16:59:00 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:59:00 logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/30-social-irc 16:59:01 +[IPcaller] 16:59:02 RRSAgent, make logs 411 16:59:04 Zakim, mute bret 16:59:04 bret should now be muted 16:59:04 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:59:05 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:59:05 Date: 30 September 2014 16:59:05 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:59:17 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:17 Zakim, [IPcaller] is jtauber 16:59:17 sorry, jtauber, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' 16:59:52 Zakim, IPcaller is jtauber 16:59:52 sorry, jtauber, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller' 17:00:17 Zakim, this is SOCL 17:00:17 ok, tantek; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:00:23 Zakim, who is here 17:00:23 tantek, you need to end that query with '?' 17:00:29 +??P14 17:00:32 Zakim, who is here? 17:00:32 On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, [IPcaller], Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, ??P9, ??P14 17:00:34 On IRC I see RRSAgent, Lloyd_Fassett, jtauber, elf-pavlik, jasnell, nicolagreco, tantek, evanpro, harry, bblfish, melvster, KevinMarks, bryan_, bret, rhiaro, Arnaud, wilkie, mattl, 17:00:34 ... tommorris, Loqi, aaronpk, Zakim, oshepherd, kylewm, Tsyesika, trackbot, botie, sandro, wseltzer 17:00:47 +[IPcaller.a] 17:00:54 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:00:54 +jtauber; got it 17:01:25 zakim IPCaller.a is me 17:01:29 +[IPcaller] 17:01:39 +[IPcaller.aa] 17:01:40 Zakim [IPCaller.a is me 17:01:43 Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin 17:01:43 +hhalpin; got it 17:01:44 Zakim, [IPcaller] is me 17:01:46 sorry, evanpro, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' 17:01:47 Zakim [IPCaller.a] is me 17:01:56 +Tantek (was ??P9) 17:01:59 Apologies for absence: I am travelling today following medical treatment. 17:02:02 +??P18 17:02:03 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:02:03 sorry, evanpro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller' 17:02:04 Zakim, [IPCaller.a] is me 17:02:04 +bblfish; got it 17:02:10 trackbot, start meeting 17:02:12 RRSAgent, make logs 411 17:02:12 apologies for the beeps but that worked! :) 17:02:14 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:02:14 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago 17:02:15 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:02:15 Date: 30 September 2014 17:02:17 chair: Arnaud 17:02:34 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-30 17:02:45 MarkC has joined #social 17:03:00 jtauber, can you scribe? 17:03:09 harry: jtauber scribed last week 17:03:32 Arnaud: I did the minutes wiki page 17:03:37 Shane has joined #social 17:03:40 hey all, I'll be joining the call today too 17:03:47 zakim, who is making noise? 17:03:50 Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me 17:03:50 +evanpro; got it 17:03:55 tommorris: :( hope you feel better and your travels go smoothly 17:03:57 Arnaud: sorry, I'm still getting used to the process :-) 17:03:57 markus has joined #social 17:03:57 tantek, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (49%) 17:03:58 (I think) 17:04:02 it'll be ok 17:04:10 thanks bret 17:04:11 zakim, what's the code? 17:04:12 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Shane 17:04:19 I can scribe 17:04:26 (I forgot my headset again...) 17:04:30 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:04:30 On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, +1.703.670.aaaa, [IPcaller] 17:04:33 scribe: oshepard 17:04:41 +??P25 17:04:46 zakim, ??P25 is me 17:04:46 +Shane; got it 17:04:49 Zakim, mute me 17:04:49 Shane should now be muted 17:05:11 Zakim, +1,703.670.aaaa is me 17:05:11 sorry, MarkC, I do not recognize a party named '+1,703.670.aaaa' 17:05:24 Zakim, aaaa is MarkC 17:05:24 +MarkC; got it 17:05:24 Arnaud: participation is still limited to members... number of invited expert applications, still working through list 17:05:34 Zakim, +1.703.670.aaaa is me 17:05:34 sorry, MarkC, I do not recognize a party named '+1.703.670.aaaa' 17:05:48 Can we hold approving minutes till end of agenda? 