IRC log of social on 2015-02-17

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:58:12 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:58:12 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:58:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:58:16 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:58:16 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
17:58:17 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:58:17 [trackbot]
Date: 17 February 2015
17:58:53 [eprodrom]
Zakim, this is SOCL
17:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, eprodrom; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:59:10 [Zakim]
17:59:28 [Zakim]
17:59:38 [Zakim]
17:59:45 [eprodrom]
I switched to decaf yesterday. I'm on 48 hours no caffeine.
17:59:49 [aaronpk]
i'm sorry
17:59:53 [eprodrom]
So I've got a headache and I'm totally sleepy
18:00:05 [dret]
* hey AnnB!
18:00:07 [eprodrom]
I'm going to be 100% on top of my game for this call
18:00:08 [benthatmustbeme]
i'm in
18:00:11 [eprodrom]
18:00:13 [cwebber2]
cwebber2 has joined #social
18:00:44 [bblfish]
Hi, in conference in Brussels on distributed social web
18:00:54 [eprodrom]
18:00:55 [elf-pavlik]
bblfish, have fun!
18:00:57 [benthatmustbeme]
zakim aaaa is me
18:01:05 [cwebber2]
dialing in, having a little bit of trouble
18:01:07 [AnnB]
link, bblfish?
18:01:15 [Zakim]
18:01:17 [cwebber2]
ok, in
18:01:21 [elf-pavlik]
Zakim, aaaa is benthatmustbeme
18:01:21 [Zakim]
+benthatmustbeme; got it
18:01:38 [benthatmustbeme]
unmute me
18:01:44 [cwebber2]
Zakim: ??P8 is me
18:01:46 [cwebber2]
Zakim, ??P8 is me
18:01:46 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
18:01:58 [cwebber2]
Zakim, mute me
18:01:58 [Zakim]
cwebber2 should now be muted
18:02:04 [benthatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
18:02:04 [Zakim]
benthatmustbeme should now be muted
18:02:27 [AnnB]
I'm here only via IRC
18:02:28 [cwebber2]
oh, maybe that's me and I'm not ??P8
18:02:35 [cwebber2]
I think I'm ??P8 tho
18:02:42 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: no, it's not you
18:02:47 [Zakim]
18:02:59 [Zakim]
18:03:23 [Zakim]
18:03:32 [cwebber2]
I can scribe
18:03:37 [elf-pavlik]
18:03:40 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 9 karma
18:03:40 [cwebber2]
18:03:40 [eprodrom]
scribenick cwebber2
18:03:46 [harry]
scribe: cwebber2
18:03:49 [elf-pavlik]
18:03:52 [elf-pavlik]
scribenick: cwebber2
18:03:54 [cwebber2]
who's speaking?
18:03:55 [harry]
chair: eprodrom
18:04:00 [eprodrom]
18:04:05 [cwebber2]
oh eprodrom
18:04:17 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: first order of business is to approve last week's minutes
18:04:18 [Zakim]
18:04:20 [eprodrom]
18:04:23 [tantek]
zakim, ??p15 is me
18:04:23 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:04:29 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Approval of Minutes of 10 February 2015 Teleconf
18:04:37 [cwebber2]
it looks like we have everything in there
18:04:40 [cwebber2]
are there any objections?
18:04:42 [cwebber2]
if so speak up now
18:04:55 [cwebber2]
ok, no objections, so
18:05:14 [cwebber2]
harry: I thought that if you did it the first time
18:05:17 [cwebber2]
it did it for multiple ones
18:05:19 [cwebber2]
I see
18:05:39 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: any objections to nesxt time
18:05:40 [Zakim]
18:05:50 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
18:05:50 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
18:05:52 [cwebber2]
tantek: we should be good to go for next week
18:06:03 [cwebber2]
... we are now a month away from the f2f
18:06:07 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Next week Teleconf
18:06:10 [tantek]
18:06:13 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: oh crap Tsyesika and I are going :)
18:06:26 [cwebber2]
tantek: we have way less people signed up than really are
18:06:29 [cwebber2]
... so sign up!
18:07:08 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: thanks tantek
18:07:15 [cwebber2]
... any chance we can go under a forum #
18:07:24 [cwebber2]
... not sure when we hit a minimum value on our F2F
18:07:27 [tantek]
18:07:36 [cwebber2]
sorry, my bad probably
18:07:48 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes, quorum, not forum
18:08:06 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think we have a minimum number
18:08:10 [cwebber2]
... are you coming harry ?
