-pavlik> evanp: we had straw pool 2 weeks ago and JSON-LD had big support
17:54:01 <ShaneHudson> +1 harry, JSON as a basis with JSON-LD as an option
17:54:03 <harry> Discussion of XML alternatives etc. are out of scope
17:54:13 <Arnaud> harry, are you saying that JSON-LD doesn't qualify as JSON?
17:54:17 <harry> Happy to bring those up in the IG.
17:54:19 <sandro> q?
17:54:22 <harry> No, JSON-LD is a subset of JSON.
17:54:33 <markus> +q to ask tantek why he objects to use JSON-LD
17:54:38 <harry> So we're happy to have JSON-LD either as a requirement (if group gets consensus) or as an option.
17:54:46 <jtauber> evanp: many proposals in front of us use JSON-LD
17:54:46 <sandro> q+ to ask how tantek is thinking the "Social Data Syntax" can work without having a required syntax
17:54:47 <tantek> I object to *requiring* JSON-LD
17:54:49 <grantmacken> grantmacken has joined #social
17:55:03 <jasnell> no, JSON-LD is JSON with some additional bits. JSON-LD can be parsed as JSON without requiring any of the JSON-LD processing model
17:56:15 <bblfish> q+
17:56:16 <sandro> Ah, Tantek wants to allow microformats
17:56:19 <wilkie> some systems only use xml :)
17:56:35 <markus> markus: tantek, could you please elaborate on why you object to json-ld and what you mean by making it optional
17:56:35 <elf-pavlik> JSON-LD also allows microformats as vocab
17:56:37 <sandro> q?
17:56:44 <jtauber> tantek: JSON-LD can be documented options but we should allow HTML5 + microformats
17:56:56 <elf-pavlik> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#microformats
17:57:20 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:57:20 <evanp> ack harry
17:57:28 <aaronpk> (side note that HTML5 + microformats can be turned into a JSON document via the parsing rules)
17:57:36 <jtauber> harry: charter says JSON is requirement
17:57:52 <wilkie> I feel that argument means RSS should be our leading example because of its prevalence heh
17:57:52 <sandro> Social Data Syntax
17:57:52 <sandro>     A JSON-based syntax to allow the transfer of social information, such as status updates, across differing social systems. One input to this deliverable is ActivityStreams 2.0.
17:58:03 <elf-pavlik> evanp, can you ask for extra 15min time for this call please?
17:58:05 <tantek> there is canonical JSON output from microformats parsers
17:58:10 <evanp> elf-pavlik: will do
17:58:11 <bblfish> I kind of agree with the points about RDFa/microformats but then we can make it simple: The protocol could be put in terms of RDF then
17:58:27 <elf-pavlik> q?
17:58:28 <jasnell> a minimal JSON syntax can be defined and adopted that is IDENTICAL to the serialization that JSON-LD provides
17:58:32 <sandro> q-
17:58:33 <markus> q-
17:59:06 <harry> The charter is pretty old :)
17:59:37 <harry> I'm very pro being implementation driven.
17:59:46 <sandro> tantek: Since the charter was written, it's become mistaken, as we now have microformat-providing servers working well
17:59:47 <harry> We should get back to schema.org folks invite for TPAC.
17:59:48 <elf-pavlik> evanp, any objections to extending call for another 15min
17:59:50 <jtauber> evanp: extend 15 minutes
17:59:51 <tantek> +1 to extending the call
17:59:52 <sandro> +1 extending
17:59:53 <wilkie> +1
17:59:53 <bblfish> no objections
17:59:55 <jtauber> +1
17:59:56 <elf-pavlik> +1
17:59:56 <harry> +1
18:00:00 <markus> no objection
18:00:00 <tiborkat> +1
18:00:04 <elf-pavlik> q?
18:00:05 <ShaneHudson> There is no reason why json and microformats can not both be options, they would work the same way more or less (as microformats can be parsed as JSON anyway as pointed out)
18:00:07 <tantek> s/mistaken/out-of-date
18:00:08 <Loqi> tantek meant to say: +1 to extending the call
18:00:08 <ShaneHudson> +1
18:00:11 <evanp> ack bblfish
18:00:20 <sandro> ShaneHudson, that would require clients to parse both
18:00:24 <tantek> sandro - I corrected myself, "mistaken" was mis-spoke by me :)
18:00:25 <sandro> q+
18:00:48 <tantek> why put something simpler (microformats) in terms of something more complex? (RDFa)
18:01:06 <elf-pavlik> I think we *need* more conversation over mailin list before we discuss it during teleconf
18:01:17 <jtauber> bblfish: linked data principles whether in JSON-LD, RDFa microformats
18:01:20 <elf-pavlik> tantek, i find RDFa simler
18:01:43 <evanp> q?
