Social Web Working Group Teleconference

23 Sep 2014



jasnell, elf-pavlik, evanp, jtauber, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, +1.503.567.aabb, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc, bblfish, hhalpin, markus, tantek, tiborKatelbach


<tantek> good morning #social WG!

<tantek> harry, arnaud are you live in IRC?

<Arnaud> I am

<harry> I am as well

<tantek> great!

<harry> I forwarded you all the IEs I could find.

<harry> Tell me if you want to discuss now

<harry> There may be more missing, and I've been trying to get sysreq to fix the system

<harry> but I cannot spend any more time trawling through the archive and arguing with sysreq that their system is broken.

<harry> So, do you want to go through them now?

<harry> or after the call?

<tantek> harry - agreed re: sysreq and their system is broken.

<tantek> I'm happy to raise this to the AB if you like

<harry> My feeling is we should have only *implementers* and that Semantic Web vocabularies do not count as implementaitons.

<harry> Thanks tantek, please do.

<tantek> Here is my proposed alternative process for IE applications:

<tantek> 1. create a W3C account to login to the wiki (which requires agreeing to all the W3C IE participation requirements, contribution licensese etc.)

<tantek> 2. Add yourself to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Applied_for_Membership

<tantek> 3. join IRC here (#social) and ask the chairs to review your application

<Arnaud> I disagree with the "only implementers*

<tantek> ZERO use of email or broken W3C forms

<Arnaud> the w3c too often fails to include users which are hard to get involved

<Arnaud> in my experience users can be very helpful

<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.

<harry> I agree users could be helpful.

<Arnaud> tantek is back on his soapbox :)

<Arnaud> I guess he never is off though ;-)

<tantek> Arnaud you're wrong about users and involvement etc. especially in the "social web" realm.

<tantek> Very wrong.

<harry> Tantek, we have a number of real working proprietary implementers with large user-bases (IBM, SAP, etc.) thta we can't ignore

<Arnaud> you're entitled to your opinion :)

<tantek> that's how you get endless email garbage threads

<tantek> like most federated/social/decentralized discussions for the past 10 years

<Arnaud> I think you're wrong about requiring people to have a public domain to qualify as expert

<tantek> Arnaud - not my opinion - fact based on email archives of numerous lists for the past decade

<harry> However, the main issue is people who basically denial-of-service attack the WG with weird designs who aren't actual users

<harry> and who are at best hobbyist implementers

<Arnaud> there is plenty of interesting stuff going on behind firewalls

<tantek> Arnaud - domains are cheap - if people can't afford that, they likely aren't real developers or experts.

<Arnaud> the web is not only public

<Arnaud> that's your opinion

<tantek> and if they can't code simple static HTML pages to put on their domain they are not experts

<tantek> we don't want people that can only write email

<tantek> we have too many of those already

<harry> +1 tantek

<harry> However, I think we need to keep proprietary implementers

<Arnaud> but we don't need to argue over this

<tantek> Arnaud the non-public web can wait for specs to work for the public web

<harry> So let's say "there must be proof of implementation, ideally in a public URL"

<Arnaud> we already agreed that we could all vouch for invited experts

<tantek> no, not ideally

<tantek> sorry, if you can't ship on a public URL you are not a *web* expert

<tantek> you may be a web *academic* but you're not an expert

<harry> "but exceptions are to made to those with proof of employment at an implementer"

<Arnaud> you're free to use your own criteria, just don't force it on others

<tantek> then that implementer can join W3C

<harry> Tantek, in general we are talking about social products at IBM, Boeing, SAP, etc.

<harry> That's pretty non-academic.

<tantek> harry - those are W3C Members

<Arnaud> tantek, to me that's non sense

<tantek> they don't need IE status

<harry> But we also have non-members, Sugar, Jive, etc.

<harry> with the same issue re IE status.

<tantek> so either you're a W3C member and you just join

<Arnaud> but I'm not going to try and convince you

<Arnaud> I understand that's how you see it

<tantek> OR you're at some other big company and your big company should join W3C

<Arnaud> that's fine

<tantek> OR you're an independent in which case you have to *prove* your expertise

<tantek> we are not going to take your word for it

<harry> In general, for *big* companies, as agreed with W3C Management, we give them 6 months.

<tantek> Arnaud - you seem to have no criteria for expert

<harry> For independents, I agree that we can hold to the "public" case.

<tantek> so I don't see how your opinion is helpful to *choosing* experts

<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.

<tantek> and saying "that's just your opinion" is not helpful

<tantek> harry, right. either people pay to play, or they ship public to play.

<tantek> very simple.

<harry> Arnaud, what do you think of my suggestion?

<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.

<harry> Then we should revisit the Invited Experts with this new criteria.

<tantek> I strongly agree

<tantek> either join W3C and pay, or ship public URL

<harry> Well, we give them 6 months to join.

<harry> to see if they find the process useful etc.

<tantek> sure that's fine

<tantek> even I'm not sure if our process is useful :P

<harry> hehe

<harry> We'll see.

<tantek> so far I'm not optimisitic - e.g. by the amount of schema handwaving occuring on the wiki

<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.