18:08:16 [cwebber2]
harry: will do so when not on a phone
18:08:24 [cwebber2]
tantek: will also bug Arnaud
18:08:44 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we should line up who can participate remotely
18:08:52 [tantek]
18:08:55 [elf-pavlik]
next f2f
18:08:58 [cwebber2]
... was a bit chaotic at our last f2f, was fruitful, but would be great to have it more smooth of a process
18:09:04 [eprodrom]
18:09:05 [cwebber2]
... next agenda item: open actions and issues
18:09:08 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:09:16 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: btw, how do I do actions and resolved again?
18:09:19 [cwebber2]
I always forget
18:09:29 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we have a number of actions over the last week
18:09:56 [cwebber2]
... I'm very glad ann setti (sp?) took over some issues on non-US social networks (??)
18:10:02 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-02-17]]
18:10:02 [cwebber2]
... we have a few actions open
18:10:03 [Loqi]
Tsyesika made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-03-17]]
18:10:06 [elf-pavlik]
18:10:06 [trackbot]
action-11 -- Pavlik elf to Expand on Facebook APIs -- due 2014-11-28 -- OPEN
18:10:06 [trackbot]
18:10:07 [cwebber2]
... any progress on these?
18:10:15 [elf-pavlik]
18:10:15 [tantek]
18:10:21 [harry]
18:10:22 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
18:10:24 [cwebber2]
tantek: thx
18:10:42 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: would like to handle user stories from facebook, then we can close them
18:10:44 [eprodrom]
18:10:54 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sounds great, good step to take
18:11:01 [cwebber2]
... as long as we make sure it links the other direction
18:11:10 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: yes, will link to the user stories from implementation page
18:11:13 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:11:32 [cwebber2]
harry: just so people know the W3C is working to figure out why the open social people who wanted to push this have mysteriously disappeared
18:11:45 [tantek]
W3C is trying to figure out why the OpenSocial folks are not being social with this working group?
18:11:49 [elf-pavlik]
18:11:50 [trackbot]
action-29 -- James Snell to Reach out to open social foundation participants to invite them to join the w3c social web wg -- due 2015-01-20 -- OPEN
18:11:50 [trackbot]
18:11:54 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: the F2F may be a good excuse for their participation there, say would be great to have continunity
18:12:03 [harry]
In particular, we had several vendors (SugarCRM, Jive, etc.) heavily push this and then disappear
18:12:04 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: other progress on these open actions?
18:12:22 [harry]
In terms of implementation, it doesn't make sense to have only one commercial implementer with a clear product (i.e. IBM Connections)
18:12:25 [harry]
so we are re-investigating
18:12:33 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: reached out to other group (?) they saidjoin their next telecon
18:12:40 [elf-pavlik]
18:12:40 [trackbot]
action-39 -- Pavlik elf to Follow up with xAPI developers community -- due 2015-03-03 -- OPEN
18:12:40 [trackbot]
18:12:42 [cwebber2]
(was that diaspora?)
18:12:43 [cwebber2]
18:12:44 [cwebber2]
18:12:48 [harry]
If other folks in the WG or the call have clear commercial products, do ping me ASAP.
18:13:05 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: next item today: an update about the social API
18:13:06 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Social API
18:13:24 [harry]
18:13:25 [cwebber2]
... so! the schedule we kinda laid out last week / a few weeks ago, we'd collect user stories, which we've done, close to 50 user stories
18:13:26 [Zakim]
18:13:35 [cwebber2]
... some very close together, some may be hard to address thru an API
18:13:43 [cwebber2]
... nevertheless, have quite a few out there
18:13:54 [bill-looby]
bill-looby has joined #social
18:13:56 [cwebber2]
... looks like for our next step is to decorate this list
18:14:02 [cwebber2]
... sandro has called it a survey result
18:14:04 [aaronpk]
Zakim, who is making noise?