18:01:44 <tantek> disagree that it's difficult for servers. more personal social websites are serving HTML5+microformats than RDFa.
18:01:53 <sandro> q+
18:01:53 <jasnell> Note: We already agreed previously to split Activity Streams 2.0 into separate Syntax and Vocabulary. The Vocabulary would define the Activity ontology. This vocabulary can be represented in JSON, JSON-LD, HTML, or any other syntax.
18:01:53 <evanp> ack sandro
18:02:17 <harry> The last thing I want to revisit is the microformat vs. RDFa vs. microdata debate.
18:02:28 <tantek> harry - right
18:02:31 <elf-pavlik> evanp, I would like to ask last 5 minutes to discuss *Meeting with Schema.org team @TPAC*
18:02:39 <tantek> and I want to avoid making that kind of decision politically for sure
18:02:40 <jtauber> sandro: one format or variety of interchangable formats?
18:02:41 <evanp> elf-pavlik: thanks, I will try to get us to that
18:02:46 <tantek> as opposed to by documented adoption
18:03:04 <harry> We have chosen ONE required format, JSON, in the charter. Other syntaxes are optional.
18:03:17 <jasnell> What I suggest is: At a minimum, to address the charter requirement, we require a minimum-to-implement JSON serialization that is compatible with JSON-LD but does not require an implementer to use the JSON-LD processing model to understand
18:03:39 <jtauber> evanp: charter does specify JSON
18:03:41 <bblfish> I think the social web is so big, that in then end you have to accomodate a few different syntaxes. But we MUST agree on the model
18:03:46 <harry> +1 and not a required @context element or "@" namespaces, although I hope folks will use this.
18:03:47 <englishm> englishm has joined #social
18:03:49 <aaronpk> q+
18:04:06 <Zakim> -ShaneHudson
18:04:11 <evanp> ack aaronpk
18:04:13 <markus> tantek, you stressed several time how strong the adoption is... do you have a pointer to any data... I'm curious
18:04:19 <jtauber> evanp: abstract vocabulary won't be enough for API / protocol parts of scope
18:04:19 <tantek> for the "required" JSON syntax in the charter, I would propose the canonical JSON output of microformats parsers: http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#simple_microformats_2_examples
18:04:21 <jasnell> We can accomplish this using a properly defined @context
18:04:21 <Zakim> +??P0
18:04:31 <ShaneHudson> Zakim, ??P0 is me
18:04:31 <Zakim> +ShaneHudson; got it
18:04:33 <wilkie> tantek: will you just veto a non-microformat direction regardless of discussion and charter? I think JSON-LD and microformats are both very good and can be both used without too much trouble.
18:04:44 <tantek> markus - yes, documented on w3.org/wiki/socialwg documents and in detail on indiewebcamp.com
18:04:47 <harry> http://tripletalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/rdfa-deployment-across-the-web/
18:04:48 <jtauber> aaronpk: HTML + microformat is just syntax
18:04:54 <sandro> q+
18:05:01 <harry> Note that 99% of RDFa use is Facebook's OGP tag, which uses it incorrectly
18:05:03 <evanp> ack sandro
18:05:05 <tantek> harry - note - not *socialweb*
18:05:16 <markus> tantek, thanks.. but it's quite hard to find something in the wiki... I'll give it a try
18:05:21 <tantek> wilkie - I will oppose *requiring* JSON-LD
18:05:25 <wilkie> ok
18:05:28 <tantek> that's a political decision
18:05:32 <tantek> not data/evidence driven
18:05:41 <jasnell> tantek: what about my suggestion?
18:05:42 <tantek> so is requiring JSON - but we unfortunately froze that into the charter
18:05:43 <wilkie> I'm not sure that's true, nor do I see a lot of data on anything
18:06:02 <harry> It was felt in chartering that ONE syntax was needed, and JSON was kinda simple.
18:06:03 <evanp> Zakim q?
18:06:07 <wilkie> I'm pretty sure JSON is widely supported haha
18:06:13 <evanp> Zakim, q?
18:06:13 <Zakim> I see no one on the speaker queue
18:06:15 <tantek> harry - serving JSON is *extra work* = not simple
18:06:20 <aaronpk> and XML was widely supported 10 years ago, so...