<harry> We

<tantek> harry - yeah, that's already happened to the mailing list

<tantek> it's become useless

<harry> 'll see re schema.org

<harry> Well, lets correct that by revisting IEs.

<tantek> I'm trying to keep the wiki sane but it's a lot of work

<tantek> harry - schema-org is a who-cares until someone from the oligopoly (Google/MS/Y!/Yandex) joins

<harry> Those IEs that don't fit the criteria and want to talk vocabularies can be redirected to Social IG

<tantek> because there is no evidence of *any* social web usage of any schema-org action/activity

<tommorris> I think Google et al. may have been burned with betting on OpenSocial and watching it fail.

<harry> I'd like to see Google/MS/Y!/Yandex join.

<harry> Anyways, Arnaud - do you agree with my revisiting the IE requirement?

<tantek> harry me as well. so we can table any discussion of schema-org until they do.

<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.

<harry> One month should be enough time to set-up working code with a URL in this space for an independent.

<tantek> harry - document your IE criteria immediately on the wiki under your name here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Invited_Expert_Approval

<harry> Anyways, I don't hear from Arnaud, so let's add this to agenda.

<tantek> rather, *update* your IE criteria per what you said above

<harry> I am strongly against seeing either wiki or mailing list becoming useless.

<tantek> harry, you don't have to wait for Arnaud - go ahead an update your wiki entry

<tantek> I'll add subheads to make it more obvious

<Arnaud> tantek: in my experience people are granted IE status when they are well known entities

<Arnaud> like David Wood in the RDF WG

<tantek> doesn't matter if you're against it - the email list is a lost cause

<harry> I am kind of against this.

<tantek> unless you start drastically kicking people off

<harry> Many well-known entities are, to quote Ben Laurie, "certifiably insane"

<tantek> Arnaud - someone is not a well known entity unless they have a public URL

<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.

<harry> Agreed Tommorris

<tantek> if you don't have a personal website you may as well not exist on the social web

<harry> I'm not into vapourware

<Arnaud> you don't even need to ask David why he should be granted IE status

<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. ;-)

<harry> I'd rather not build on anything until it has some real working code and real users.

<harry> I think IBM will likely have real working code and real users for their LDP product

<harry> I am not so sure re the other efforts in this space,.

<harry> So, we should just be fair and clear.

<harry> I'll document my criteria and we can discuss it in the call.

<tantek> I have no idea who David Wood is. URL?

<harry> Re Hydra, all effort on it seems to have stopped about a year ago, unlike say schema.org and ActivityStreams 2.0

<tantek> this isn't the "social word of mouth take my word for it known entity" working group

<harry> hehe

<tantek> this is the "social *web*" working group

<tantek> no public social web URL, no IE status. very simple.

<tantek> harry, I've never even heard of Hydra (except in Captain America and Greek mythology) before seeing it on the wiki

<tommorris> tantek: David Wood = lead author of the book 'Linked Data: Structured data on the Web' (2013, Manning) - http://www.manning.com/dwood/

<tantek> so who bothered to take the time to document Hydra? and why?

<tantek> who is using Hydra actively on their personal public website?

<tantek> URL?

<harry> I think we let the author in as an IE due to his pointing out his work on Github

<harry> I admit we should have looked closer.

<harry> I detest people who try to force their particular hobbyhorse solution (that has no users or industrial uptake) down people's throats

<harry> So let's try to avoid that at all costs. That hurts the WG and it hurts the W3C

<tantek> tommorris - that's a nice URL for a *book*. Do you have a URL for David Wood himself?

<tommorris> tantek: nope.

<tantek> I really don't care if someone has published a dead tree book about some concept.

<tommorris> (I was Googling because I keep track of RDF-land but hadn't heard of him.)

<tantek> If you claim to be an expert about "Structured data on the Web" - let's see your *website* with "Structured data"

<harry> good luck with that :)

<tantek> harry - we can ignore people who don't create websites, because it is irrelevant what they propose - they will never build anything.

<tantek> you're not going to email your way into building a website.

<harry> Anyways, my proposal is we suggest the new improved IE criteria for the WG during this call

<harry> and then we give folks a "one-month" grace period

<Arnaud1> this only reflects one use case

<tantek> harry - I agree, let's make that clear on the call

<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.

<Arnaud> what's the "new improved IE criteria"?

<Arnaud> I really don't know why you keep referring to what happend on the list as bad

<tantek> Arnaud, W3C SocialWG participation criteria in general: pay to play, or publish publicly on the social web to play.

<Arnaud> first, there has been little traffic

<Arnaud> tantek: no, I don't agree with that

<Arnaud> that is YOUR criteria

<tantek> Arnaud, you're welcome to handhold the academics and armchair enthusiasts then

<tantek> and harry's now

<tantek> read the log

<tantek> Arnaud - where's YOUR criteria? all you've done so far is reject mine. and rejection of criteria is not critieria itself.

<Arnaud> what log? irc?

<tantek> yes. what other log is there?