18:14:04 [cwebber2]
I can't hear
18:14:14 [Zakim]
aaronpk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: eprodrom (86%), bblfish (4%)
18:14:23 [cwebber2]
... our next step is to decorate the list with upvotes and downvotes
18:14:27 [cwebber2]
... +1 0 -1
18:14:30 [cwebber2]
... to each user story
18:14:45 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: adding an example of voting to the wiki page
18:14:51 [cwebber2]
... +1: yes, I need it, will implement, worth doing; -1: so far out of scope we shouldn't do it
18:14:59 [cwebber2]
... would love to do that with mediawiki-style comments
18:15:00 [eprodrom]
":+1 good idea. --~~~~"
18:15:41 [elf-pavlik]
18:15:46 [cwebber2]
tantek: another legitimate use of -1 is to say "this doesn't belong in the first version of the social API, it's too edge case to be in the 0 edition social API. Might mean you're not against the use case, but you don't think it's necessary yet, or don't think it's in the same class of needs as the other user stories"
18:15:57 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: -1 not in core, please implement as extension first
18:16:03 [cwebber2]
... if you do say -1 *please* provide reasons why.
18:16:18 [cwebber2]
... 0 is "I don't think it's important, but not opposed to inclusion"
18:16:43 [elf-pavlik]
18:16:49 [cwebber2]
tantek: people don't really need to explain the 0
18:17:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: 0 could be "yes I've looked at this, not really compelling, but I'm not opposed to having it drive requirements"
18:17:19 [cwebber2]
tantek: or 0 could be "I think it's already covered, thus irrelevant"
18:17:29 [cwebber2]
... that way we can give people some guidance
18:17:41 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I def see -1 as being pulling the emergency brake on something
18:17:45 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aabb
18:17:50 [cwebber2]
... it will require some resolution if you use your -1
18:17:57 [cwebber2]
... so use sparingly / as needed
18:18:03 [cwebber2]
... not just because you don't care one way or the other
18:18:23 [cwebber2]
tantek: I have slight difference of opinion, people should be willing to use -1 to restrict requirements
18:18:32 [cwebber2]
... we want to ship soon, so smaller requirements means ship sooner
18:18:36 [elf-pavlik]
tantek, how do you see 0 than?
18:18:40 [cwebber2]
... rather than kitchen sink api
18:18:49 [cwebber2]
... so -1 can be "should I really use this"
18:19:00 [cwebber2]
... because with -1 I want to ship sooner than ship this
18:19:14 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I feel a -1 is, if a proposal for this comes in, I won't accept it
18:19:22 [cwebber2]
can I toss in something?
18:19:27 [elf-pavlik]
18:19:30 [bill-looby]
I think we need consistency
18:19:31 [cwebber2]
how about the -1 -0 0 +0 +1
18:19:32 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
18:19:33 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss -1 not in core, please implement as extension first
18:19:35 [bill-looby]
can we make a call ?
18:19:40 [bblfish]
it can be subjective to know what is easy or not to do
18:19:58 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: I'd like to follow up on focusing on the core, and say "this can be an extension"
18:20:01 [bblfish]
for example some people may think that some user stories are difficult to do, because they don't know how to do it
18:20:03 [Loqi]
Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-03-17]]
18:20:10 [cwebber2]
... because hopefully we can have independent implementations
18:20:18 [bblfish]
18:20:20 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we have no user story for any extension mechanism
18:20:25 [cwebber2]
... so not sure that's reasonable
18:20:25 [rhiaro]
extensions would be a developer story?
18:20:30 [cwebber2]
18:20:40 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #social
18:20:49 [eprodrom]
18:20:57 [eprodrom]
ack bblfish
18:21:01 [Zakim]
18:21:09 [cwebber2]
Zakim, unmute me
18:21:10 [Zakim]
cwebber2 should no longer be muted
18:21:12 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: thx
18:21:27 [cwebber2]
bblfish: we could have a merger between two stories
18:21:43 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes, but maybe would be good for that to happen before, I think we're at the point where we need to just select them
18:21:46 [Zakim]
18:21:53 [tantek]
18:21:53 [cwebber2]
... I'm not sure we're at a point today to do editorial mergers of sort
18:21:54 [bblfish]
18:22:00 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber2
18:22:05 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
18:22:17 [harry]
and also note that if you are a +1 and plan to implement, please note your implementation commitment.