18:06:24 <ShaneHudson> Focusing on the actual model will avoid problems with JSON one day going out of fashion (in the same way as XML)
18:06:24 <elf-pavlik> sandro: how about developin library which will bridge all exisitng indie web deployments into new standard we recommend
18:06:25 <tantek> whereas *everyone* on the *web* has to serve HTML
18:06:41 <tantek> so the *simplest* approach was to just add microformats to that HTML
18:06:41 <sandro> sandro: I'm hoping folks using microformats can be happy with this JSON-social-data-syntax via some conversion libraries
18:07:07 <elf-pavlik> i will help with microformat json to json-ld tools
18:07:08 <MarkCrawford> Unfortunately, I have another call.  Open question - what communities would we be freezing out of our spec if we choose JSON?
18:07:15 <tantek> here's some JSON if that's what you're looking for: http://pin13.net/mf2/?url=http://tantek.com/
18:07:20 <Zakim> - +1.703.670.aaaa
18:07:27 <harry> There are real existing microformat+HTML communities
18:07:47 <harry> There are to my knowledge, no widespread usage of non-JSON or microformat+HTML software for federated social.
18:07:50 <evanp> +1
18:07:59 <jasnell> +1
18:08:00 <sandro> PROPOSED: We accept AS2.0, modified to be JSON-LD, as our starting point
18:08:04 <elf-pavlik> +1
18:08:05 <tantek> -1
18:08:10 <harry> q+
18:08:13 <sandro> +1
18:08:14 <wilkie> +1
18:08:15 <markus> +1
18:08:18 <tantek> to be clear, I am very strongly *for* publishing AS2.0 in this WG
18:08:19 <bblfish> +1 for now
18:08:26 <jtauber> 0
18:08:33 <tantek> I am *against* picking *a* social syntax
18:08:39 <bblfish> Essentially that proposal interests me
18:08:40 <jasnell> q+
18:08:41 <tantek> based on these current proposals
18:08:45 <bblfish> q+
18:08:58 <harry> ack harry
18:09:28 <tiborkat> +1
18:09:28 <evanp> ack harry
18:09:51 <sandro> PROPOSED: Publish JSON-LD version of AS 2.0 (details to be confirmed) as a FPWD (without exactly resolving the idea of it being "the one and only")
18:10:06 <elf-pavlik> +1
18:10:17 <evanp> ack jasnell
18:10:20 <tantek> PROPOSE: Publish AS2.0 as spec'd as *implemented* (not JSON-LD)
18:10:33 <elf-pavlik> -1
18:10:42 <tantek> implementations > JSON-LD
18:11:14 <aaronpk> aren't there are already implemenations of AS 2.0 without JSON-LD?
18:11:19 <tantek> precisely
18:11:22 <evanp> aaronpk: I don't believe so
18:11:31 <evanp> AS 1.0 is widely used
18:11:32 <tantek> that's my point. let's publish the spec as implemented, not some future hypothetical
18:11:42 <evanp> q?
18:11:48 <evanp> ack bblfish
18:11:49 <tantek> evanp - jasnell has documented implementations on the socialwg wiki
18:11:53 <Arnaud> maybe the question should be: should our JSON serialization be compatible with JSON-LD?
18:12:03 <jasnell> yes, there are implementations of AS2
18:12:19 <elf-pavlik> harry: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world
18:12:22 <jasnell> they are not as broad as AS1
18:12:29 <elf-pavlik> s/harry/bblfish/
18:12:33 <Loqi> elf-pavlik meant to say: bblfish: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world
18:12:34 <evanp> jasnell: thanks, useful data point
18:12:56 <elf-pavlik> +1 bblfish
18:12:58 <Arnaud> we should leave the question of required syntax off the table for now, there is clearly interest in different serializations
18:13:09 <jasnell> Arnaud: +1
18:13:11 <elf-pavlik> +1 Arnaud
18:13:20 <evanp> Arnaud: I think we need at least one preferred serialization for use with our other deliverables
18:13:25 <ShaneHudson> +1 Arnaud
18:13:45 <markus> arnaud, appart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal
18:14:01 <tantek> I propose people vote with their implementations and their sites. If you believe in a syntax, publish it at your personal site URL. And better yet, consume it.
18:14:06 <markus> s/appart/apart/
18:14:07 <Loqi> markus meant to say: arnaud, apart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal
18:14:20 <tantek> then document it
18:14:36 <harry> PROPOSAL: Get a new draft of ActivityStream 2.0 for discussion at TPAC f2f
18:14:54 <bblfish> What happened to the proposal of Activity Streams with JSON-LD?