17:05:50 Totally understandable and reasonable 17:05:54 I am still fixing the draft minutes up 17:05:55 ....and balancing desire between W3C being inclusive and keeping WG productive 17:05:59 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:05:59 On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, MarkC, [IPcaller], Shane (muted) 17:06:26 .... and ensuring that people who should be W3C members are members. 17:06:37 http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html 17:07:18 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-30 17:07:45 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23-minutes 17:07:59 ... Agreed that minutes would be transcribed to wiki, turned into wiki page following a defined template. 17:08:23 zakim, code? 17:08:23 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus 17:08:51 Arnaud: Asking scribe to transcribe, post to mailing list once done so that people can discuss the cleaned up minutes, so that they have a heads up to chime in on last week's minutes 17:08:55 +1 17:08:57 my apologies for not getting it done in a timely fashion (still learning) 17:09:00 Proposed: approve minutes of 23 September: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23-minutes 17:09:15 +1 to approve 17:09:31 +1 17:09:38 +??P29 17:09:42 zakim, ??P29 is me 17:09:42 +markus; got it 17:09:50 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 23 September 17:09:55 (tentative) 17:10:09 Let's hold a week to object over mailing list and maybe fix up minutes 17:10:22 +1 17:10:35 ??: Just saying for folks that if you have any objections with the minutes you should speak up 17:10:45 s/??/tantek 17:11:16 Arnaud: People have a week after call to raise comments on resolutions, past week's minutes, etc 17:11:34 Arnaud: So scribe should attempt to make sure that minutes are out promptly to maximize this time 17:11:44 Arnaud: Looking at list of open actions... 17:11:59 link? 17:12:05 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/2 17:12:06 action-2 17:12:06 action-2 -- James Snell to Describe how as2 diverges from json-ld and manages the compatibility -- due 2014-09-16 -- OPEN 17:12:06 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/2 17:12:08 TOPIC: How does AS2 diverge from JSON-LD (Action 2) 17:12:22 q+ 17:12:48 jasnell: This is in progress... as a result of conversations last week with regards to whether we are going to go with JSON-LD or not 17:13:07 jasnell: the changes themselves are already in spec document 17:13:15 jasnell: divergences are not called out specifically, but they're there 17:13:27 jasnell: going to go into that in more detail 17:13:32 action-4 17:13:32 action-4 -- Arnaud Le Hors to Add "what is the role of social wg, ig and cg?" as an faq to https://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg#faq -- due 2014-09-23 -- OPEN 17:13:32 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/4 17:14:02 Arnaud: (Procedural) It is impolite to give other people actions without their consent 17:14:11 Arnaud: Moving on... 17:14:19 TOPIC: TPAC 17:14:35 Arnaud: Reminded that regisrtation ends on October (28th ?) 17:14:36 So if you haven't register, register *now* 17:14:40 Oct 8th 17:14:51 Arnaud: Running out of space, if you haven't registered yet, register now 17:14:55 Sept 27-28th is our meeting 17:14:55 zakim, mute me 17:14:55 Tantek should now be muted 17:15:07 s/Sept/Oct 17:15:10 oct 27-28th is our meeting 17:15:14 Arnaud: Talking about adding a BOF session with Schema.org. Not joining WG or WG meeting, but BOF during wednesday plenary so we can discuss matters with them 17:15:22 q? 17:15:29 Oct 29th is a schema.org BOF, Google will attend. 17:15:32 Arnaud: (At least 2 people from Google, someone from Yandex) to see if there is any synergy or can be any transfer of work 17:15:37 happy to hold an indieweb BOF as well 17:15:42 +1 17:15:44 +1 17:15:48 tantek: Indieweb BOF would be great 17:16:10 Arnaud: I have setup meeting pages on the wiki for this meeting, again invite everybody to go to page and indicate if they are intending to attend in person or remotely and to indicate which topic they would like to be discussed 17:16:22 Add here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas 17:16:31 for TPAC BOFs on Wednesday 17:16:38 Arnaud: Can't guarantee we will be able to acommodate, but have done in past and has worked well; aranging things to fit other people's timezones where possible 17:16:56 Arnaud: As we get closer to meeting, will try to set up an agenda which provides specific time frames as for when we intend to talk about what 17:17:14 dromasca has joined #social 17:17:20 Arnaud: Always difficult to work out how much time each topic will take, but good to have an agenda so we have some reference, even if we are somewhat flexible around that 17:17:33 Arnaud: Moving on from procedural work towards specifications we have to discuss... 