18:22:26 [elf-pavlik]
cwebber2: number of groups used +1 / 0 / -1
18:22:41 [Zakim]
18:22:45 [cwebber2]
-0 +0
18:22:46 [elf-pavlik]
... but also used +0 and -0
18:22:47 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P20 is me
18:22:47 [harry]
that proposal sounds reasonable.
18:22:47 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
18:22:52 [elf-pavlik]
... that could help to fill the space where eprodrom and tantek sound like disagreeing
18:22:53 [cwebber2]
+1 +0 0 -0 -1
18:22:54 [harry]
+0 and -0 sounds good t ome.
18:23:06 [KevinMarks]
if there's a difference of meaning, use a different term
18:23:07 [elf-pavlik]
+1 +0 / -0
18:23:15 [cwebber2]
tantek: i think that captures some of that, w3c does this a lot to capture for or against
18:23:21 [bill-looby]
FYI - There is an extension mechanism implied by Story "Integration : Bringing tools together" . . . depending on what you consider an extension
18:23:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: so +0 or -0 kind of shows I'm kind of for or against, but I'm okay with what happens
18:23:53 [cwebber2]
... the "can live with it" is an important opinion that should be captured in these polls, so thanks for bringing up these options
18:23:57 [elf-pavlik]
18:23:58 [cwebber2]
... and if you really don't care, put a 0
18:24:00 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 10 karma
18:24:01 [eprodrom]
18:24:25 [tantek]
that someone was me
18:24:28 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so, next item is someone made notes for proposals that we stop editorial at midnight EST, and feedback starts after that
18:24:32 [tantek]
sorry forgot to sign
18:24:37 [cwebber2]
... yep, looks like tantek, ok
18:24:55 [eprodrom]
PROPOSAL: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week
18:25:09 [eprodrom]
18:25:10 [cwebber2]
18:25:11 [Tsyesika]
18:25:12 [tantek]
18:25:12 [harry]
18:25:13 [benthatmustbeme]
18:25:15 [aaronpk]
that means next week's call will be before voting ends
18:25:16 [AdamB]
18:25:17 [dret]
18:25:20 [bill-looby]
+0 :-)
18:25:25 [elf-pavlik]
18:25:26 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: we got +1 on our +1 processes
18:25:28 [aaronpk]
18:25:38 [cwebber2]
... ok, looks like consensus
18:25:43 [cwebber2]
... we'll mark that as resolved
18:25:48 [cwebber2]
yes, I forget how
18:26:04 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week
18:26:05 [harry]
18:26:07 [cwebber2]
ok :)
18:26:09 [elf-pavlik]
RESOLVED: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week
18:26:27 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: ok, any other discussions on user stories?
18:26:33 [cwebber2]
... if not, I'd like to move on
18:26:58 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think this is left over from last week, was brought up but not discussed... many assumptions brought into the user stories
18:27:31 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: groups
18:27:31 [cwebber2]
... I think it's fine to cite silos as examples of where we've experienced these user stories, but as far as assumptions in our group, we should assume every user in our user story could be on a different system
18:27:36 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: or same system
18:27:43 [cwebber2]
tantek: yes, same system is a degenerate system of that
18:27:56 [cwebber2]
... because I think bblfish brought that up in email
18:28:03 [benthatmustbeme]
s/degenerate system/degenerate case/
18:28:06 [cwebber2]
... that has been well documented for a while, but let's make it documented
18:28:24 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: should work independent of network topologies, whether on same/different servies
18:28:32 [elf-pavlik]
18:28:33 [cwebber2]
... servers
18:28:37 [cwebber2]
(what's a servie?)
18:28:37 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
18:28:39 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss groups
18:28:50 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: I'd like to clarify, we have different stories for groups
18:29:03 [cwebber2]
... I might have a group on my, someone else's server, etc
18:29:09 [cwebber2]
... w3c stories for example
18:29:13 [cwebber2]
tantek: I agree with that
18:29:19 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: do we need to call that out separately?
18:29:26 [cwebber2]
... or can we just leave that advice at that
18:29:33 [bblfish]
"You should assume that all of these stories are independent of network topologies: the stories should work whether all the actors have accounts on a single server, on different servers, and independently of where the data is located."
