17:58:12 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:58:12 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/17-social-irc 17:58:14 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:58:16 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:58:16 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes 17:58:17 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:58:17 Date: 17 February 2015 17:58:53 Zakim, this is SOCL 17:58:53 ok, eprodrom; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:59:10 +dret 17:59:28 +[IPcaller] 17:59:38 +aaronpk 17:59:45 I switched to decaf yesterday. I'm on 48 hours no caffeine. 17:59:49 i'm sorry 17:59:53 So I've got a headache and I'm totally sleepy 18:00:05 * hey AnnB! 18:00:07 I'm going to be 100% on top of my game for this call 18:00:08 i'm in 18:00:11 B-) 18:00:13 cwebber2 has joined #social 18:00:44 Hi, in conference in Brussels on distributed social web 18:00:54 Cool 18:00:55 bblfish, have fun! 18:00:57 zakim aaaa is me 18:01:05 dialing in, having a little bit of trouble 18:01:07 link, bblfish? 18:01:15 +??P8 18:01:17 ok, in 18:01:21 Zakim, aaaa is benthatmustbeme 18:01:21 +benthatmustbeme; got it 18:01:38 unmute me 18:01:44 Zakim: ??P8 is me 18:01:46 Zakim, ??P8 is me 18:01:46 +cwebber2; got it 18:01:58 Zakim, mute me 18:01:58 cwebber2 should now be muted 18:02:04 Zakim, mute me 18:02:04 benthatmustbeme should now be muted 18:02:27 I'm here only via IRC 18:02:28 oh, maybe that's me and I'm not ??P8 18:02:35 I think I'm ??P8 tho 18:02:42 cwebber2: no, it's not you 18:02:47 +Sandro 18:02:59 +??P11 18:03:23 +hhalpin 18:03:32 I can scribe 18:03:37 cwebber2++ 18:03:40 cwebber2 has 9 karma 18:03:40 np 18:03:40 scribenick cwebber2 18:03:46 scribe: cwebber2 18:03:49 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-17 18:03:52 scribenick: cwebber2 18:03:54 who's speaking? 18:03:55 chair: eprodrom 18:04:00 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-17 18:04:05 oh eprodrom 18:04:17 eprodrom: first order of business is to approve last week's minutes 18:04:18 +??P15 18:04:20 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-10-minutes 18:04:23 zakim, ??p15 is me 18:04:23 +tantek; got it 18:04:29 topic: Approval of Minutes of 10 February 2015 Teleconf 18:04:37 it looks like we have everything in there 18:04:40 are there any objections? 18:04:42 if so speak up now 18:04:55 ok, no objections, so 18:05:14 harry: I thought that if you did it the first time 18:05:17 it did it for multiple ones 18:05:19 I see 18:05:39 eprodrom: any objections to nesxt time 18:05:40 +??P16 18:05:50 Zakim, ??P16 is me 18:05:50 +Tsyesika; got it 18:05:52 tantek: we should be good to go for next week 18:06:03 ... we are now a month away from the f2f 18:06:07 topic: Next week Teleconf 18:06:10 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17 18:06:13 cwebber2: oh crap Tsyesika and I are going :) 18:06:26 tantek: we have way less people signed up than really are 18:06:29 ... so sign up! 18:07:08 eprodrom: thanks tantek 18:07:15 ... any chance we can go under a forum # 18:07:24 ... not sure when we hit a minimum value on our F2F 18:07:27 s/forum/quorum 18:07:36 sorry, my bad probably 18:07:48 eprodrom: yes, quorum, not forum 18:08:06 tantek: I think we have a minimum number 18:08:10 ... are you coming harry ? 18:08:16 harry: will do so when not on a phone 18:08:24 tantek: will also bug Arnaud 18:08:44 eprodrom: we should line up who can participate remotely 18:08:52 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17#Remote_Participation 18:08:55 next f2f https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17 18:08:58 ... 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open 18:09:05 ... next agenda item: open actions and issues 18:09:08 topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues 18:09:16 cwebber2: btw, how do I do actions and resolved again? 18:09:19 I always forget 18:09:29 eprodrom: we have a number of actions over the last week 18:09:56 ... I'm very glad ann setti (sp?) took over some issues on non-US social networks (??) 18:10:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-02-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81516&oldid=81369 18:10:02 ... we have a few actions open 18:10:03 Tsyesika made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-03-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81517&oldid=81340 18:10:06 action-11 18:10:06 action-11 -- Pavlik elf to Expand on Facebook APIs -- due 2014-11-28 -- OPEN 18:10:06 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/11 18:10:07 ... any progress on these? 