17:17:47 TOPIC: Activity Streams 2 17:18:03 Arnaud: We already aimed to publish document by TPAC. Is there anything in the wya of attaining that goal? 17:18:33 jasnell: Have updated the vocabulary document based upon technical feedback received so far, regarding link value and relationship with link relations and JSON-LD alignment 17:18:50 jasnell: Sent out detailed note yestefday and another this moring detailing what these changes are 17:19:02 jasnell: Apologise that these are long notes, will take time to go through, but do cover everything changed 17:19:20 jasnell: Second document (covers serialziation, syntax) will be updated tomorrow; by friday indent to have drafts of all documents 17:19:31 jasnell: Can discuss if we are to publish these as FPWD in time for TPAC 17:19:33 q+ re: AS2 approval for FPWD 17:19:43 Zakim, open the queu 17:19:43 I don't understand 'open the queu', tantek 17:19:49 Zakim, open the queue 17:19:49 ok, tantek, the speaker queue is open 17:19:55 q+ re: AS2 approval for FPWD 17:20:04 The key is to get it *decided* by TPAC 17:20:10 it might not appear on Web for a week or so after. 17:20:14 no, sooner 17:20:14 with its official status 17:20:18 Arnaud: Aiming to get document published by the ??nd of October, lots of W3C admin processes to go through especially for FPWD 17:20:27 although the Github Editor's Draft will be accurate 17:20:28 Arnaud: Need to get webmasters to publish document, etc. 17:20:40 and up to date on day off. 17:20:48 Arnaud: Aiming for document by end of this week, decision on 14th of October 17:20:53 Arnaud: aim to make decision by 2014-10-14 17:21:00 +1 on make decision by 2014-10-14 17:21:02 Arnaud: By then must have reviewed draft, must be able to vote as to whether we should publish as a FPWD 17:21:03 If we ask for FPWD by Oct 14th, then we'll have it published by TPAC 17:21:04 to publish FPWD 17:21:23 Arnaud: Not discussion of if things are done, etc; just if the document is reasonable, so we have a stick in the ground 17:21:45 +dromasca 17:21:46 Arnaud: Does it sound reasonable to have decision by 14th? That gives us 2 weeks before TPAC to get doc published, which is reasonable 17:21:48 note that FPWD is a starting point. We are allowed to make plenty of changes, including breaking changes. 17:22:06 q+ re: discussions on mailing list of github issues? 17:22:09 we can publish updated WD as often as we the WG can review and agree to publish 17:22:26 elf-pavlik: issue tracking per spec is up to the editor 17:22:37 in this case, the editor has indicated he prefers github issues on his drafts 17:22:39 jasnell: We do have a draft now, working on edits to that. Putting updated draft in branch on GitHub. Would suggest people review both, so that we can fall back to older draft if changes are not yet ready for FPWD 17:22:48 Is there a set amount of drafts that we are allowed to publish? 17:22:58 Shane - no set amount. 17:22:58 q? 17:23:02 ack tantek 17:23:03 tantek, you wanted to discuss AS2 approval for FPWD 17:23:11 Arnaud: Important to signal to group when you freeze the doucment so that we can have stable draft for people to review (limited time etc) 17:23:31 Yes Please. 17:23:35 tantek: Decided to publish by 14th, given how much iteration jasnell has been doing, don't wait until Friday to review document, please review ASAP 17:23:40 FPWDs are usually pretty sketchy 17:23:55 tantek: Think document is in very stable space, especially for FPWD, on Friday please check what changes he has made since today 17:23:58 so we are in good shape relative to other WGs, nothing is in stone as well 17:24:08 yes, but in my experience from the LDP WG once something is in FPWD it is very difficult to remove something 17:24:24 this is the updated version to review: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/blob/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html 17:24:35 tantek: On Friday you will still have 14 days to raise any issues, though I don't think will be any blockers 17:24:37 ack elf-pavlik 17:24:37 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss discussions on mailing list of github issues? 