18:29:34 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: no note is fine, just wanted to clarify on call
18:29:37 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: sounds good
18:29:42 [cwebber2]
... excellent
18:29:43 [bblfish]
if groups are actors that follows
18:29:48 [cwebber2]
... I think we can move on
18:30:02 [Loqi]
Almereyda made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]]
18:30:10 [cwebber2]
... additional items agenda item
18:30:16 [cwebber2]
... which means we're at the end of our agenda
18:30:20 [dret]
18:30:20 [cwebber2]
... anything else to discuss here?
18:30:25 [harry]
We could discuss f2f
18:30:27 [cwebber2]
... new business, new updates?
18:30:29 [eprodrom]
ack dret
18:30:33 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Additional Agenda Items
18:30:52 [cwebber2]
dret: yes, since we have a bit of time left, in last maybe 2 weeks, what exactly does the current model of having structured activities mean
18:31:03 [cwebber2]
... if I had a like syntax, if the like actually is a respond
18:31:13 [cwebber2]
... is that an obligation for that system?
18:31:23 [cwebber2]
... if I ask for a respond activity, will that actually get delivered
18:31:28 [harry]
18:31:44 [cwebber2]
... for use cases discussed, it seems like must me wondering, is this a weird little hobby of mine, or is it not well specified
18:31:45 [tantek]
I think that's the difference between responses (includes all interactions, likes, replies, reposts), and replies (just comments)
18:31:52 [cwebber2]
... what does the activity structure mean if not that?
18:31:56 [cwebber2]
... looking for feedback
18:32:19 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so harry is on the queue, so will ack, but I think it's an interesting question
18:32:46 [cwebber2]
... let me give a bit of experience from activitystreams 1.0, early versions had different verbs that were based on different products based on companies' products
18:33:03 [cwebber2]
... eg digg had a "dug" thing, like you "dug" a url, but that didn't mesh with like etc
18:33:19 [cwebber2]
... so early system was built to convey that if you don't understand a "dig", fall back to "like"
18:33:35 [cwebber2]
... I'm not sure if this was conscious consensus or general laziness on part of implementers
18:33:39 [cwebber2]
... but almost completely collapsed
18:33:44 [cwebber2]
... as soon as implementing AS 1.0
18:33:45 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: creating official issue for that
18:33:59 [cwebber2]
... if a like was not literally a like, like the full identifying URI for a like, was just ignored.
18:34:02 [tantek]
q+ to note how in IndieWeb we've distinguished responses (includes all interactions, likes, replies, reposts), vs replies (just comments), likes, reposts individually
18:34:03 [KevinMarks]
like vs favorite have different mapping - heart versus star too
18:34:05 [bill-looby]
18:34:10 [cwebber2]
... and multiple verb system fell out of AS 1.0
18:34:27 [cwebber2]
harry: (?) yes that means that you have weak inference in the spec
18:34:31 [cwebber2]
who was that?
18:34:35 [dret]
18:34:38 [cwebber2]
oh dret
18:34:46 [harry]
18:35:08 [dret]
18:35:08 [bill-looby]
there also wasn't an explicit hierarchical association to the extent there is with a vocabulary iirc
18:35:15 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: not sure if you Should or Must process these as "treat a like as a response" or a "fwoop as a like" and it'll actually get implemented
18:35:18 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:35:21 [rhiaro]
Quora and Reddit (I think) have upvote which is similar but not quite the same as like, or maybe how similar depends on who is using it and when/where
18:35:22 [cwebber2]
... will get off my soapbox and ack harry
18:35:40 [cwebber2]
harry: basically the question is whether you should have some inference is should the implementations actually do so
18:35:44 [KevinMarks]
how does +0 map to like? ;)
18:35:55 [cwebber2]
... does schema actually have a product in that space?
18:35:56 [eprodrom]
18:36:01 [tantek]
q+ to also point out that the AS1 experience that eprodrom cited (implementers ignoring "special" likes / inference etc.) is a strong data point *against* arbitrary extensibility of such types etc. in practice, regardless of implementer/customer claims/wants
18:36:09 [dret]
we need it and do it.
18:36:15 [cwebber2]
... we need to distinguish between features cool
18:36:20 [cwebber2]
... how do we go down that path
18:36:28 [cwebber2]
... anything without real code and users will be removed from spect
18:36:30 [cwebber2]
18:36:31 [bblfish]
18:36:32 [cwebber2]
before last call
18:36:32 [dret]
justcooked up our own way. which is unfortunate.