<Arnaud> gee, read back the log :)

<Arnaud> don't keep repeating the same thing please

<Arnaud> I have no time for this

<tantek> right, I have no time for academics and armchair enthusiasts

<tantek> you apparently do

<Arnaud> you're free to disagree not to ignore what I'm saying

<Arnaud> speaking of which I have a call to be on now

<Arnaud> ttyl

<tantek> Arnaud if you have criteria then document it on the wiki: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Arnaud

<tantek> so far all you've documented is a rejection of my criteria, which is not criteria

<Arnaud> stop telling me what to do

<tantek> I will keep repeating requests for this until you provide it

<Arnaud> it's in the log, you can put copy/paste in the wiki if you care

<Arnaud> you're good at giving others "clerical actions", so have it your way :)

<harry> This is my proposal:

<harry> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Harry

<harry> I do suggest that Arnaud find alternative criteria.

<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

<harry> Being "well-known" is not enough, as lots of unproductive folks are well-known.

<harry> I'd like to keep this WG productive.

<tantek> harry - depends on how we define "well-known"

<tantek> so here's a sample definition

<tantek> when you search for the person's name on Google

<tantek> on the FIRST PAGE you see a result for their PERSONAL WEBSITE

<tantek> if not, they are not "well known

<tantek> "

<harry> Tantek, that's too harsh, no-one controls Google.

<tantek> fine, first TWO pages

<harry> We should let them email us working code and real users as evidence thereof.

<tantek> we should let them email us a URL to working code and real users

<tantek> or drop a URL here in IRC

<harry> Yep

<tantek> frankly, if "well-known" is your criteria, perhaps that's more appropriate for the Social IG

<harry> Exactly, that criteria I think is fine for IG

<harry> just not for WG

<tantek> Social WG should focus on existing implementations and implementers

<tantek> everyone else is welcome to contribute to the Social IG

<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..

<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.

<sandro> There's no need to say anything about running code or "real users".

<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.

<tommorris> tantek, Arnaud: my apologies for non-attendance. I have an office leaving drinks to go to.

<tantek> tommorris - your explicit regrets are noted. thanks.

<jasnell> tantek: please define what you mean by "public social website" in this case. What's the exact criteria

<tantek> public - URL you can curl

<tantek> social - content posted which mentions other people or other social web content

<tantek> (mentions via URL reference, not just name)

<tantek> that's a good start

<jasnell> so: any existing implementor of on-premise social software designed to be used behind the firewall is automatically excluded?

<tantek> web = HTML served over HTTP from a URL

<tantek> jasnell - for IE status - yes. if all you have is behind firewall, you don't get to be an IE.

<tantek> You may still join W3C and participate as a W3C member

<tantek> frankly I have yet to see useful standards feedback from any "only behind firewall" contributors.

<tantek> URLs to exceptions welcome

<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

<jasnell> plus, your criteria is not specific enough

<tommorris> I believe IBM are members of the W3C, no?

<jasnell> what URL am I supposed to be able to curl?

<jasnell> if I produce behind the firewall, on-prem software and have a public website to sell my stuff, does that count?

<jasnell> or are we talking about the url of deployed instances of that software?

<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

<jasnell> because your definitions are too vague

<tantek> jasnell - irrelevant because IBM is a W3C member.

<tantek> next

<evanp> Hi all

<evanp> T-5 minutes

<wilkie> hi

<elf-pavlik> hi :)

<evanp> elf-pavlik: hello!

<tantek> like I said, criteria for participation in WG is:

<tantek> EITHER pay to play (W3C member) or publish publicly on the social web to play.

<tantek> ergo if you're a W3C member, you're done. join and participation. no further criteria.

<elf-pavlik> IMO with nice coordiantion with IG and CG we can avoid tensions and still make it possible for everyone interested to participate

<jasnell> what does "publish publicly on the social web" mean?

<wilkie> elf-pavlik: nice work as usual with organization. please, if you want to delegate anything, I can help.

<tantek> jasnell - publish - with permalink

<tantek> publicly - anyone can view with a web browser with that permalink

<tantek> social - some reference to people (with URLs) in your posts, or in-reply-to such posts

<tantek> web - HTML served over HTTP in response to a URL

<evanp> Zakim: +[IPcaller] is evanp

<evanp> I think

<evanp> Ugh I get this wrong every time

<tantek> jasnell - would you like to know more?

<wilkie> the diplomacy in this working group is bizarre!

<evanp> Ugh

<evanp> Hoorah

<jasnell> tantek: imho, that definition is still too vague.

<tantek> jasnell - please provide an concrete example with URL that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition

<jasnell> this WG has not defined what is or is not "social"

<Loqi> tantek meant to say: jasnell - please provide an concrete example with URL that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition

<evanp> So I have Antonio Tapiador as the next scribe

<evanp> But I'm not sure he's here

<evanp> tantek: OK

<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.

<evanp> tommorris: I'll meet you at 2PM EST B-)

<Arnaud> tommorris: can we trade places? :)

<evanp> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 23 September 2014

<evanp> who's on the call

<aaronpk> Zakim: aabb is aaronpk

<evanp> scribe: jtauber

<aaronpk> i always forget the comma

<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?

<wilkie> I think

approval of last week's minutes

<evanp> +1

<jasnell_> +1

<ShaneHudson> +1

<wilkie> +1


<aaronpk> +1

<elf-pavlik> +0 (didn't have chance to read :( )

evanp: minutes approved
... registration for TPAC: important for people to register to keep room

<wilkie> I don't think I can afford that trip :(

<Arnaud> the right way to scribe this is: resolved: minutes of 16 september approved

<Loqi> it'll be ok

Arnaud: thanks

<Arnaud> resolved: minutes of 16 september approved

<elf-pavlik> evanp: question of use cases...