18:10:15 q+ 18:10:15 s/setti/Bassetti 18:10:21 q+ 18:10:22 ack elf-pavlik 18:10:24 tantek: thx 18:10:42 elf-pavlik: would like to handle user stories from facebook, then we can close them 18:10:44 q? 18:10:54 eprodrom: sounds great, good step to take 18:11:01 ... as long as we make sure it links the other direction 18:11:10 elf-pavlik: yes, will link to the user stories from implementation page 18:11:13 ack harry 18:11:32 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 W3C is trying to figure out why the OpenSocial folks are not being social with this working group? 18:11:49 action-29 18:11:50 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/29 18:11:54 eprodrom: the F2F may be a good excuse for their participation there, say would be great to have continunity 18:12:03 In particular, we had several vendors (SugarCRM, Jive, etc.) heavily push this and then disappear 18:12:04 eprodrom: other progress on these open actions? 18:12:22 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 so we are re-investigating 18:12:33 elf-pavlik: reached out to other group (?) they saidjoin their next telecon 18:12:40 action-39 18:12:40 action-39 -- Pavlik elf to Follow up with xAPI developers community -- due 2015-03-03 -- OPEN 18:12:40 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/39 18:12:42 (was that diaspora?) 18:12:43 oh 18:12:44 xAPI 18:12:48 If other folks in the WG or the call have clear commercial products, do ping me ASAP. 18:13:05 eprodrom: next item today: an update about the social API 18:13:06 topic: Social API 18:13:24 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories 18:13:25 ... 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 +bblfish 18:13:35 ... some very close together, some may be hard to address thru an API 18:13:43 ... nevertheless, have quite a few out there 18:13:54 bill-looby has joined #social 18:13:56 ... looks like for our next step is to decorate this list 18:14:02 ... sandro has called it a survey result 18:14:04 Zakim, who is making noise? 18:14:04 I can't hear 18:14:14 aaronpk, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: eprodrom (86%), bblfish (4%) 18:14:23 ... our next step is to decorate the list with upvotes and downvotes 18:14:27 ... +1 0 -1 18:14:30 ... to each user story 18:14:45 q+ re: adding an example of voting to the wiki page 18:14:51 ... +1: yes, I need it, will implement, worth doing; -1: so far out of scope we shouldn't do it 18:14:59 ... would love to do that with mediawiki-style comments 18:15:00 ":+1 good idea. --~~~~" 18:15:41 q- 18:15:46 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 q+ re: -1 not in core, please implement as extension first 18:16:03 ... if you do say -1 *please* provide reasons why. 18:16:18 ... 0 is "I don't think it's important, but not opposed to inclusion" 18:16:43 q? 18:16:49 tantek: people don't really need to explain the 0 18:17:09 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 tantek: or 0 could be "I think it's already covered, thus irrelevant" 18:17:29 ... that way we can give people some guidance 18:17:41 eprodrom: I def see -1 as being pulling the emergency brake on something 18:17:45 + +1.408.335.aabb 18:17:50 ... it will require some resolution if you use your -1 18:17:57 ... so use sparingly / as needed 18:18:03 ... not just because you don't care one way or the other 18:18:23 tantek: I have slight difference of opinion, people should be willing to use -1 to restrict requirements 18:18:32 ... we want to ship soon, so smaller requirements means ship sooner 18:18:36 tantek, how do you see 0 than? 18:18:40 ... rather than kitchen sink api 18:18:49 ... so -1 can be "should I really use this" 18:19:00 ... because with -1 I want to ship sooner than ship this 18:19:14 eprodrom: I feel a -1 is, if a proposal for this comes in, I won't accept it 18:19:22 can I toss in something? 18:19:27 q? 18:19:30 I think we need consistency 18:19:31 how about the -1 -0 0 +0 +1 18:19:32 ack elf-pavlik 18:19:33 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss -1 not in core, please implement as extension first 18:19:35 can we make a call ? 18:19:40 it can be subjective to know what is easy or not to do 18:19:58 elf-pavlik: I'd like to follow up on focusing on the core, and say "this can be an extension" 18:20:01 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 Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-03-17]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81518&oldid=81517 18:20:10 ... because hopefully we can have independent implementations 18:20:18 q+ 18:20:20 eprodrom: we have no user story for any extension mechanism 18:20:25 ... so not sure that's reasonable 18:20:25 extensions would be a developer story? 18:20:30 q+ 18:20:40 AdamB has joined #social 18:20:49 q? 18:20:57 ack bblfish 18:21:01 -Tsyesika 18:21:09 Zakim, unmute me 18:21:10 cwebber2 should no longer be muted 18:21:12 elf-pavlik: thx 18:21:27 bblfish: we could have a merger between two stories 18:21:43 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 +AdamB 18:21:53 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-02-17#Social_API 18:21:53 ... I'm not sure we're at a point today to do editorial mergers of sort 18:21:54 fine 18:22:00 ack cwebber2 18:22:05 ack cwebber 18:22:17 and also note that if you are a +1 and plan to implement, please note your implementation commitment. 