18:36:47 [cwebber2]
... at yahoo we did that but had a difficult time gettinmg to scale
18:36:54 [cwebber2]
... if specs demand to do things implementers won't do
18:36:56 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
18:36:57 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss creating official issue for that
18:36:57 [cwebber2]
... can't put it in the spec
18:37:06 [cwebber2]
18:37:13 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who's making noise?
18:37:15 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: create an issue on the tracker
18:37:24 [Zakim]
eprodrom, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds
18:37:27 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: create user story
18:37:29 [harry]
In particular, it would be great to know if Siemens has a product or even planned product/codebase in this space.
18:37:33 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: for custom word
18:37:43 [cwebber2]
... hesitation to not use a custom word
18:37:52 [cwebber2]
... make it an issue to clarify how to handle custom verbs
18:37:53 [harry]
In general, it's a super-cool featur
18:38:00 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:38:00 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note how in IndieWeb we've distinguished responses (includes all interactions, likes, replies, reposts), vs replies (just comments), likes, reposts
18:38:03 [Zakim]
... individually and to also point out that the AS1 experience that eprodrom cited (implementers ignoring "special" likes / inference etc.) is a strong data point *against*
18:38:03 [Zakim]
... arbitrary extensibility of such types etc. in practice, regardless of implementer/customer claims/wants
18:38:09 [harry]
but we have to see if people actually do it, which is kind of common-sense.
18:38:17 [tantek]
18:38:28 [dromasca]
dromasca has joined #social
18:38:32 [cwebber2]
tantek: there's tension between how to distinguish between special responses / all responses
18:38:45 [cwebber2]
... notion of class of types of posts all interacting/responding to another post
18:38:53 [cwebber2]
... apis want a way to query all those kinds of posts
18:39:00 [harry]
Its possible developer community has moved on since AS1.0 and inference is not so painful/messy for developers.
18:39:00 [cwebber2]
... have a discrete set of (??)
18:39:05 [elf-pavlik]
18:39:07 [cwebber2]
... like likes, reposts, etc
18:39:10 [cwebber2]
... comments
18:39:17 [cwebber2]
... which it makes sense to do a core thing for those
18:39:26 [cwebber2]
... that's our experience in the indiewebcamp community
18:39:33 [cwebber2]
... special handling for events, invitations
18:39:38 [cwebber2]
... invitations are another kind of response
18:39:42 [Zakim]
18:39:46 [cwebber2]
... because you can post an invitation to invite a 3rd party
18:39:53 [cwebber2]
... will make sure user stories cover, or else I'll add it
18:40:09 [cwebber2]
dret: looking for what spec tells me to implement
18:40:16 [cwebber2]
... looks like spec doesn't requie I implement this
18:40:22 [cwebber2]
... apparently right now I have a choice
18:40:27 [eprodrom]
18:40:30 [cwebber2]
... if we do it like this it makes more sense...
18:40:37 [cwebber2]
tantek: as publisher of consumer?
18:40:40 [elf-pavlik]
i'll raise it as issue, not sure about proces to officialy open it...
18:40:49 [cwebber2]
dret: it's someone looking at activitystream activity and looking at what it means
18:40:49 [bill-looby]
also a federator
18:40:55 [cwebber2]
tantek: so a consumer
18:41:09 [cwebber2]
dret: yes, also a publisher, because I can't interpret it as a response unless I (??)
18:41:17 [elf-pavlik]
w3c tracker issue!
18:41:28 [harry]
18:41:30 [cwebber2]
tantek: second point I wanted to emphasize experience with ActivityStreams 1.0
18:41:35 [dret]
tracker or github issue?
18:41:38 [cwebber2]
... I remember specifying the special likes
18:41:45 [cwebber2]
... nobody cared to consume those in practice
18:41:50 [cwebber2]
... several anti-patterns
18:42:23 [cwebber2]
... there was a brand-centric, company-centric ego of "I have my special dig, or whuffie, and it's so special a snowflake it can't be a like"
18:42:29 [dret]
people live their snowflakes!