<harry> note that use-cases are in scope of Social IG

<harry> *not* Social WG

<harry> thanks!

<elf-pavlik> +1 harry

<Arnaud> the right way to scribe change of topic: topic: xxx

question of use cases

<Arnaud> +1 to elf

<wilkie> oops

<bblfish> +q

<elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/schema.org-examples

<bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/

<Arnaud> +q

<bblfish> http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-ucr/

<wilkie> sorry

<jasnell> At the very least, this WG ought to define: (A) what is a "Social System" and (B) what constitutes "Social Data"

<elf-pavlik> Arnaud: appreciates concern about timeline, but we don't need to make it a huge effort

<wilkie> are there existing use case analysis??

<harry> Yes, please see Social XG

<elf-pavlik> Arnaud: agrees with elf, picking specific use cases we care about addressing

<harry> rather infinite use-case documents.

elf-pavlik: you keep beating me to it :-)

<harry> We define all of that in the Social XG report.

<evanp> Zakim: q?

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to say a few illustrative use cases might be a reasonable compromise

<harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/Main_Page

<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

<aaronpk> can someone add : as an alternate for , in Zakim? or where is the source code so I can hack it up?

<harry> Yes, so do it in the Social IG

<harry> We have technical and implementation work to do here.

sandro: what are people's elevator pitch for involvement in this group?

<wilkie> harry: +1

sandro: capture use cases lazily when we disagree

<bblfish> +1 for that

harry: use cases are off topic for this group and use case discussion should move to IG

<Arnaud> if there is already a list we can point to and adopt that's great

harry: happy for some use cases to be attached to spec

<wilkie> is the social XG use cases linked on the wg wiki?

<evanp> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea

harry: use cases for spec should be drafted first by editor of spec

<ShaneHudson> +1 for what harry is saying

jasnell: we don't have a shared definition of what a social system is

<evanp> tantek: mute please

<harry> PROPOSAL: Use-cases happen in Social IG. Editors may add "use cases" to their specs and can argue those later.

<evanp> your keyboard is too loud

<tiborkat> zakim: +tiborkat

<harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport

harry: we spent a long time working on definitions in incubator
... definition discussion can take place in IG

<harry> Move the XG's use-cases and definition discussion to the IG.

evanp: possible resolution: accept XG use cases and move discussion to IG

<harry> +1

<evanp> +1

<tiborkat> +1

<ShaneHudson> +1

<MarkCrawford> +1


<bblfish> -1

<aaronpk> +1

<sandro> -1

<wilkie> +1

<markus> +0

<elf-pavlik> -1

<tantek> +1 with ok to add more use-cases to w3.org/wiki/socialwg

<Loqi> tantek meant to say: +1 with ok to add more use-cases to w3.org/wiki/socialwg

<jasnell> Need time to review XG definitions again prior to deciding

<harry> Sandro and Henry Story both dissented.

<harry> And Elf.

MarkCrawford: use cases is primary deliverable of IG
... more than happy to direct IG on particular set of use cases the WG would find useful in short term

i can't hear bblfish to scribe

<evanp> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Use_cases <-- I added a link to the XG use cases

<wilkie> evanp: so did I!

<sandro> harry: the final report wasn't a list of use cases [ I think]

<harry> Please type your point bblfish.

sandro: difference between listing use case and accepting use case
... all for IG enumerating possible use cases but WG doesn't want to accept all use cases as requirements

<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

<tantek> +1 on accepting a *subset* of XG use-cases per sandro clarification

<tantek> thank you sandro

<harry> Sorry, bblifsh, you are wrong

<harry> neutral use-cases are here:

<harry> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea

<evanp> bblfish: sorry, when I said "XG use cases" I meant http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/RequirementsAndUseCases-WorkArea

<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

<elf-pavlik> http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/hydra/console/?url=http://www.markus-lanthaler.com/hydra/api-demo/

<aaronpk> at this point we might as well do IRC-only conferences

<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.

harry: compromise: let IG work out use cases

<tantek> +1 to let IG work out use-cases

<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

<bblfish> The deliverables are very vague harry

<jasnell> tantek: +1, definitely agree

<elf-pavlik> so this resolution didn't address my proposal

<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

<tantek> jasnell - for clarification in minutes do you mean in reference to the schema-org special meeting proposal?

<jasnell> proposal: give us a week to review the XG final report, defer this conversation for next week

<jasnell> yes

<tantek> +1 harry to IG being used for use-case discussion

<ShaneHudson> The purpose of the IG is for this exact thing

<tantek> if you want to bring a use-case to the WG, you MUST provide a URL to your use-case documentation.

<tantek> otherwise you're not done discussing it, and continue on IG list

<tantek> who is scribe?

<tantek> I don't see any minuting happening.

bblfish: there has to be more open and agreement about what the use cases are before we start spec

<harry> No, the Interest Group has official status and is not open to everyone.

<harry> It requires an IE status. It just has no patent commits.