18:22:26 cwebber2: number of groups used +1 / 0 / -1 18:22:41 +??P20 18:22:45 -0 +0 18:22:46 ... but also used +0 and -0 18:22:47 Zakim, ??P20 is me 18:22:47 that proposal sounds reasonable. 18:22:47 +Tsyesika; got it 18:22:52 ... that could help to fill the space where eprodrom and tantek sound like disagreeing 18:22:53 +1 +0 0 -0 -1 18:22:54 +0 and -0 sounds good t ome. 18:23:06 if there's a difference of meaning, use a different term 18:23:07 +1 +0 / -0 18:23:15 tantek: i think that captures some of that, w3c does this a lot to capture for or against 18:23:21 FYI - There is an extension mechanism implied by Story "Integration : Bringing tools together" . . . depending on what you consider an extension 18:23:35 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 ... 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 cwebber2++ 18:23:58 ... and if you really don't care, put a 0 18:24:00 cwebber2 has 10 karma 18:24:01 q? 18:24:25 that someone was me 18:24:28 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 sorry forgot to sign 18:24:37 ... yep, looks like tantek, ok 18:24:55 PROPOSAL: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week 18:25:09 +1 18:25:10 +1 18:25:11 +1 18:25:12 +1 18:25:12 +1 18:25:13 +1 18:25:15 that means next week's call will be before voting ends 18:25:16 +1 18:25:17 +1 18:25:20 +0 :-) 18:25:25 +1 18:25:26 eprodrom: we got +1 on our +1 processes 18:25:28 +1 18:25:38 ... ok, looks like consensus 18:25:43 ... we'll mark that as resolved 18:25:48 yes, I forget how 18:26:04 RESOLVED: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week 18:26:05 PROPOSAL: 18:26:07 ok :) 18:26:09 RESOLVED: editorial stops 18 Feb 2015 at 00:00 EST, survey runs exactly 1 week 18:26:27 eprodrom: ok, any other discussions on user stories? 18:26:33 ... if not, I'd like to move on 18:26:58 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 q+ re: groups 18:27:31 ... 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 eprodrom: or same system 18:27:43 tantek: yes, same system is a degenerate system of that 18:27:56 ... because I think bblfish brought that up in email 18:28:03 s/degenerate system/degenerate case/ 18:28:06 ... that has been well documented for a while, but let's make it documented 18:28:24 eprodrom: should work independent of network topologies, whether on same/different servies 18:28:32 q? 18:28:33 ... servers 18:28:37 (what's a servie?) 18:28:37 ack elf-pavlik 18:28:39 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss groups 18:28:50 elf-pavlik: I'd like to clarify, we have different stories for groups 18:29:03 ... I might have a group on my, someone else's server, etc 18:29:09 ... w3c stories for example 18:29:13 tantek: I agree with that 18:29:19 eprodrom: do we need to call that out separately? 18:29:26 ... or can we just leave that advice at that 18:29:33 "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 elf-pavlik: no note is fine, just wanted to clarify on call 18:29:37 eprodrom: sounds good 18:29:42 ... excellent 18:29:43 if groups are actors that follows 18:29:48 ... I think we can move on 18:30:02 Almereyda made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Social API/User stories]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=81519&oldid=81513 18:30:10 ... additional items agenda item 18:30:16 ... which means we're at the end of our agenda 18:30:20 q+ 18:30:20 ... anything else to discuss here? 18:30:25 We could discuss f2f 18:30:27 ... new business, new updates? 18:30:29 ack dret 18:30:33 topic: Additional Agenda Items 18:30:52 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 ... if I had a like syntax, if the like actually is a respond 18:31:13 ... is that an obligation for that system? 18:31:23 ... if I ask for a respond activity, will that actually get delivered 18:31:28 q+ 18:31:44 ... 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 I think that's the difference between responses (includes all interactions, likes, replies, reposts), and replies (just comments) 18:31:52 ... what does the activity structure mean if not that? 18:31:56 ... looking for feedback 18:32:19 eprodrom: so harry is on the queue, so will ack, but I think it's an interesting question 18:32:46 ... 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 ... eg digg had a "dug" thing, like you "dug" a url, but that didn't mesh with like etc 18:33:19 ... so early system was built to convey that if you don't understand a "dig", fall back to "like" 18:33:35 ... I'm not sure if this was conscious consensus or general laziness on part of implementers 18:33:39 ... but almost completely collapsed 18:33:44 ... as soon as implementing AS 1.0 18:33:45 q+ re: creating official issue for that 18:33:59 ... if a like was not literally a like, like the full identifying URI for a like, was just ignored. 