18:42:32 [cwebber2]
... but nobody cared about those beautiful unique snowflakes
18:42:34 [eprodrom]
Google+'s first API version had a verb type for "plusOne"
18:42:41 [elf-pavlik]
dret, i'll raise it in tracker and we can decide to open it later
18:42:41 [cwebber2]
... so I will emphasize that in my votes
18:42:44 [cwebber2]
... and encourage others
18:42:49 [cwebber2]
... and if you haven't had experience with it
18:42:55 [cwebber2]
... ping eprodrom or etc
18:43:06 [elf-pavlik]
dret, even better if you can create it since you explain it very well :)
18:43:21 [cwebber2]
... it's counter-intuitive to the semantic web community which says extensibility is good, but my expereince is that extensibility is the opposite of interop
18:43:27 [cwebber2]
... it's stuff people publish but don't consume
18:43:39 [cwebber2]
... we should look at that as evidence to maybe even leave out extensibility in v1
18:43:45 [dret]
we could at least tell people to label their snowflakes in interoperable ways. at the very least we should have a well-defined story. we don"t have one right now.
18:43:51 [eprodrom]
18:43:56 [eprodrom]
ack bill-looby
18:43:57 [cwebber2]
... that experience is important, i know many are pro-extensibility, but wanted to put that out there
18:44:08 [cwebber2]
bill-looby: one thing I experienced
18:44:20 [cwebber2]
... I agree that events and event types require heierarchy
18:44:39 [cwebber2]
... if it has an explicit heirarchy there's an explicit requirement on processors to add such streams
18:44:45 [cwebber2]
... do we need to review what we add there
18:45:04 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I think what you're saying is we need to say "if we can't process this heirarchy, remove that heirarchy"
18:45:13 [dret]
18:45:16 [eprodrom]
18:45:19 [cwebber2]
bill-looby: also seems implicit in the other decisions we've also nearly made
18:45:22 [tantek]
+1 on flatten
18:45:33 [tantek]
most use of hierarchy is useless in practice
18:45:41 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: why don't we open this up... dret can you open this as an issue in AS 2.0
18:45:43 [elf-pavlik]
18:45:47 [cwebber2]
dret: on tracker or github?
18:45:48 [eprodrom]
18:45:50 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: either
18:45:58 [eprodrom]
18:46:01 [Zakim]
18:46:09 [cwebber2]
bill-looby: other option is to be explicit about early terms
18:46:14 [elf-pavlik]
18:46:19 [cwebber2]
... similar to early AS 1.0 stuff
18:46:22 [eprodrom]
ack dret
18:46:33 [Zakim]
18:46:34 [cwebber2]
harry: that's exactly how we do it now, we use AS 1.0 verb
18:46:46 [Zakim]
18:46:57 [cwebber2]
... we then in this case have an extension field in there which lets anyone understand our specific way of handling this
18:47:03 [KevinMarks]
prior art:
18:47:05 [Zakim]
18:47:07 [cwebber2]
... so if you really care about htat not just being a dig
18:47:07 [tantek]
zakim, ??p15 is me
18:47:07 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:47:18 [Zakim]
18:47:19 [cwebber2]
... so you can understand it's a like
18:47:19 [rhiaro]
+1 for reliable fallbacks
18:47:30 [cwebber2]
... so a cheapo understanding of heirarchy
18:47:34 [cwebber2]
... that's what we currently use
18:47:43 [cwebber2]
... now AS2 does something similar
18:47:49 [cwebber2]
... that's basically what we're doing now
18:47:53 [Zakim]
18:47:58 [cwebber2]
... trying to figure out what AS2 can do
18:48:03 [cwebber2]
... am confused when I read the spec
18:48:07 [cwebber2]
was that harry or dret ?