<harry> You should read the charters bblfish.

bblfish: WG isn't bound by IG

<elf-pavlik> harry, CG then most peole can join

<Arnaud> the problem is more about scope, the IG is much more open ended

<Arnaud> I think it's reasonable to have the IG develop use cases

<Arnaud> but the WG ought to agree on which ones are relevant to this WG

<harry> So, we let the development of use-cases happen in IG

<harry> and then they bring them up to WG when mature.

<harry> Makes sense.

<sandro> Possible proposal: postpone discussion of use cases, except when they illustrate a design decision

elf-pavlik: asking for some simple scenarios not complete use cases

<evanp> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0

<MarkCrawford> If you tell me for which expected functionality of the spec you want use cases, we will get those for you.

<tantek> SWAT0 and its components are a good starting point, and quite challenging :)

<evanp> -1

evanp: what's feeling around single use case we use to measure different systems

<tantek> 30 seconds? no chance ;)

<tantek> (and I helped write it)

<tantek> hey that was close! nicely done evanp :)

<tantek> +1 evanp starting with SWAT0 as our first/single/primary use-case

<elf-pavlik> +1

<wilkie> +1

<sandro> +0.5 starting with SWAT0

<ShaneHudson> +1 That is very clear about how it needs to work

<bblfish> the swat one seems better

<harry> Addition: No other use-case discussion.

<harry> +1

<harry> That happens in the IG.

<MarkCrawford> +1


<ShaneHudson> +1 to the addition

<elf-pavlik> +1

<markus> +0.8... this seems to be too broad for me... where's the limit? access control, login, ...

<aaronpk> +1 for SWAT0 since it actually covers a wide range of needed behavior

<tiborkat> +1

<evanp> +1

<bblfish> +1 for swat0, but not for limiting to that.

<jasnell> +0

<tantek> +1 for swat0 and limiting to that in this WG until IG has more to contribute

do we scribe "resolved" for straw polls?

<jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion

<markus> my vote doesn't take harry's addition into consideration

<markus> strongly object to that comment

<sandro> +1 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion

<bblfish> but you seem to have decided already what the specs are harry

<harry> RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is initial use case.

<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

<Arnaud> err... harry we have an objection! no resolution

<ShaneHudson> Arnaud: Wasn't that for the addition?

<jasnell> link for SWAT0?

<evanp> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0

evanp: ask IG to provide additional use cases before TPAC

<tantek> harry, RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case

<tantek> *use* case

<Loqi> aww, cheer up

<Arnaud> ok, I'm good with that resolution

<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

<bblfish> thanks sandro for spotting that

<tantek> we can start talking test cases when we we have one or more drafts being implemented on the way to a CR

<tantek> do we have any such working drafts?

<harry> RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case

<harry> Although at some point would like to see test-cases :)

evanp: reasonable to have social data syntax use cases for TPAC?

<sandro> Harry, it's already up to the chairs to decide that. Don't limit their power via the Exception Proves The Rule.

<harry> Sandro, that's a proposal to clarify the scope.

MarkCrawford: happy to ensure focus of IG is requirements of WG over next few weeks

<elf-pavlik> i propose to move it to mailing list and go on with other agenda points soon

<evanp> +1

<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.

<harry> And ask people to move use-case discussion to IG until appropriate, as judged by the WG chairs.

<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.

<evanp> Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax by TPAC (end October)?

<harry> We need to clarify what forum is useful for which kind of discussion.

<ShaneHudson> From the IG?

<evanp> ShaneHudson: yes

<ShaneHudson> +1

<wilkie> +1

<harry> +1

<elf-pavlik> +1

<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

<Arnaud> harry, but anyone can propose the WG adopts a use case developed in the IG

straw poll: Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax from the IG by TPAC (end October)?

<bblfish> +1 but it's still something that the group has to then agree to here

<tantek> +1 with deadline the *Tuesday* before TPAC so we have a chance to review


<elf-pavlik> +1

<jasnell> +1 for asking the IG for use cases

<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.

<markus> +1 if the IG is fine with that

<MarkCrawford> +1

<harry> We need to keep signal-to-noise ratio on WG mailing list and wiki better.

<harry> And we need more people to contribute to the IG

<ShaneHudson> I agree with Tantek that it would be good to have it ready before TPAC to review


resolved: ask IG for initial use cases for social data syntax before TPAC

<tantek> aside: federatedsocialweb (dot) net - where all SWAT0 was initially documented, expired and has been taken over by a spammer :( :( :(

<harry> RESOLUTION: Initial use cases from the IG for social data syntax by TPAC

<Loqi> it'll be ok

<wilkie> +1

<bblfish> what is a "direction for a sodical data syntax?"

straw poll: ready to start deciding direction for social data syntax

<harry> +1 for jasnell's efforts to align to schema.org without using the same URIs

<tantek> -1 I still don't understand what this has to do with AS2 or anything. vocabs yes. but syntax?

<elf-pavlik> jasnell: requir JSON-LD as minimal requirement

<bblfish> +1 for JSON-LD

<tantek> -1 for requiring JSON-LD

<tantek> +1 for JSON-LD as an *option*

<harry> We could always have the @context as an "option"

<elf-pavlik> +1 require JSON-LD

<harry> That is what AS2.0 did.