17:24:38 because there is a prejudice for something to be in the draft, so you have to get a lot of consensus to get it out 17:24:43 to view as HTML locally, check out the ontology-approach branch 17:25:04 mic is garbled 17:25:04 yes, voice is garbled 17:25:05 I think elf is asking if jasnell prefers github issues or not 17:25:07 git clone -b ontology-approach https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams.git 17:25:28 jasnell - please provide a URL that doesn't require executing any command lines 17:25:32 elf-pavlik: What channel should we use to discuss issues on drafts, Github or WG ML? 17:25:50 q+ 17:25:54 tantek: I will have to do that a bit later today 17:25:55 melvster has joined #social 17:26:03 Arnaud: Discussed point before, important operational issue. Would personally prefer people use tracker+ml because connected, but some people prefer GitHub. 17:26:10 jasnell - ok for you to take that as an action? 17:26:12 I've seen both used well 17:26:18 for small issues, github issues make sense 17:26:21 tantek: https://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html 17:26:25 for larger design issues, use the WG/tracker 17:26:36 jasnell - is that correct? https://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html 17:26:41 WebCrypto and a few other WGs do that productively 17:26:42 Arnaud: Up to editor which way they want to do it. Been raised before that for smaller issues GitHub is probably OK, but for bigger issues should probably be raised on the WG/Tracker so whole ML is aware 17:26:43 ack harry 17:26:48 bret: thanks ;-) ... that doesn't seem to pull in the respec formatting but that works 17:26:57 dang! 17:27:21 harry: The problem if we raised issues for any minor semantic issue, overloads tracker and ML with noise, so chuck on GitHub unless you think needs formal discussion from WG 17:27:24 I'll push the branch to the gh-pages branch a bit later this morning 17:27:38 Arnaud: James, are there any technical issues you would like us to discuss now? 17:27:57 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues 17:27:58 jasnell: So it looks like elf-pavlik has raised a bunch I have not yet gone into regarding link relations, etc. 17:28:06 jasnell: most seem to be low level technical issues don't need to get into right here 17:28:19 jasnell: One regarding issue of audience targetting, how we identify audience. 17:28:23 jasnell: Automatic testing 17:28:35 jasnell: Nothing which sticks out as needing urgent review here 17:28:41 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues 17:28:52 Arnaud: To WG, are there any issues you would like to talk about now? 17:29:08 issue https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/19 is resolved by the proposed vocab update 17:29:27 Zakim, who's on the phone? 17:29:27 On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, MarkC, [IPcaller], Shane (muted), 17:29:31 ... markus, dromasca 17:29:32 Arnaud: Hope we have verified what is expected to happen with AS 17:29:38 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:29:38 +wilkie; got it 17:29:43 Zakim, who's making noise? 17:29:44 zakim, who is making noise? 17:29:55 harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (49%) 17:30:06 tantek, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (88%) 17:30:26 Arnaud: Should we discuss ActivityStreams vocabulary? 17:30:37 who managed to read updated documents? 17:30:40 jasnell: As I said, I did post the changes to WG. 17:30:59 jasnell: in response to Tantek's response on IRC, will be pushing update to github pages after call, so everyone can see nicely formatted version easily 17:31:17 jasnell: There are some fairly significant changes, e.g. type value has been removed; link value has been refactored into Link class 17:31:37 jasnell: End result is that there are some fairly important changes to the abstract model, but syntax isn't much changed. Mostly semantic changes 17:31:56 jasnell: Major change is Actions have been folded into the ActivityStreams main vocabulary; were previously in separate draft 17:32:05 jasnell: Will see things like Potential Action, ActionHandlers, etc 17:32:14 q+ 17:32:27 -??P18 17:32:29 jasnell: Have reworked design so actions are more similar to Schema.org's actions, without introducing dependency on schema 17:32:36 ack elf-pavlik 17:32:46 I like the design being similar without a dependency 17:32:49 +??P10 17:32:57 who just joined? 17:33:00 I wanted to clarify something on JSON-LD 17:33:14 that one can design around JSON-LD and use it later as JSON 17:33:18 ??P18 is me 17:33:21 maybe? 