18:48:14 [eprodrom]
18:48:15 [cwebber2]
sorry if I set the wrong one
18:48:15 [dret]
18:48:19 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:48:45 [cwebber2]
harry: a bit more formally, we have different ways to process, agree it would be great to do, but also understand it's hard from previous implementers
18:48:55 [tantek]
In experience, what implementers/customer,-ūsk for* and what they *implement* are two very different things
18:48:55 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: documenting previous experience
18:49:12 [cwebber2]
... we should work with working group to put it in the spec put it in as feature, feature at risk, and if not implementing it by last call, remove or change
18:49:27 [cwebber2]
... there's a tradition in w3c to wait till implement
18:49:41 [cwebber2]
... we're hoping to enter last call to see about implementation
18:49:43 [elf-pavlik]
+1 feature at risk
18:49:55 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: is there a way we can split the baby on this one
18:50:19 [cwebber2]
... maybe suggest to publishers "you can do whatever extension you want, but best practice is to use a vocabulary verb because downstream is more likely to see it"
18:50:20 [tantek]
q+ to add to Harry's encouragement to implement early. when voting on user-stories, if you +1 as an implementer, say whether you *will* implement it, or *already have implemented!*
18:50:29 [dret]
that's my pet project: the processing model section
18:50:40 [cwebber2]
... to consumer: you can concentrate on a particular activity type, but look at heirarchy
18:50:52 [eprodrom]
ack elf-pavlik
18:50:54 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss documenting previous experience
18:50:55 [cwebber2]
... so everyone should do the right thing, but be aware not everyone might
18:51:19 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: one reason I suggested with official document was to reference to links to impelmeentations, proposals, etc
18:51:30 [cwebber2]
... shouldn't be doing voting on this in this call
18:51:35 [cwebber2]
... chew on it, document past experience
18:51:43 [dret]
18:51:44 [cwebber2]
... maybe do resolution at face to face or in near future
18:51:46 [cwebber2]
+1 btw
18:51:48 [eprodrom]
I like this
18:51:49 [rhiaro]
18:51:52 [eprodrom]
18:51:54 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:51:54 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to add to Harry's encouragement to implement early. when voting on user-stories, if you +1 as an implementer, say whether you *will* implement it, or *already
18:51:57 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: ok and, tantek ?
18:51:58 [Zakim]
... have implemented!*
18:52:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: wanted to emphasize harry's message of implement early, implement often
18:52:16 [cwebber2]
... many of us have implement these already
18:52:19 [cwebber2]
that's something we can capture
18:52:24 [cwebber2]
... that's something we can capture
18:52:28 [cwebber2]
... as part of your +1
18:52:36 [cwebber2]
... if you already have implemented, please indicate that
18:52:45 [elf-pavlik]
18:52:46 [cwebber2]
... even if it only works on a specific network topology, please mention
18:53:05 [cwebber2]
... and if you did do it cite a URL that shows you did it
18:53:13 [cwebber2]
... and that's one of the strongest votes you can make for a user story
18:53:21 [cwebber2]
... so capture that immediately
18:53:31 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: excellent, if we're done with that, we're closing in on the hour
18:53:42 [dret]
thanks everybody! bye!
18:53:43 [cwebber2]
... would love to offer everyone their last 5 minutes back
18:53:46 [cwebber2]
... talk to you next week
18:53:48 [elf-pavlik]
thanks everyone!
18:53:52 [Zakim]
18:53:52 [elf-pavlik]
18:53:52 [cwebber2]
... please give feedback on user stories
18:53:55 [elf-pavlik]
18:53:55 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 4 karma
18:53:57 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 11 karma
18:53:58 [Zakim]
18:53:58 [Zakim]
18:53:58 [Zakim]
18:54:00 [Zakim]
18:54:00 [Zakim]
18:54:01 [Zakim]
18:54:03 [Zakim]
18:54:04 [Zakim]
18:54:05 [tantek]
cweb++ thanks for scribing!
18:54:07 [Zakim]
18:54:09 [Zakim]
- +1.408.335.aabb
18:54:11 [cwebber2]
tantek: np :)
18:54:15 [tantek]
cwebber2++ thanks for scribing :)
18:54:17 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 12 karma
18:54:18 [harry]
trackbot, end meeting
18:54:18 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:54:18 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, elf-pavlik, +1.617.247.aaaa, dret, [IPcaller], aaronpk, benthatmustbeme, cwebber2, Sandro, rhiaro, hhalpin, tantek, Tsyesika,
18:54:20 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
18:54:21 [Zakim]
... bblfish, +1.408.335.aabb, AdamB, dromasca
18:54:21 [Zakim]
18:54:26 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:54:26 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:54:26 [Zakim]
18:54:27 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:54:27 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
18:54:27 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:54:27 [eprodrom]
Oh, thanks harry
18:54:27 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, elf-pavlik, +1.617.247.aaaa, dret, [IPcaller], aaronpk, benthatmustbeme, cwebber2, Sandro, rhiaro, hhalpin, tantek, Tsyesika,
18:54:27 [Zakim]
... bblfish, +1.408.335.aabb, AdamB, dromasca