18:14:57 <harry> That's neutral on the JSON vs. JSON-LD debate btw.
18:15:04 <evanp> PROPOSED: Name jasnell as editor of AS 2.0 and request a draft for TPAC
18:15:04 <markus> what's the "new draft"?
18:15:07 <harry> That was rejected by Tantek, and we need to clarify.
18:15:19 <jasnell> there editor's draft is available on github already
18:15:23 <jasnell> it's available for anyone to review
18:15:28 <tantek> I'd like to see a FPWD of AS2 *before* TPAC
18:15:50 <jasnell> the pre-tpac version will be available in a branch before TPAC
18:15:52 <tantek> jasnell - please provide URL to current editor's draft for the minutes
18:15:58 <jasnell> at least two weeks before tpac
18:15:59 <Zakim> -aaronpk
18:16:00 <tantek> q+
18:16:02 <elf-pavlik> jasnell, will you make one following your last email?
18:16:05 <evanp> ack tantek
18:16:11 <jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2.html
18:16:17 <jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-actions.html
18:16:21 <jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html
18:16:23 <bblfish> I am confused about what the proposal is
18:16:52 <elf-pavlik> some issues will come from: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Vocabulary_Comparison#summary_of_differences
18:17:12 <jasnell> the activitystreams2.html and activitystreams2-vocabulary.html documents are the ones that will be ready by TPAC
18:17:28 <elf-pavlik> q+
18:17:43 <jasnell> that was decided several weeks ago wasn't it?
18:17:56 <markus> jasnell, is activitystreams2.html already up to date?
18:17:58 <jasnell> there was a proposal and a resolution that a FPWD would be ready by TPAC
18:18:02 <ShaneHudson> Yes I think that was already resolved
18:18:04 <harry> q?
18:18:17 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
18:18:24 <harry> q+
18:18:44 <jasnell> q+
18:18:53 <harry> Arnaud, are you OK with schema.org people attending the f2f or a section thereof at TPAC?
18:18:55 <Zakim> -Arnaud
18:18:56 <evanp> ack harry
18:19:14 <tantek> I see no issues with that comparison elf-pavlik - schema vocabs are not worthy of comparison to AS2 per above issues of schema-org
18:19:26 <tantek> jasnell - I'm trying to make progress on publishing AS2
18:19:32 <sandro> Harry, I have seen zero objection to JSON-LD.   That was NOT Tantek's objection.
18:19:36 <elf-pavlik> thanks harry, i take my question to jasnell back
18:19:41 <jasnell> I am too
18:20:01 <tantek> q+
18:20:17 <elf-pavlik> can we write down this proposal on IRC
18:20:20 <sandro> +1 invite schema.org folks to attend whatever they want, and sent aside some specific time, too
18:20:25 <ShaneHudson> I also need to go, sorry. I agree with inviting them
18:20:33 <jasnell> -1 for schema.org joining the WG session *unless* it's going to be more than a sales pitch. There needs to be a specific technical agenda
18:20:36 <elf-pavlik> i will reply to public-vocabs with link to log after this call
18:20:45 <elf-pavlik> q+
18:20:51 <Zakim> -ShaneHudson
18:20:52 <evanp> ack jasnell
18:20:52 <jasnell> q-
18:21:15 <tantek> -1 for special treatment of schema-org during TPAC
18:21:15 <elf-pavlik> q-
18:21:17 <harry> Sandro, there was objection for JSON-LD being a requirement.
18:21:21 <evanp> -1
18:21:22 <jasnell> -1
18:21:37 <tantek> schema-org members are all W3C members. ergo they can join the WG.
18:21:39 <jtauber> -1
18:21:43 <sandro> harry, from whom?
18:21:53 <wilkie> -1
18:22:06 <tantek> It's been over a year since the osfw3c workshop
18:22:45 <elf-pavlik> i don't see clear proposal writen down on irc while people do +/-1
18:22:46 <jasnell> q+
18:23:01 <sandro> +1 lets learn what they have to offer
18:23:27 <evanp> ack tantek
18:24:08 <harry> PROPOSAL: For a limited technical session with schema.org f2f at TPAC?
18:24:19 <elf-pavlik> +1
18:24:21 <jtauber> tantek: for editor incorporating other specs in his research, against special treatment for schema.org as they can just join WG
18:24:43 <evanp> ack jasnell
18:24:52 <jtauber> tantek: unless there are real world examples, let's not spend time discussing other formats
18:24:56 <harry> Sandro, the objection from JSON-LD being a requirement came from Tantek. He was happy for it to be an option.