<wilkie> +1 for JSON-LD

<Loqi> harry meant to say: That is what AS2.0 did.

<markus> +1 for JSON-LD.. obviously

<bblfish> +q

<sandro> +100 jasnell redefine activity streams as an ontology, and look at alignment with schema.org. no strong feelings about json-ld.

<elf-pavlik> jasnell: explains as:Activity vs as:Actions

<tantek> sandro by ontology do you mean vocab?

<harry> Also, I'd prefer to use the term "vocabulary" rather than "ontology" lest we sound silly

<markus> doesn't make sense to make it optional.. we can nevertheless ensure that JSON-only clients can process documents

<sandro> yes, I mean vocab. James used the word "ontology", and vocab owl:sameAs ontology.

<elf-pavlik> +1 markus

<elf-pavlik> +q

<tiborkat> +1 for json-ld

<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

<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.

<harry> Notes that I'd like to see schema.org folks come to face-to-face to discussion.

<harry> So I'd rather do that than BOF

<harry> on Thursday, which conflicts with things.

<elf-pavlik> harry, i would like to discuss it *today*

<jasnell> real world example: github has adopted schema.org/Actions

<elf-pavlik> tantek: asks to find real world examples of schema.org uses

<elf-pavlik> tantek, github - social coding

tantek: without social web usage of schema.org or particpating schema.org companies in the WG, schema.org discussion should be out of scope

<aaronpk> agreed with tantek

<ShaneHudson> I also agree with tantek's concerns

<harry> I think we already have disagreement over JSON-LD from tantek.

bblfish: JSON-LD as a basic syntax

<harry> Everyone is happy with it as an option though.

<tantek> I am opposed to requiring *any* particular syntax from this WG

<elf-pavlik> -1 harry

<tantek> I am *for* providing syntax *options*

bblfish: don't mix syntax with semantics/pragmatics

<elf-pavlik> also markus just raised concern about optional requirement

<harry> Note that the charter requires JSON as a basis.

<tantek> -1 on JSON-LD as a required basis

<jasnell> the AS2 ontology approach allows us to use JSON-LD and HTML5 syntax options, and also allows turtle

<jasnell> etc

<elf-pavlik> evanp: we had straw pool 2 weeks ago and JSON-LD had big support

<ShaneHudson> +1 harry, JSON as a basis with JSON-LD as an option

<harry> Discussion of XML alternatives etc. are out of scope

<Arnaud> harry, are you saying that JSON-LD doesn't qualify as JSON?

<harry> Happy to bring those up in the IG.

<harry> No, JSON-LD is a subset of JSON.

<markus> +q to ask tantek why he objects to use JSON-LD

<harry> So we're happy to have JSON-LD either as a requirement (if group gets consensus) or as an option.

evanp: many proposals in front of us use JSON-LD

<tantek> I object to *requiring* JSON-LD

<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

<sandro> Ah, Tantek wants to allow microformats

<wilkie> some systems only use xml :)

<markus> markus: tantek, could you please elaborate on why you object to json-ld and what you mean by making it optional

<elf-pavlik> JSON-LD also allows microformats as vocab

tantek: JSON-LD can be documented options but we should allow HTML5 + microformats

<elf-pavlik> http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#microformats

<aaronpk> (side note that HTML5 + microformats can be turned into a JSON document via the parsing rules)

harry: charter says JSON is requirement

<wilkie> I feel that argument means RSS should be our leading example because of its prevalence heh

<sandro> Social Data Syntax

<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.

<elf-pavlik> evanp, can you ask for extra 15min time for this call please?

<tantek> there is canonical JSON output from microformats parsers

<evanp> elf-pavlik: will do

<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

<jasnell> a minimal JSON syntax can be defined and adopted that is IDENTICAL to the serialization that JSON-LD provides

<harry> The charter is pretty old :)

<harry> I'm very pro being implementation driven.

<sandro> tantek: Since the charter was written, it's become out-of-date, as we now have microformat-providing servers working well

<harry> We should get back to schema.org folks invite for TPAC.

<elf-pavlik> evanp, any objections to extending call for another 15min

evanp: extend 15 minutes

<tantek> +1 to extending the call

<sandro> +1 extending

<wilkie> +1

<bblfish> no objections


<elf-pavlik> +1

<harry> +1

<markus> no objection

<tiborkat> +1

<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)

<Loqi> tantek meant to say: +1 to extending the call

<ShaneHudson> +1

<sandro> ShaneHudson, that would require clients to parse both

<tantek> sandro - I corrected myself, "mistaken" was mis-spoke by me :)

<tantek> why put something simpler (microformats) in terms of something more complex? (RDFa)

<elf-pavlik> I think we *need* more conversation over mailin list before we discuss it during teleconf

bblfish: linked data principles whether in JSON-LD, RDFa microformats

<elf-pavlik> tantek, i find RDFa simler

<tantek> disagree that it's difficult for servers. more personal social websites are serving HTML5+microformats than RDFa.

<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.

<harry> The last thing I want to revisit is the microformat vs. RDFa vs. microdata debate.

<tantek> harry - right

<elf-pavlik> evanp, I would like to ask last 5 minutes to discuss *Meeting with Schema.org team @TPAC*

<tantek> and I want to avoid making that kind of decision politically for sure

sandro: one format or variety of interchangable formats?

