IRC log of social on 2014-10-14

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:57:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:57:09 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:57:11 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs 411
16:57:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:57:13 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:57:13 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 3 minutes
16:57:14 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:57:14 [trackbot]
Date: 14 October 2014
16:57:32 [Arnaud]
RRSAgent, make logs pulic
16:57:36 [Arnaud]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:06 [elf-pavlik]
sorry everyone, today IRC only once again :( (lost VPN and tried SIP in 3 different locaitons in last 3h, also Skype gift card friend sent me didn't arrived)
16:59:20 [bret]
anyone recomend a decent json formatter extension for firefox?
16:59:42 [cwebber2]
bret: jsonview
16:59:51 [cwebber2]
17:00:01 [bret]
ty cwebber2
17:00:05 [cwebber2]
17:00:06 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is soclwg
17:00:06 [Zakim]
sorry, Arnaud, I do not see a conference named 'soclwg' in progress or scheduled at this time
17:00:10 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #social
17:00:27 [Arnaud]
rats, this telecon isn't set up correctly
17:00:32 [Arnaud]
we have issues every week
17:00:38 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
17:00:49 [markus]
markus has joined #social
17:01:05 [Arnaud]
Zakim, this is SOCL
17:01:05 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:01:22 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:01:22 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jasnell, ??P1, ??P2, Arnaud, ??P5
17:01:23 [bret]
darn, .jsonld files in still try to download to disk :(
17:01:30 [markus]
zakim, code?
17:01:30 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, markus
17:01:41 [Zakim]
17:01:43 [Zakim]
+ +1.314.777.aaaa
17:01:43 [Zakim]
17:01:50 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:01:50 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
17:01:58 [AdamB]
zakim, aaaa is AdamB
17:01:58 [Zakim]
+AdamB; got it
17:02:12 [Zakim]
17:02:12 [Tsyesika]
yay i'm connected :D
17:02:16 [Zakim]
17:02:24 [bret]
Zakim ??P2 is me
17:02:33 [bret]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
17:02:33 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:02:54 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:54 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
17:02:55 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:02:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jasnell, ??P1, Arnaud, ??P5, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett
17:02:55 [Zakim]
17:02:58 [markus]
zakim, ??P13 is me
17:02:58 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
17:02:59 [cwebber2]
how do I identify who I am if calling in via SIP?
17:03:05 [Zakim]
17:03:28 [Tsyesika]
17:03:32 [tantek]
Zakim, ??p10 is me
17:03:32 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:03:37 [cwebber2]
41# you said?
17:03:37 [Zakim]
17:03:40 [Shane]
Shane has joined #social
17:03:46 [Tsyesika]
i'll try that once chris has tried
17:03:47 [rhiaro]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
17:03:47 [Zakim]
+rhiaro; got it
17:03:50 [rhiaro]
Zakim, mute me
17:03:50 [Zakim]
rhiaro should now be muted
17:03:53 [cwebber2]
??P1 is me
17:03:59 [Arnaud]
17:04:10 [tantek]
Zakim, ??p1 is cwebber2
17:04:10 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
17:04:15 [cwebber2]
oh, duh :)
17:04:25 [Tsyesika]
i'm ??P5 i think
17:04:39 [Tsyesika]
17:04:43 [Tsyesika]
yeah :P
17:04:52 [bret]
is there a way to get Zakim to remember who you are?
17:04:54 [Arnaud]
17:05:02 [cwebber2]
Zakim, ??P5 is Tsyesika
17:05:02 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
17:05:06 [Tsyesika]
17:05:08 [Tsyesika]
17:05:09 [cwebber2]
17:05:11 [Arnaud]
17:05:19 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:05:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, Tsyesika, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett, markus, tantek, rhiaro (muted)
17:05:37 [wilkie]
17:05:39 [Loqi]
17:05:57 [Shane]
Zakim, what is the code
17:05:57 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'what is the code', Shane
17:06:05 [Zakim]
17:06:17 [bret]
17:06:18 [tantek]
Zakim, what meeting is this?
17:06:18 [Zakim]
I don't understand your question, tantek.