18:34:02 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 like vs favorite have different mapping - heart versus star too 18:34:05 q+ 18:34:10 ... and multiple verb system fell out of AS 1.0 18:34:27 harry: (?) yes that means that you have weak inference in the spec 18:34:31 who was that? 18:34:35 me 18:34:38 oh dret 18:34:46 s/harry/dret 18:35:08 q+ 18:35:08 there also wasn't an explicit hierarchical association to the extent there is with a vocabulary iirc 18:35:15 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 ack harry 18:35:21 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 ... will get off my soapbox and ack harry 18:35:40 harry: basically the question is whether you should have some inference is should the implementations actually do so 18:35:44 how does +0 map to like? ;) 18:35:55 ... does schema actually have a product in that space? 18:35:56 B-) 18:36:01 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 we need it and do it. 18:36:15 ... we need to distinguish between features cool 18:36:20 ... how do we go down that path 18:36:28 ... anything without real code and users will be removed from spect 18:36:30 spec 18:36:31 q? 18:36:32 before last call 18:36:32 justcooked up our own way. which is unfortunate. 18:36:47 ... at yahoo we did that but had a difficult time gettinmg to scale 18:36:54 ... if specs demand to do things implementers won't do 18:36:56 ack elf-pavlik 18:36:57 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss creating official issue for that 18:36:57 ... can't put it in the spec 18:37:06 what 18:37:13 Zakim, who's making noise? 18:37:15 elf-pavlik: create an issue on the tracker 18:37:24 eprodrom, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds 18:37:27 elf-pavlik: create user story 18:37:29 In particular, it would be great to know if Siemens has a product or even planned product/codebase in this space. 18:37:33 elf-pavlik: for custom word 18:37:43 ... hesitation to not use a custom word 18:37:52 ... make it an issue to clarify how to handle custom verbs 18:37:53 In general, it's a super-cool featur 18:38:00 ack tantek 18:38:00 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 ... 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 ... arbitrary extensibility of such types etc. in practice, regardless of implementer/customer claims/wants 18:38:09 but we have to see if people actually do it, which is kind of common-sense. 18:38:17 s/word/verb 18:38:28 dromasca has joined #social 18:38:32 tantek: there's tension between how to distinguish between special responses / all responses 18:38:45 ... notion of class of types of posts all interacting/responding to another post 18:38:53 ... apis want a way to query all those kinds of posts 18:39:00 Its possible developer community has moved on since AS1.0 and inference is not so painful/messy for developers. 18:39:00 ... have a discrete set of (??) 18:39:05 https://github.com/openbadges/openbadges-specification/pull/22#issuecomment-73144928 18:39:07 ... like likes, reposts, etc 18:39:10 ... comments 18:39:17 ... which it makes sense to do a core thing for those 18:39:26 ... that's our experience in the indiewebcamp community 18:39:33 ... special handling for events, invitations 18:39:38 ... invitations are another kind of response 18:39:42 +dromasca 18:39:46 ... because you can post an invitation to invite a 3rd party 18:39:53 ... will make sure user stories cover, or else I'll add it 18:40:09 dret: looking for what spec tells me to implement 18:40:16 ... looks like spec doesn't requie I implement this 18:40:22 ... apparently right now I have a choice 18:40:27 q? 18:40:30 ... if we do it like this it makes more sense... 18:40:37 tantek: as publisher of consumer? 18:40:40 i'll raise it as issue, not sure about proces to officialy open it... 18:40:49 dret: it's someone looking at activitystream activity and looking at what it means 18:40:49 also a federator 18:40:55 tantek: so a consumer 18:41:09 dret: yes, also a publisher, because I can't interpret it as a response unless I (??) 18:41:17 w3c tracker issue! 18:41:28 q+ 18:41:30 tantek: second point I wanted to emphasize experience with ActivityStreams 1.0 18:41:35 tracker or github issue? 18:41:38 ... I remember specifying the special likes 18:41:45 ... nobody cared to consume those in practice 18:41:50 ... several anti-patterns 18:42:23 ... 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 people live their snowflakes! 18:42:32 ... but nobody cared about those beautiful unique snowflakes 18:42:34 Google+'s first API version had a verb type for "plusOne" 18:42:41