17:33:23 but the other way it doesn't work that well 17:33:30 let's not spend time on call on JSON-LD tutorial please 17:33:39 +1 17:33:44 as for example, i have hard time to get microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD 17:33:53 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/17 17:34:06 Arnaud: , clear that JSON-LD is designed so that it can be consumed as JSON (but the other way is not necessarily true) 17:34:14 q+ 17:34:17 Arnaud: Any question on direction taken by jasnell and vocabulary? 17:34:20 ack harry 17:34:22 elf-pavlik: microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD is offtopic for this channel at this time. happy to discuss "microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD" in Freenode IRC #microformats if you wish 17:34:55 harry: I do think there is a valid point that we have heard a lot from elf-pavlik and wondering if anybody else would like to speak esp. from non-JSON-LD using community e.g. indiewebcamp and see if they have had time to look at spec at all 17:34:55 -Shane 17:35:01 Loqi has joined #social 17:35:09 +??P15 17:35:14 Zakim, ??P15 is me 17:35:14 +Shane; got it 17:35:14 who just joined? 17:35:17 Zakim, mute me 17:35:17 Shane should now be muted 17:35:28 Arnaud: To clarify, this is not intended to be published at same time as the spec, right? 17:35:34 jasnell we need two URL to review 17:35:36 jasnell: To clarify, both AS2 vocab + syntax are intended to be published together 17:35:40 so we are proposing two FPWD 17:35:44 AS2 vocabs 17:35:47 AS2 syntax 17:36:01 Arnaud: Process is that as people review documents, raise a list of issues they have, and we can start working on those issues and moving forward 17:36:01 tantek: yes. the AS2 vocabs is what I posted yesterday. I'm working on updating the AS2 syntax today and tomorrow 17:36:16 Arnaud: Perfectly reasonable to publish an FPWD with open issues; nobody expects FPWD to have all issues closed 17:36:28 q+ to respond to Harry 17:36:29 Arnaud: Lastly, action handlers 17:36:40 jasnell: The actions stuff has been pulled into vocabulary; does have a revised model 17:36:49 q+ to respond to Harry as to whether any indieweb folks have looked at AS2 drafts 17:37:03 jasnell: As a bit of background, actions original proposal that was contributed overlapped fairly significantly with schema.org actions 17:37:10 jasnell: but took different approaches with regards to syntax and properties 17:37:40 jasnell: in update published yesterday, have revised model so that it is /closer/ to what schema.org has done, follows same basic model, but property names etc are slightly different, no direct dependency 17:37:57 jasnell: aligned so that community has /one/ way of doing things, but don't overlap 17:38:27 are there any implementations of actions? 17:38:28 Arnaud: Don't think we have discussed the merging of these two together in the past. It is important to indicate that we are abandoning separate document 17:38:38 ack tantek 17:38:38 tantek, you wanted to respond to Harry and to respond to Harry as to whether any indieweb folks have looked at AS2 drafts 17:38:40 I'd prefer to keep actions separate 17:38:44 Separate 17:38:47 Zakim, unmute me 17:38:47 Tantek was not muted, tantek 17:38:47 q+ 17:38:54 jasnell: The actions portion is still separate section in the main vocab draft, so can be separateed out if necessary 17:39:10 tantek: So harry asked if anyone in Indieweb community had had a chance to review the AS2 draft 17:39:24 tantek: Don't speak for commuinity, just for myself; have looked over some of draft, haven't done a total reading 17:39:39 tantek: Don't see how to map some of Indieweb microformats usage into AS2 JSON... 17:39:53 tantek: ...but that might just be me not quite understanding it yet, not going to raise as a blocker 17:39:54 I've read it but having not implemented AS, I don't have strong opinions either way 17:40:06 tantek: As I see it, the AS2 work should continue to go forward, should try to figure out some form of mapping 17:40:24 tantek: If we can't figure out some form of direct mapping, maybe worth bringing forth some form of proposal, not worth crossing bridge until we get to it 17:40:26 I'm happy to work with you on exploring that mapping 17:40:41 tantek: Regarding the actions: thats all new, as far as I understand, not based upon anye xisting implementations 17:40:49 tantek: Based upon that I think we should keep it separate 17:40:59 tantek: Don't want tthat to cause any issues for existing AS2 syntax+vocab documents 17:41:09 tantek: Would prefer to go to FPWD with both vocab+syntax without actions 17:41:13 ack evanpro 17:41:16 Arnaud: Need to get to bottom of that problem 17:41:32 ok, so the proposal should be: keep actions vocabulary in a separate document from the activity vocabulary 17:41:36 evanpro: I was going to second that. Not sure if actions are really necessary for our FPWD, may take a lot of our time 17:41:48 evanpro: I think architecture of AS is such that they fit in nicely.. 