17:06:24 [Arnaud]
zakim, pick a victim
17:06:25 [Zakim]
17:06:25 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose wilkie
17:06:29 [markus]
zakim, ??P11 is me
17:06:29 [Zakim]
+markus; got it
17:06:31 [wilkie]
wow it hate me
17:06:33 [wilkie]
17:06:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.703.485.aabb
17:06:36 [wilkie]
it picks me EVERY TIME
17:06:39 [Arnaud]
zakim, pick a victim
17:06:39 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Tsyesika
17:06:45 [tantek]
wilkie I think Zakim really likes you
17:06:50 [Tsyesika]
I've not scribed before D:
17:06:57 [wilkie]
that's also a possible interpretation :)
17:06:58 [Zakim]
17:07:03 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: don't worry, I did it last time because I was the noob also :)
17:07:04 [Shane]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
17:07:04 [Zakim]
+Shane; got it
17:07:05 [wilkie]
I always assume machines hate me more than love me
17:07:06 [harry]
harry has joined #social
17:07:07 [Shane]
Zakim, mute me
17:07:07 [Zakim]
Shane should now be muted
17:07:10 [cwebber2]
it's not hard
17:07:12 [tantek]
who just joined?
17:07:16 [tantek]
thanks Shane :)
17:07:42 [Tsyesika]
how will i know who's speaking?
17:07:52 [harry]
Zakim, what's the code?
17:07:52 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, harry
17:08:04 [harry]
trackbot, start meeting
17:08:05 [tantek]
Tsyesika: if you hear a French accent, it is likely Arnaud :)
17:08:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs 411
17:08:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:08:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 8 minutes ago
17:08:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:08:09 [trackbot]
Date: 14 October 2014
17:08:15 [Tsyesika]
okay i can try
17:08:17 [tantek]
scribenick: Tsyesika
17:08:23 [Shane]
Can I scribe next week please? I will not be able to make it for a few weeks afterwards while there is a timezone shift
17:08:25 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: so now you would do
17:08:28 [bret]
17:08:32 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: harry, come on, you show up 5 minutes later ;)
17:08:32 [Arnaud]
harry you're not the chair
17:08:36 [Tsyesika]
so i just write what people say more or less?
17:08:36 [tantek]
welcome harry ;)
17:08:39 [Tsyesika]
17:08:55 [harry]
Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
17:08:55 [Zakim]
sorry, harry, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
17:08:55 [Arnaud]
scribe: Tsyesika
17:08:59 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
17:09:04 [Arnaud]
17:09:09 [harry]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:09:09 [Zakim]
I notice T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has restarted
17:09:10 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, Tsyesika, AdamB, wilkie, bret (muted), Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, rhiaro (muted), markus, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane (muted), [IPcaller]
17:09:18 [harry]
Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
17:09:18 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
17:09:23 [Arnaud]
topic: Admin
17:09:24 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: and if they were talking last time when you did Arnaud: you don't have to do it on the next message
17:09:46 [Arnaud]
Proposed: Approval of Minutes of 7 October 2014 Teleconf
17:09:54 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: also if talking for yourself, you might want to prefix your own name
17:09:58 [Tsyesika]
17:10:00 [jasnell]
no objections
17:10:01 [bret]
look good
17:10:05 [Shane]
Looks fine here
17:10:17 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: approved the minutes
17:10:20 [Tsyesika]
17:10:23 [Arnaud]
Resolved: Approval of Minutes of 7 October 2014 Teleconf
17:10:57 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: next meeting will be next week
17:11:03 [Arnaud]
17:11:04 [Tsyesika]
erm October the 21st?
17:11:32 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: wanted to know objections to using JSON-LD
17:11:37 [Tsyesika]
who's talking now?
17:11:47 [Arnaud]
17:11:53 [Arnaud]
you can type xxx: blah blah
17:11:55 [Lloyd_Fassett]
James Snell
17:12:06 [Arnaud]
and the person will do s/xxx/jasnell/
17:12:32 [cwebber2]
no objections here
17:12:42 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: is closing action 2 as there is no objections
17:12:45 [Arnaud]
trackbot, close ACTION-2
17:12:45 [trackbot]
Closed ACTION-2.
17:12:48 [Tsyesika]
17:13:23 [Tsyesika]
Topic: Activity Streams 2.0 Publication
17:13:46 [harry]
It didn't seem to get too much review, but we can still publish at a FPWD as Working Drafts can still change of course.