<evanp> elf-pavlik: thanks, I will try to get us to that

<tantek> as opposed to by documented adoption

<harry> We have chosen ONE required format, JSON, in the charter. Other syntaxes are optional.

<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

evanp: charter does specify JSON

<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

<harry> +1 and not a required @context element or "@" namespaces, although I hope folks will use this.

<markus> tantek, you stressed several time how strong the adoption is... do you have a pointer to any data... I'm curious

evanp: abstract vocabulary won't be enough for API / protocol parts of scope

<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

<jasnell> We can accomplish this using a properly defined @context

<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.

<tantek> markus - yes, documented on w3.org/wiki/socialwg documents and in detail on indiewebcamp.com

<harry> http://tripletalk.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/rdfa-deployment-across-the-web/

aaronpk: HTML + microformat is just syntax

<harry> Note that 99% of RDFa use is Facebook's OGP tag, which uses it incorrectly

<tantek> harry - note - not *socialweb*

<markus> tantek, thanks.. but it's quite hard to find something in the wiki... I'll give it a try

<tantek> wilkie - I will oppose *requiring* JSON-LD

<wilkie> ok

<tantek> that's a political decision

<tantek> not data/evidence driven

<jasnell> tantek: what about my suggestion?

<tantek> so is requiring JSON - but we unfortunately froze that into the charter

<wilkie> I'm not sure that's true, nor do I see a lot of data on anything

<harry> It was felt in chartering that ONE syntax was needed, and JSON was kinda simple.

<evanp> Zakim q?

<wilkie> I'm pretty sure JSON is widely supported haha

<tantek> harry - serving JSON is *extra work* = not simple

<aaronpk> and XML was widely supported 10 years ago, so...

<ShaneHudson> Focusing on the actual model will avoid problems with JSON one day going out of fashion (in the same way as XML)

<elf-pavlik> sandro: how about developin library which will bridge all exisitng indie web deployments into new standard we recommend

<tantek> whereas *everyone* on the *web* has to serve HTML

<tantek> so the *simplest* approach was to just add microformats to that HTML

<sandro> sandro: I'm hoping folks using microformats can be happy with this JSON-social-data-syntax via some conversion libraries

<elf-pavlik> i will help with microformat json to json-ld tools

<MarkCrawford> Unfortunately, I have another call. Open question - what communities would we be freezing out of our spec if we choose JSON?

<tantek> here's some JSON if that's what you're looking for: http://pin13.net/mf2/?url=http://tantek.com/

<harry> There are real existing microformat+HTML communities

<harry> There are to my knowledge, no widespread usage of non-JSON or microformat+HTML software for federated social.

<evanp> +1

<jasnell> +1

<sandro> PROPOSED: We accept AS2.0, modified to be JSON-LD, as our starting point

<elf-pavlik> +1

<tantek> -1

<sandro> +1

<wilkie> +1

<markus> +1

<tantek> to be clear, I am very strongly *for* publishing AS2.0 in this WG

<bblfish> +1 for now


<tantek> I am *against* picking *a* social syntax

<bblfish> Essentially that proposal interests me

<tantek> based on these current proposals

<tiborkat> +1

<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")

<elf-pavlik> +1

<tantek> PROPOSE: Publish AS2.0 as spec'd as *implemented* (not JSON-LD)

<elf-pavlik> -1

<tantek> implementations > JSON-LD

<aaronpk> aren't there are already implemenations of AS 2.0 without JSON-LD?

<tantek> precisely

<evanp> aaronpk: I don't believe so

<evanp> AS 1.0 is widely used

<tantek> that's my point. let's publish the spec as implemented, not some future hypothetical

<tantek> evanp - jasnell has documented implementations on the socialwg wiki

<Arnaud> maybe the question should be: should our JSON serialization be compatible with JSON-LD?

<jasnell> yes, there are implementations of AS2

<elf-pavlik> bblfish: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world

<jasnell> they are not as broad as AS1

<Loqi> elf-pavlik meant to say: bblfish: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world

<evanp> jasnell: thanks, useful data point

<elf-pavlik> +1 bblfish

<Arnaud> we should leave the question of required syntax off the table for now, there is clearly interest in different serializations

<jasnell> Arnaud: +1

<elf-pavlik> +1 Arnaud

<evanp> Arnaud: I think we need at least one preferred serialization for use with our other deliverables

<ShaneHudson> +1 Arnaud

<markus> arnaud, apart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal

<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.

<Loqi> markus meant to say: arnaud, apart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal

<tantek> then document it

<harry> PROPOSAL: Get a new draft of ActivityStream 2.0 for discussion at TPAC f2f

<bblfish> What happened to the proposal of Activity Streams with JSON-LD?

<harry> That's neutral on the JSON vs. JSON-LD debate btw.

<evanp> PROPOSED: Name jasnell as editor of AS 2.0 and request a draft for TPAC

<markus> what's the "new draft"?

<harry> That was rejected by Tantek, and we need to clarify.