17:42:03 Arnaud: Not sure if much to discuss, hearing multiple nods as to people prefering to keep things separate 17:42:13 Arnaud: Inviting silent ones to chime in on keeing things separate 17:42:21 oshepherd: +1 on separating 17:42:24 any drawbacks of having 4 documents rather then 2 ? 17:42:32 +1 keep them separate 17:42:39 jasnell: No real objection to separating things out, am agnostic, can go either way as to if one or two documents 17:42:53 jasnell: ...Looking at IRC, looks like folks prefer keeping separate 17:42:56 Proposed: Keep Action spec separate 17:42:58 I agree with separate, though if they can be linked together for easy navigation then that would be useful 17:42:59 In general, we minimize documents 17:43:02 +1 17:43:02 +1 17:43:03 +0 17:43:03 +1 17:43:04 +1 17:43:04 +1 17:43:07 +0.5 17:43:12 +0 17:43:23 modularity++ 17:43:23 Resolved: Keep Action spec separate 17:43:23 jasnell: No problem, will separate those out 17:43:34 modularity has 2 karma 17:43:48 Arnaud: We have reached the end of our agenda. Any more comments on actions before we move on? 17:43:56 Is there an overview to the actions spec? 17:43:57 q+ 17:44:03 Arnaud: I think elf brought up a question on ML? 17:44:09 q+ 17:44:09 about *Implementations Task Force* 17:44:10 ack evanpro 17:44:11 Actions is going to require close review and discussion. I will write up an overview bblfish 17:44:29 evanpro: So the thing I wanted to bring up as a point of business is that we have on our schedule the intention to start looking at 17:44:48 evanpro: some social API candidates and patterns, this week and next week, would like to start collecting social API candidates 17:44:54 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API_candidates 17:44:55 aside re: actions, we have had more implementation experience with webactions, see http://indiewebcamp.com/webactions#IndieWeb_Examples for actual usage on public websites. 17:44:59 evanpro: Will see if I can make a wiki page 17:45:17 evanpro++ for sharing an empty wiki page to be filled in :) 17:45:20 evanpro has 1 karma 17:45:24 Do we have a list of requirements for the Social API that we can use to evaluate candidates? 17:45:33 evanpro: As we go into discussing social API with our contributions of the AS portion of OpenSocial, would like to see some others so we can evaluate multiple candidates 17:45:41 jasnell - # of implementations would be a good start 17:45:45 Arnaud: So people to go to wiki page and add candidates? 17:45:48 evanpro: Exactly 17:45:52 q? 17:45:56 ack harry 17:46:06 harry: I'd just like to rather quickly address elf's point 17:46:23 harry: I think that the WG is the implementation group. Don't think it mkaes sense to separate out the implementation folks 17:46:32 Harry: working group is the implementation group. no need for separate task force. 17:46:37 +1 to what Harry said 17:46:40 +1 for WG is the implementation group 17:46:41 harry: Don't think task forces make sense given our numbers at this point; TF unneeded for a WG of this scale 17:46:59 harry: Usually less meetings = more productivity, so don't think we want the overhead of extra impls 17:47:09 harry: Would love to see people listing implementations, stats on estimated users if possible 17:47:17 makese sense 17:47:35 Arnaud: See several people have agreed with people on IRC. Seems to be premature, not sure what the purpose of an implementers group would be 17:47:46 agreed! 17:47:51 relevant to impls discussion: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams#Implementations 17:47:52 Arnaud: Don't think we have the critical mass at which it is necessary to split into multiple formal groups 17:48:17 Arnaud: We have reached the end of the agenda, unless people have anything to bring up, we can end the meeting early... 17:48:18 harry: +1 17:48:20 q+ to ask about criteria for minimal vocabs 17:48:25