17:13:54 [tantek]
q+ to ask about implementations
17:14:14 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: james has fixed some typo's in the draft and we're going to make a decision today on if we're going to publish this as the first public working draft today
17:14:42 [jasnell]
I will make that proposal
17:14:47 [Arnaud]
17:14:52 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:14:52 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask about implementations
17:14:52 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: there are two sections which are the main spec and the vocab spec, we decided not to publish the action spec as the first public working draft today
17:14:53 [elf-pavlik]
q+, can we reference open issues inline?
17:15:09 [elf-pavlik]
17:15:22 [Shane]
I like that it specifies that multiple serialisations are allowed, despite not being defined in spec.
17:15:23 [jasnell]
17:15:50 [Tsyesika]
tantek: the spec looks good, but a question "Do we have any implementations which are keeping up with the spec, as in AS 2.0 as defined in the spec today"
17:15:56 [jasnell]
I will have an updated AS2 javascript implementation that produces and consumes AS2 in time for TPAC
17:15:58 [harry]
eventually folks should try :)
17:16:15 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:16:30 [Zakim]
17:16:47 [AdamB]
we are looking to move to produce and consume based on the new AS2 spec
17:16:48 [Tsyesika]
jasnell(i think): I will have a updated javascript and he's hoping to have an updated java version soon.
17:16:52 [bblfish]
zakim, IPcaller is me
17:16:52 [Zakim]
+bblfish; got it
17:17:04 [AdamB]
we, being, Boeing
17:17:20 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: The current draft is defined so all AS 1.0 is compatabile with 2.0
17:17:20 [Zakim]
17:17:48 [Zakim]
17:18:00 [bret]
Zakim, ??P2 is me
17:18:00 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:18:08 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:18:08 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
17:18:10 [tantek]
for the record, 0 implementations publishing AS2 as spec'd today, and 0 implementations consuming AS2 as spec'd today.
17:18:12 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: I have one working but... (sorry i missed that part?)
17:18:13 [Arnaud]
17:18:19 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:18:20 [bret]
apologies call dropped
17:18:23 [elf-pavlik]
can we highlight open issues inline in the draft?
17:18:33 [tantek]
and plans to produce 1-2 implementations publishing and consuming AS2 as spec'd today.
17:19:25 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: said we can highlight the issues in response to elf-pavlik's question
17:19:37 [markus]
ok.. that also addresses my concern about the examples not referencing a context
17:19:52 [markus]
would still prefer it they did though
17:19:52 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
17:19:57 [Tsyesika]
oh cool
17:20:06 [Tsyesika]
17:20:07 [elf-pavlik]
17:20:08 [Tsyesika]
like that?
17:20:09 [tantek]
17:20:10 [cwebber2]
17:20:10 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: jasnell said that they would be included in the spec as yellow highlighted sections that link to the github issue I believe
17:20:12 [jtauber]
17:20:13 [wilkie]
17:20:13 [bret]
17:20:14 [rhiaro]
17:20:16 [Shane]
17:20:19 [jasnell]
17:20:22 [AdamB]
17:20:33 [markus]
17:20:41 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Publish AS 2.0 spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
17:20:48 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish AS 2.0 Vocabulary spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
17:20:51 [jasnell]
17:20:52 [Tsyesika]
17:20:53 [markus]
17:20:53 [wilkie]
17:20:54 [rhiaro]
17:20:58 [cwebber2]
17:21:03 [jtauber]
17:21:03 [Shane]
+1 I have looked at vocab less but it can still change as a draft so yes :)
17:21:11 [AdamB]
17:21:16 [harry]
yes, we can still get reviews in, this just puts the document on Rec-track
17:21:21 [tantek]
17:21:22 [elf-pavlik]
17:21:24 [harry]
MarkC: +1 both proposals
17:21:31 [harry]
(via voice)
17:21:34 [Arnaud]
Mark Crawford +1 (over the phone)
17:21:42 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Publish AS 2.0 Vocabulary spec as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
17:21:42 [jasnell]
I would like to propose that we consider the Actions draft for publication on next weeks agenda
17:22:25 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: because this is the first public working draft so the chairs have to ask the W3 staff for the first publication of the document
17:22:54 [markus]
jasnell, could we move the section on actions from the core spec to the Actions draft?
17:23:01 [elf-pavlik]
17:23:01 [tantek]
jasnell, do you have a preferred shortname?