<jasnell> there editor's draft is available on github already

<jasnell> it's available for anyone to review

<tantek> I'd like to see a FPWD of AS2 *before* TPAC

<jasnell> the pre-tpac version will be available in a branch before TPAC

<tantek> jasnell - please provide URL to current editor's draft for the minutes

<jasnell> at least two weeks before tpac

<elf-pavlik> jasnell, will you make one following your last email?

<jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2.html

<jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-actions.html

<jasnell> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html

<bblfish> I am confused about what the proposal is

<elf-pavlik> some issues will come from: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Vocabulary_Comparison#summary_of_differences

<jasnell> the activitystreams2.html and activitystreams2-vocabulary.html documents are the ones that will be ready by TPAC

<jasnell> that was decided several weeks ago wasn't it?

<markus> jasnell, is activitystreams2.html already up to date?

<jasnell> there was a proposal and a resolution that a FPWD would be ready by TPAC

<ShaneHudson> Yes I think that was already resolved

<harry> Arnaud, are you OK with schema.org people attending the f2f or a section thereof at TPAC?

<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

<tantek> jasnell - I'm trying to make progress on publishing AS2

<sandro> Harry, I have seen zero objection to JSON-LD. That was NOT Tantek's objection.

<elf-pavlik> thanks harry, i take my question to jasnell back

<jasnell> I am too

<elf-pavlik> can we write down this proposal on IRC

<sandro> +1 invite schema.org folks to attend whatever they want, and sent aside some specific time, too

<ShaneHudson> I also need to go, sorry. I agree with inviting them

<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

<elf-pavlik> i will reply to public-vocabs with link to log after this call

<tantek> -1 for special treatment of schema-org during TPAC

<harry> Sandro, there was objection for JSON-LD being a requirement.

<evanp> -1

<jasnell> -1

<tantek> schema-org members are all W3C members. ergo they can join the WG.


<sandro> harry, from whom?

<wilkie> -1

<tantek> It's been over a year since the osfw3c workshop

<elf-pavlik> i don't see clear proposal writen down on irc while people do +/-1

<sandro> +1 lets learn what they have to offer

<harry> PROPOSAL: For a limited technical session with schema.org f2f at TPAC?

<elf-pavlik> +1

tantek: for editor incorporating other specs in his research, against special treatment for schema.org as they can just join WG
... unless there are real world examples, let's not spend time discussing other formats

<harry> Sandro, the objection from JSON-LD being a requirement came from Tantek. He was happy for it to be an option.

<sandro> Harry, you are completely misrepresenting what Tantek is saying.

<tantek> no I think Harry got it right. I'm opposed to JSON-LD requirement. I am *for* documenting a JSON-LD option.

<harry> Sorry sandro, but that's how it is.

<harry> You can try to discuss more with Sandro on mailing list and IRC re having JSON-LD as a requirement.

<evanp> tantek: thanks

<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.

<harry> It looks like an informal BOF is the way forward. I'd suggest Wednesday rather than Thursday, as we have structured time.

<sandro> And Harry, you're "sorry" is unbelievably rude.

<elf-pavlik> IRC log looks like very confusing

<tantek> sandro, I am *for* AS2.0 publishing as is currently implemented.

<harry> Where JSON-LD is not required.

<tantek> sandro, I am *against* making AS2.0 make changes that are political (JSON-LD) rather than what AS2 implementations support.

<sandro> You mean JSON-LD is not allowed.

<elf-pavlik> harry, BOF with schema.org team?

<harry> Happy to help wiht informal BOF if on Wednesday

<Loqi> I added a countdown for 9/24 12:00am (#5499)

<tantek> let's get a FPWD of AS2 which reflects actual AS2 implementations.

<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

no, i don't believe so

<bblfish> or get to a compromise

<evanp> ACTION: review AS 2.0 for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Error finding 'review'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.

<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.

<tiborkat> thx bye

<elf-pavlik> thanks evanp ! jtauber

<evanp> *whew* that was a long one

do I need to do anything to close out scribing?

<tantek> specifically for that ACTION for review AS2 for FPWD publication

<evanp> jtauber: no, there's a little recipe I have to do

<tantek> ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Error finding 'everyone'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.

<evanp> harry, thanks

<elf-pavlik> tantek, you may need to assign it to yourself ...

<harry> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html#action02]
[NEW] ACTION: review AS 2.0 for next week [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html#action01]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.138 (CVS log)
$Date: 2014-09-23 18:30:19 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.138  of Date: 2013-04-25 13:59:11  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/example/concrete example with URL/
Succeeded: s/two/to/
Succeeded: s/test/use/
Succeeded: s/wants/did/
Succeeded: s/mistaken/out-of-date/
Succeeded: s/harry/bblfish/
Succeeded: s/appart/apart/
Found Scribe: jtauber
Inferring ScribeNick: jtauber
Default Present: jasnell, elf-pavlik, evanp, jtauber, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, +1.503.567.aabb, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc, bblfish, hhalpin, markus, tantek, tiborKatelbach
Present: jasnell elf-pavlik evanp jtauber Arnaud ShaneHudson +1.703.670.aaaa +1.503.567.aabb aaronpk Sandro +1.541.410.aacc bblfish hhalpin markus tantek tiborKatelbach
Agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23
Found Date: 23 Sep 2014
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html
People with action items: everyone review

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]