18:25:19 <elf-pavlik> q+
18:25:20 <sandro> Harry, you are completely misrepresenting what Tantek is saying.
18:25:41 <tantek> no I think Harry got it right. I'm opposed to JSON-LD requirement. I am *for* documenting a JSON-LD option.
18:25:49 <elf-pavlik> q?
18:25:53 <harry> Sorry sandro, but that's how it is.
18:25:57 <evanp> ack elf-pavlik
18:26:03 <tantek> Zakim, close queue
18:26:03 <Zakim> ok, tantek, the speaker queue is closed
18:26:09 <harry> You can try to discuss more with Sandro on mailing list and IRC re having JSON-LD as a requirement.
18:26:36 <evanp> tantek: thanks
18:26:48 <sandro> I'm not talking about having JSON-LD as a requirement.     I'm talking about AS2.0 using JSON-LD.    That's not what Tantek is objecting to, and you are saying it is.
18:27:04 <harry> It looks like an informal BOF is the way forward. I'd suggest Wednesday rather than Thursday, as we have structured time.
18:27:06 <sandro> And Harry, you're "sorry" is unbelievably rude.
18:27:09 <elf-pavlik> IRC log looks like very confusing
18:27:24 <tantek> sandro, I am *for* AS2.0 publishing as is currently implemented.
18:27:34 <harry> Where JSON-LD is not required.
18:27:41 <tantek> sandro, I am *against* making AS2.0 make changes that are political (JSON-LD) rather than what AS2 implementations support.
18:27:44 <sandro> You mean JSON-LD is not allowed.
18:27:45 <elf-pavlik> harry, BOF with schema.org team?
18:27:45 <harry> Happy to help wiht informal BOF if on Wednesday
18:27:47 <Loqi> I added a countdown for 9/24 12:00am (#5499)
18:27:56 <tantek> let's get a FPWD of AS2 which reflects actual AS2 implementations.
18:28:07 <bblfish> As a methodology point in the LDP working group, when everybody agrees with a point except one person, then ususally one tries to find a way to convince the person
18:28:15 <jtauber> no, i don't believe so
18:28:18 <bblfish> or get to a compromise
18:28:25 <evanp> ACTION: review AS 2.0 for next week
18:28:25 <trackbot> Error finding 'review'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
18:28:30 <harry> Sandro, I suggest you discuss with Tantek directly. As Tantek said, I think I was accurately representing his position to, but you can discuss with him directly.
18:28:43 <Zakim> -jasnell
18:28:47 <tiborkat> thx bye
18:28:48 <Zakim> -evanp
18:28:50 <Zakim> -wilkie.a
18:28:50 <Zakim> -jtauber
18:28:51 <elf-pavlik> thanks evanp ! jtauber
18:28:51 <evanp> *whew* that was a long one
18:28:54 <Zakim> -markus
18:28:56 <Zakim> - +1.541.410.aacc
18:28:57 <jtauber> do I need to do anything to close out scribing?
18:29:00 <Zakim> -Sandro
18:29:02 <Zakim> -elf-pavlik
18:29:03 <tantek> specifically for that ACTION for review AS2 for FPWD publication
18:29:08 <evanp> jtauber: no, there's a little recipe I have to do
18:29:15 <Zakim> -hhalpin
18:29:22 <harry> RRSAgent, generate minutes
18:29:22 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html harry
18:29:22 <tantek> ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week.
18:29:22 <trackbot> Error finding 'everyone'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.
18:29:58 <evanp> harry, thanks
18:30:05 <elf-pavlik> tantek, you may need to assign it to yourself ...
18:30:06 <harry> trackbot, end meeting
18:30:06 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:30:06 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, elf-pavlik, evanp, jtauber, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, +1.503.567.aabb, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc, bblfish,
18:30:09 <Zakim> ... hhalpin, markus, tantek, tiborKatelbach
18:30:14 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:30:14 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:30:15 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:30:15 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/16-social-actions.rdf :
18:30:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Arnaud to Add "What is the role of Social WG, IG and CG?" as an FAQ to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#FAQ [1]
18:30:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/16-social-irc#T18-01-15-2
18:30:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: review AS 2.0 for next week [2]
18:30:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-irc#T18-28-25
18:30:15 <RRSAgent> ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week. [3]
18:30:15 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-irc#T18-29-22-2
18:30:17 <Zakim> -tantek
18:30:18 <Zakim> -tiborKatelbach