17:23:15 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: this is because they want to make sure they want to make sure theres is a record of approal and a short name
17:23:35 [harry]
I'll help as well - there's a bunch of formatting tests (pubrules)
17:23:38 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: the document needs proparing for publication and it needs to pass the validation tests
17:23:45 [jasnell]
tantek: preferred shortname for?
17:24:06 [harry]
So, this is the URI the doc will be known by
17:24:07 [tantek]
jasnell, your document
17:24:10 [elf-pavlik]
+1 markus (i also mentioned it in my email)
17:24:17 [jasnell]
no preference
17:24:17 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: suspects it'll probably take the next 2 weeks to get it published
17:24:23 [tantek]
e.g. as-core , as-vocab
17:24:34 [Tsyesika]
do i do the proposed thing?
17:24:35 [jasnell]
17:24:41 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:24:52 [Shane]
tantek: Should the shortname not have the 2.0? Since there is already another version
17:24:54 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: Wants to know what it would take to get the actions spec published today
17:24:58 [harry]
So an example of shortname is:
17:25:00 [markus]
I like as-core etc.
17:25:28 [harry]
I'd aim for something like or
17:25:48 [tantek]
jasnell, just noticed that activitystreams2-vocabulary.html lacks normative reference to HTML5
17:25:48 [Arnaud]
17:26:03 [Arnaud]
17:26:05 [tantek]
not a big deal, but likely to be flagged by syspub before publishing
17:26:11 [Shane]
I would go for ActivityStreams2 and ActivityStreams-vocab personally. But doesn't really matter either way
17:26:13 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: in response to the question on IRC about the shortnames there are some shortnames in the draft
17:26:21 [Arnaud]
17:26:21 [Shane]
17:26:25 [Tsyesika]
that being activitystreams-2.0
17:26:27 [tantek]
I'd leave off the version number
17:26:29 [harry]
I'm happy to leave this decision to the editor
17:26:29 [Arnaud]
17:26:38 [harry]
Leaving off version number might help if we plan to do 2.1
17:26:40 [harry]
or 2.2
17:26:42 [jasnell]
no strong opinion, I'm open to whatever the group decides
17:26:48 [markus]
lets keep the shortname short :-)
17:27:12 [tantek]
markus, exactly, hence I suggested as-* instead of activitystreams-*
17:27:45 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: wants to know if we should not have the 2.0 there
17:27:48 [markus]
yep tantek, I already said I like your proposal :-)
17:27:49 [elf-pavlik]
17:27:50 [harry]
I'm happy to keep version number
17:27:50 [jasnell]
+1 to omitting the version number in the short name
17:28:01 [harry]
but it doesn't really matter - only matters if we do 2.1 or 2.2
17:28:04 [harry]
which we might :)
17:28:16 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: it seems like there is a general feeling we should keep off the version number
17:28:35 [Arnaud]
17:28:38 [markus]
+1 to ommitting the version number
17:28:39 [Shane]
I can see the reasoning to avoid the version, for newer versions
17:29:01 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: do those two names work for everyone
17:29:09 [tantek]
Arnaud, I can live with that.
17:29:11 [cwebber2]
could this bite us somehow if versioning needs to happen?
17:29:12 [markus]
what about instead?
17:29:14 [tantek]
As suggested I think we can do shorter
17:29:16 [elf-pavlik]
how about actions vocab ?
17:29:21 [markus]
what about instead?
17:29:23 [tantek]
cwebber2: hasn't in the past
17:29:24 [elf-pavlik]
+1 shorter
17:29:30 [bret]
+1 to short ie as-
17:29:33 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: hearing no objections, we will make that change to the short nmes
17:29:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: ok, sounds good then
17:29:49 [elf-pavlik]
as-core, as-vocab, as-actions, as-actions-vocab
17:30:01 [tantek]
q+ re: actions
17:30:07 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:30:07 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss actions
17:30:10 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: people expressed last week that they weren't ready to publish actions yet
17:30:27 [jasnell]
17:30:43 [Zakim]
17:30:46 [Tsyesika]
tantek: at the time and still now, my objection, for activity streams we have quite a lot of implementation experiance but for action
17:30:50 [Tsyesika]
17:30:54 [Tsyesika]
17:31:03 [jasnell]
we have implementors for Actions but they are currently updating to the current version of the draft
17:31:03 [Tsyesika]
hold on i seem to have dropped out of the call
17:31:08 [cwebber2]
I'll cover
17:31:25 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:31:33 [cwebber2]
tantek: there hasn't been clear examples of implementations it seems yet? Does this make it preliminary to publish as a draft?
17:31:45 [Zakim]
17:32:09 [cwebber2]
jasnell: we do have implementers, but implementers of the draft... we don't have a current implementation, but do have implementation that has gone on
17:32:19 [harry]
Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:32:19 [Zakim]
On the phone I see jasnell, cwebber2, Arnaud, AdamB, wilkie, Lloyd_Fassett, tantek, rhiaro (muted), markus, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane (muted), hhalpin, bblfish, bret (muted), ??P5
17:32:21 [cwebber2]
no years of experience, but there has been some implementation work
17:32:23 [Tsyesika]
( cwebber2 i'm back now so if you want i can take over )
17:32:29 [Tsyesika]
harry: i'm ??P5
17:32:37 [cwebber2]
tantek: (??) I'd like to have that documented on the wiki
17:32:42 [harry]
Zakim, ??P5 is Tyesika
17:32:42 [Zakim]
+Tyesika; got it
17:32:44 [cwebber2]
so we can have evidence before moving forward
17:32:47 [cwebber2]
okay Tsyesika, go ahead
17:32:56 [Tsyesika]
who is speaking right now?
17:32:58 [Shane]
I would like to see examples of some of them, such as how and what BrowserView is used for (the notes help but aren't completely explanatory)
17:33:00 [harry]
+1 having evidence before going to Last Call, ideally as soon as possible
17:33:21 [wilkie]
Tsyesika: tantek and jasnell
17:33:35 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: is saying there is there are implemntations we can draw from
17:33:39 [wilkie]
Tsyesika: jasnell right now
17:34:04 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: if we need to hold off and wait a little while until we see more implementations, that's fine
17:34:33 [harry]
That's why I was saying implementation evidence *will* happen
17:34:38 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: we're only talking about the first publication of the action spec not the last call
17:34:39 [harry]
just not needed right now per se IMHO
17:34:47 [jasnell]
I'm far less concerned about implementation experience for FPWD
17:34:47 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell, what about content from actions spec before vocab overwrote it?
17:35:03 [cwebber2]
the actions spec?
17:35:06 [Arnaud]
STRAWPOLL: are you interested in the AS Actions spec?
17:35:25 [jasnell]
17:35:27 [wilkie]
17:35:27 [tantek]
how about are you interested in *implementing* it?
17:35:28 [markus]
17:35:31 [rhiaro]
17:35:34 [bblfish]
I'd like to understand how it fits in with LDP
17:35:38 [tantek]
-1 to poll - too many "interesting" things
17:35:40 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: are you interested in the proposal?
17:35:43 [cwebber2]
oh I see
17:35:48 [elf-pavlik]
17:35:55 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: there is no requirement to have an implementation for a public working draft
17:36:02 [wilkie]
I am indeed interested in implementing it
17:36:02 [jtauber]
17:36:03 [tantek]
my point was about WG focus
17:36:06 [Shane]
+0 I understand the reasoning behind some of it, but others I would need examples for to be interested in those particular actions
17:36:10 [cwebber2]
17:36:15 [Tsyesika]
Mark supports the proposal
17:36:22 [Arnaud]
Mark Crawford +1 (over the phone)
17:36:26 [bblfish]
17:36:31 [harry]
Note that typically the W3C tries to get implementation experience as soon as possible now, althogh it's not formally required for FPWD (it's only required to exit CR)
17:36:33 [jasnell]
btw, I plan on discussion the motivations behind actions in detail at TPAC
17:36:36 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
17:36:58 [jasnell]
17:37:04 [Tsyesika]
bblfish: has anyone looked in with how this fits in with LDP as it's a W3C standard?
17:37:09 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:37:15 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: I am not sure there is a direct connection
17:38:05 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: There is definitely more work that needs to be done on this, and there is some overlap with LDP?
17:38:44 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: there is some interest around the spec, tantek what would it take for you to remove your objections
17:38:52 [bret]
I'm curious to hear Evan's take on actions
17:39:05 [jasnell]
we do have experience with Actions
17:39:07 [Tsyesika]
tantek: wants to know for those who have +1ed, why are you interested in a spec which has no implementations
17:39:18 [bblfish]
zakim, who is making noise?
17:39:24 [bret]
(ty bblfish)
17:39:26 [harry]
I think its good to get some FPWDs out there just to focus the discussion - but I am not voting on this one :)
17:39:28 [Zakim]
- +1.703.485.aabb
17:39:33 [Tsyesika]
bret: that's probably me sorry, i muted myself
17:39:33 [jasnell]
we (IBM) views Actions as the evolution of the Embedded Experiences work, which was part of the initial contribution that created this WG
17:39:36 [Zakim]
bblfish, listening for 17 seconds I heard sound from the following: Tyesika (14%), tantek (64%)
17:39:44 [harry]
17:39:46 [Tsyesika]
sorry bblfish
17:40:02 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: does anyone want to say why they're interested in the action spec
17:40:06 [harry]
17:40:14 [bret]
Tsyesika: np ;) your doing good work!
17:40:16 [jasnell]
I will address our motivations for actions at tpac
17:40:22 [tantek]
as a group we're supposed to focus on standardizing areas with implementation experience
17:40:26 [harry]
q- harry
17:40:37 [tantek]
why are those who are +1ing without documented evidence expecting the group to work on this?
17:40:42 [harry]
My opinion is FPWDs are good to start to focus discussion
17:40:57 [harry]
I expect implementation to come along, and would be worried if they didn't.
17:41:01 [wilkie]
it's a working draft. I don't expect a implementation to be in sync with the draft. the actions spec gives a level of extensibility that is very useful to explain to software how activities can be generated. I've discussed on the github issue tracker about making that extensibility a usecase and it seems like it is a focus. good! :)
17:41:05 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: the charter doesn't prohibit us from going further with this even though there is no implementation
17:41:14 [elf-pavlik] with similarity to as:PotentialAction gets some adoption, eg. Github sends them with email notivications
17:41:31 [tantek]
prior art is not an implementation
17:41:39 [tantek]
nor is *email* an implementation of *web*
17:42:05 [elf-pavlik]
one can send them over XMPP as well ;)
17:42:09 [Arnaud]
I didn't say "prior art" but "state of the art"
17:42:17 [tantek]
"can" does not matter. "does" matters.
17:42:40 [wilkie]
if a system can know how actions relate to activities, a system can perform actions and thus generate activities it has no prior knowledge of, which is very interesting.
17:42:43 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: the use cases are what is driving this. When we're talking about mobile push notifications we're doing very similiar things, we're trying to pull pieces from a number of different areas. This isn't something we're not just pulling out of the air
17:43:00 [bblfish]
q+ is there a list of actions use cases somewhere?
17:43:08 [bblfish]
q+ - is there a list of actions use cases somewhere?
17:43:19 [bblfish]
q+, is there a list of actions use cases somewhere?
17:43:33 [bblfish]
q+ re: is there a list of actions use cases somewhere?
17:43:34 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: if tantek is the only one to object, we will try to address the objections but if not we will try to move past the objection
17:43:41 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
17:43:41 [Zakim]
bblfish, you wanted to discuss is there a list of actions use cases somewhere?
17:43:43 [harry]
Then the W3C will try to see if folks in WG have done their best and consider the formal objection.
17:43:46 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: and he can file a formal objection
17:43:59 [jasnell]
Tantek: I'm not interested in just pushing something to recommendation that no one uses, I'm interested in working a useful spec that folks can use.
17:44:02 [Tsyesika]
harry: are there a bunch of use cases?
17:44:03 [harry]
Use-case discussion is IG BTW in general.
17:44:08 [harry]
17:44:09 [Loqi]
harry meant to say: Use-case discussion is IG BTW in general.
17:44:20 [jasnell]
and only pushing to recommendation when there are implementations that demonstrate the value
17:44:27 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: use cases have been deligated to the IG?
17:44:32 [harry]
bblfish, the use-cases are in the Social XG
17:44:40 [harry]
please see minutes from previous meeting
17:44:40 [Shane]
I think that claim was in reference to IBM?
17:44:45 [Tsyesika]
harry: it might be in a different group but we should be able to know them
17:44:47 [tantek]
I agree with bblfish's line of questioning - where is the URL to use-cases for Actions?
17:44:56 [harry]
Tsyesika, that is bblfish speaking.
17:44:59 [Tsyesika]
17:44:59 [harry]
17:45:00 [Loqi]
harry meant to say: Tsyesika, that is bblfish speaking.
17:45:02 [Tsyesika]
sorry >.<
17:45:11 [bblfish]
17:45:36 [elf-pavlik]
17:45:44 [Shane]
If the IG can give us use-cases then we can make examples that match the spec to the use-cases, which I think would be enough to go to FPWD
17:45:50 [jasnell]
17:46:18 [cwebber2]
I need better understanding of how actions come into place, but I think we might be able to make some strong use cases of how we'd be interested in implementing in mediagoblin, *if* I understand right... would someone be interested in discussing how actions are intended to be used with Tsyesika and I, and we might say how we may or may not be able to make use of it?
17:46:26 [bret]
I would like to see more working action examples, not necessary up to date with AS2 spec
17:46:37 [bret]
(but preferably something close)
17:46:51 [bret]
not just written examples
17:46:52 [Tsyesika]
tantek: I'm just calling into question how we as a group have so much interest this without any use cases
17:47:17 [bblfish]
17:47:18 [harry]
We have a dedicated phone call for use-cases in IG I expect people should attend who are intersted in use-cases.
17:47:28 [elf-pavlik]
cwebber2, you can find MovieReview action example in
17:47:36 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:47:40 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: great, will review
17:48:19 [bret]
elf-pavlik: is there a list of documented uses in the wild that I can review?
17:48:44 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
17:48:45 [Tsyesika]
bblfish: I plan to discuss more of our motivations of our actions at TPAC, the embedded experiances is discussed in our charter, we view actions as an evolution of that and we can't ignore that history. We should look back at the embedded experiances for the use cases and I will discuss this more at TPAC
17:48:49 [tantek]
Arnaud, you said you expect to see use-cases before we work on something, yet you did not ask for a URL to those. That is what is confusing me.
17:49:02 [Arnaud]
17:49:04 [Loqi]
Arnaud meant to say: ack bblfish
17:49:38 [elf-pavlik]
bret, not code that i know of but presenation:
17:49:38 [tantek]
bblfish: "The question has to be, what are the use-cases?"
17:50:04 [Arnaud]
17:50:06 [harry]
Yes, and there's a phone call for use-cases bblfish, please attend.
17:50:15 [Shane]
I agree that we don't need to develop them, but we should have some to discuss
17:50:16 [bret]
elf-pavlik: ty will check it out after the call
17:50:19 [Tsyesika]
bblfish: We don't need to have implementations for all drafts, if there is no implementations, how do we go about how to solve the problem we want to solve. We have to have the use cases to be able to discuss if the poposal is good
17:50:28 [harry]
However, use-cases are often imaginary and running code *with users* trumps use-cases.
17:50:39 [Shane]
17:50:41 [Loqi]
harry has 1 karma
17:50:44 [tantek]
deferring work does not mean we remove the requirement
17:51:13 [harry]
I don't think Tantek's objection is over use-cases, its over running code.
17:51:13 [jasnell]
Based on a much older draft.. but..
17:51:18 [harry]
These are very different things.
17:51:43 [Tsyesika]
tantek: i believe there is push back on use cases here is because there are so many topics with use cases that we need to address and if people want to work on topics which don't have documented use cases you can go do that in the IG
17:52:15 [Zakim]
17:52:17 [Tsyesika]
tantek: i find it suprising that this group wants to work on something without use cases, i think if even was here he'd push back too as he doesn't want to work on things without use cases
17:52:21 [harry]
tantek, if you want to do use-cases, there's an IG phone call that needs folks to pick up that work.
17:52:22 [tantek]
no documented use-cases = we shouldn't work on it in this WG
17:52:22 [Lloyd_Fassett]
17:52:24 [Zakim]
17:52:28 [Shane]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
17:52:28 [Zakim]
+Shane; got it
17:52:30 [Shane]
Zakim, mute me
17:52:30 [Zakim]
Shane should now be muted
17:52:32 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: it's not resnable to participate without use cases
17:53:18 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: i imagine people are interested in working on it is there are undocumented use cases which this addresses, i think we should make sure use cases are documented
17:54:05 [Tsyesika]
tantek: it's resnable for us as chairs to reject the idea if they haven't documented the use cases. If instead we lower the bar and just go by popular vote, there is no insentive to document the use cases
17:54:08 [cwebber2]
tantek seems right there
17:54:19 [Shane]
Yep I completely agree
17:54:21 [wilkie]
but who will do it?
17:54:25 [Arnaud]
17:54:31 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: i think tantek's point is valid, we should get a at least a minimal list of use cases documented
17:54:31 [Arnaud]
ack Lloyd_Fassett
17:55:00 [Tsyesika]
Lloyd_Fassett: I'm with the IG, an update: we meet every other week, we're meeting tomorrow. We are on track to deliver use cases by TPAC.
17:55:08 [Tsyesika]
Lloyd_Fassett: it's coming, it's just not here today
17:55:45 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: hopefully the situation will improve as the IG deliveres on this task, then we can look at if this poposal fits the bill or not
17:56:15 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: for the last 5 minutes, is there any issues that jasnell wants to discuss with the group
17:56:51 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: no, not with the time we have left, nothing that would be a blocker. Recomend taking another good look at the spec, there is a test version of the JSON-LD context (link on mailing list)
17:57:10 [Tsyesika]
jasnell: file any issues
17:57:17 [jasnell]
17:57:21 [jasnell]
17:57:21 [jasnell]
17:57:21 [jasnell]
17:57:23 [jasnell]
17:57:25 [jasnell]
17:57:27 [jasnell]
17:57:29 [jasnell]
17:57:31 [jasnell]
some background on actions
17:57:33 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: unless anyone wants to bring up anything last minute we can adjourn
17:57:33 [jasnell]
including some use caes
17:57:35 [jasnell]
17:57:37 [Tsyesika]
Arnaud: thanks for joining
17:57:38 [Zakim]
17:57:59 [Tsyesika]
errrm okay
17:58:08 [elf-pavlik]
thanks Tsyesika for scribing and Arnaud for chairing! :)
17:58:09 [bblfish]
Who said they had done research on LDP and what is going on here?
17:58:16 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: it's pretty easy, it's pandoc + a small amount of manual editing :)
17:58:21 [Tsyesika]
17:58:32 [Tsyesika]
okay :)
17:58:37 [cwebber2]
17:58:39 [bret]
we made it
17:58:44 [bret]
17:58:45 [wilkie]
at least skype had the decency to drop my call at the very end :)
17:58:45 [Loqi]
Tsyesika has 1 karma
17:58:50 [tantek]
Thank you Tsyesika for scribing!
17:58:51 [Zakim]
17:58:53 [Zakim]
17:58:53 [Zakim]
17:58:54 [Zakim]
17:58:54 [Zakim]
17:58:55 [cwebber2]
thanks Tsyesika
17:58:55 [jasnell]
Here's another Actions impl that I'm aware of: ... work in progress, building on AS2+Actions
17:58:55 [Zakim]
17:58:55 [Zakim]
17:58:55 [Zakim]
17:58:57 [cwebber2]
17:58:57 [Zakim]
17:58:58 [wilkie]
17:58:59 [Loqi]
Tsyesika has 2 karma
17:59:00 [Tsyesika]
do i need to tell Zakim anything? to close it
17:59:01 [Zakim]
17:59:05 [Zakim]
17:59:07 [Zakim]
17:59:08 [Shane]
Thank you :) Goodbye all!
17:59:09 [elf-pavlik]
cwebber2, thanks for passing on skills you just gained a week ago :)
17:59:11 [Zakim]
17:59:12 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has ended
17:59:12 [Zakim]
Attendees were jasnell, Arnaud, +1.314.777.aaaa, wilkie, AdamB, Lloyd_Fassett, bret, markus, tantek, rhiaro, cwebber2, Tsyesika, +1.703.485.aabb, Shane, hhalpin, bblfish, Tyesika
17:59:13 [elf-pavlik]
17:59:14 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 1 karma
17:59:15 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: haha :)
17:59:19 [cwebber2]
17:59:25 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
17:59:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:59:25 [Zakim]
sorry, trackbot, I don't know what conference this is
17:59:27 [Tsyesika]
ah okay
17:59:29 [Tsyesika]
17:59:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:59:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot