IRC log of social on 2015-05-26

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:38 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:38 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:59:40 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:40 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:59:42 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:42 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:59:43 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:43 [trackbot]
Date: 26 May 2015
16:59:52 [hhalpin]
Zakim, code?
16:59:52 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, hhalpin
17:00:15 [jasnell]
hhalpin: didn't say it wasn't.
17:00:37 [rhiaro]
jasnell, hhaplin: that reinforced to me that we don't need two separate things
17:00:48 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is socl
17:00:49 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:00:50 [hhalpin]
Jasnell, I think the 'activity' model is quite useful
17:00:54 [Zakim]
17:00:55 [Arnaud]
zakim, who's on the phone?
17:00:55 [Zakim]
On the phone I see Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk
17:01:01 [jasnell]
rhiaro: they aren't two separate things, that's the point
17:01:10 [jasnell]
Activity derives from Object
17:01:11 [AdamB]
Zakim, .aaaa is AdamB
17:01:11 [Zakim]
sorry, AdamB, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa'
17:01:19 [Zakim]
17:01:26 [jasnell]
every Activity is just a specialized form of Object with specific semantic detail
17:01:34 [hhalpin]
Any volunteers with a scribe?
17:01:48 [hhalpin]
Zakim, pick a victim
17:01:48 [Zakim]
+ +1.401.305.aabb
17:01:49 [Zakim]
Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose elf-pavlik (muted)
17:02:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:02:13 [Zakim]
+ben_thatmustbeme; got it
17:02:18 [cwebber2]
jasnell: raised it
17:02:19 [Zakim]
17:02:20 [cwebber2]
ohhhh! it's meeting time
17:02:23 [cwebber2]
sorry, dialing in
17:02:23 [Zakim]
17:02:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:25 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:02:43 [jasnell]
17:02:45 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 32 karma
17:02:58 [hhalpin]
chair: Arnaud
17:03:03 [hhalpin]
Scribe: aaronpk
17:03:06 [AdamB]
Zakim, aaaa is me
17:03:06 [Zakim]
+AdamB; got it
17:03:08 [Zakim]
17:03:13 [rhiaro]
tantek was here a second ago
17:03:24 [aaronpk]
scribenick: aaronpk
17:03:34 [tantek]
zakim, ??p10 is me
17:03:34 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:03:38 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:03:38 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:03:39 [hhalpin]
17:03:40 [Zakim]
+ +1.773.614.aacc
17:03:51 [tantek]
Zakim: unmute me
17:03:53 [cwebber2]
Zakim, +aacc is me
17:03:53 [Zakim]
sorry, cwebber2, I do not recognize a party named '+aacc'
17:03:56 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
17:03:56 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
17:03:59 [cwebber2]
Zakim, aacc is me
17:04:00 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
17:04:33 [tantek]
trackbot, start meeting
17:04:35 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:04:37 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:04:37 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago
17:04:38 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:04:38 [trackbot]
Date: 26 May 2015
17:04:42 [hhalpin]
Minutes are here:
17:05:01 [aaronpk]
tantek: first order of business is approval of 2 weeks ago minutes. any objections?
17:05:05 [cwebber2]
+1 on approving
17:05:07 [hhalpin]
17:05:11 [rhiaro]
17:05:13 [elf-pavlik]
17:05:18 [aaronpk]
17:05:34 [aaronpk]
tantek: not seeing any objections and some +1s, approved minutes
17:05:41 [aaronpk]
... looking at actions pending review
17:05:44 [tantek]
17:05:48 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: actions pending review
17:05:57 [tantek]
17:05:58 [trackbot]
action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:05:58 [trackbot]
17:06:03 [aaronpk]
tantek: harry anything to report on action 14?
17:06:12 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: yeah that's been done for a while, the answer is yes
17:06:27 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
17:06:34 [tantek]
17:06:34 [trackbot]
action-34 -- Pavlik elf to add explaination to the spec about multiple serializations used in examples -- due 2015-02-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:06:34 [trackbot]
17:06:47 [tantek]
zakim, this is SOCL
17:06:47 [Zakim]
ok, tantek; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:07:01 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aadd
17:07:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: anything you wanted to point out, elf?
17:07:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, unmute me
17:07:08 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should no longer be muted
17:07:18 [Zakim]
+ +1.514.554.aaee
17:07:19 [aaronpk]
Zakim, unmute elf-pavlik
17:07:19 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik should no longer be muted
17:07:20 [tantek]
zakim, unmute elf-pavlik
17:07:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
17:07:20 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik was not muted, tantek
17:07:20 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:07:29 [KevinMarks]
aadd is me
17:07:29 [eprodrom]
Zakim, aaee is me
17:07:29 [Zakim]
+eprodrom; got it
17:07:33 [hhalpin]
RESOLVED: are approved
17:07:42 [KevinMarks]
zakim, aadd is me
17:07:42 [Zakim]
+KevinMarks; got it
17:08:10 [aaronpk]
tantek: let's set the status of 34 to open, awaiting a pull request from elf
17:08:16 [hhalpin]
No updates for me on context URI, given versioning discussion.
17:08:31 [aaronpk]
17:08:32 [trackbot]
action-41 -- Harry Halpin to Review with wendy to figure out best way forward with microformats -- due 2015-03-10 -- CLOSED
17:08:32 [trackbot]
17:08:44 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: already completed
17:09:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: did you record the conclusion in the action?
17:09:08 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: it was recorded in the issue, but not the action
17:09:12 [Zakim]
17:09:15 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:09:15 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
17:09:24 [hhalpin]
I think it's been discussed that normative referening of microformats are OK.
17:09:26 [aaronpk]
AnnB: is there confusion between 41 and 14?
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-26]]
17:10:11 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: the microformats issue is closed as ok to reference, the jsonld one is open in elf and sandro's hands
17:10:24 [jasnell]
17:10:28 [elf-pavlik]
we can close action-14 since we have action-63
17:10:28 [aaronpk]
tantek: if it's in elf and sandro's hands we should open it
17:10:29 [hhalpin]
They got a new ACTION, happy to close the current one.
17:10:34 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: we gave them a new action, so can close the current one
17:10:38 [tantek]
17:10:38 [trackbot]
action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:10:38 [trackbot]
17:10:41 [sandro]
sandro has joined #social
17:11:08 [tantek]
17:11:08 [trackbot]
issue-38 -- Do we need to add a version number to the as context uri, to avoid breaking software when new terms are added? -- raised
17:11:08 [trackbot]
17:11:24 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
17:11:37 [jasnell]
17:11:43 [aaronpk]
tantek: sounds like this action is not complete but has outstanding issues to resolve, fine with assigning it to sandro
17:11:56 [hhalpin]
17:12:18 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:13:22 [aaronpk]
tantek: that takes us back to 14
17:13:35 [elf-pavlik]
17:13:36 [tantek]
17:13:36 [aaronpk]
... 41... harry said this one is closed because it's okay to reference microformats
17:13:52 [aaronpk]
jasnell: regarding 14, that was a very specific issue abotu getting the context document at the URL, and that has been done
17:13:59 [aaronpk]
.. the other issues are independent of that fact
17:14:14 [hhalpin]
yep, I put a context document there but wasn't sure if that was right URI due to this versioning discussion
17:14:16 [aaronpk]
.. that document will need to be updated next time we publish a working draft
17:15:15 [hhalpin]
I'm happy to close 38 but in terms of a context URI, we do have a functional one
17:15:24 [hhalpin]
it may not be perfect
17:15:26 [aaronpk]
tantek: action-51
17:15:27 [hhalpin]
17:15:27 [tantek]
17:15:27 [trackbot]
action-52 -- Harry Halpin to Discuss re github -- due 2015-03-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:15:27 [trackbot]
17:15:28 [aaronpk]
tantek: action-52
17:15:32 [aaronpk]
17:15:41 [aaronpk]
... this was also harry
17:16:08 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: we set up the github repos and clarified the difference between the official w3c repos that only the editors can contribute to, and the more free-for-all w3csocial that anyone can contribute to
17:16:30 [aaronpk]
tantek: for new people joining the group, is there a link to that clarification that we can put in this issue and on the home page?
17:16:33 [aaronpk]
hhalpin: i can do that
17:17:02 [tantek]
17:17:02 [trackbot]
action-60 -- Pavlik elf to Draw Follow vs. Subscribe with account having multiple feeds allowing subscription independently -- due 2015-05-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:17:02 [trackbot]
17:17:29 [aaronpk]
elf-pavlik: finished this today, and will send to everyone later today
17:17:45 [aaronpk]
tantek: thanks elf, let's close this
17:17:57 [KevinMarks]
reading scrollback, surely chess already has a more compact text form than posting boards e2-e4 etc
17:17:57 [tantek]
close action-60
17:17:58 [trackbot]
Closed action-60.
17:18:03 [elf-pavlik]
17:18:04 [Loqi]
trackbot has 1 karma
17:18:04 [trackbot]
Sorry, Loqi, I don't understand 'trackbot has 1 karma'. Please refer to <> for help.
17:18:15 [tantek]
17:18:15 [trackbot]
action-63 -- James Snell to Work with sandro and elf pavlik to set up new context uri -- due 2015-05-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW
17:18:15 [trackbot]
17:18:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: this is the one it sounds like you were done with
17:18:34 [aaronpk]
jasnell: i think elf created this and assigned it to me
17:18:48 [aaronpk]
... the other conversation abotu whether we need a different URI for versioning. i didn't understand why this was created
17:19:05 [aaronpk]
.. there's nothing to do except updating the context document when the draft is udpated
17:19:12 [aaronpk]
elf-pavlik: we can close it, we discussed it after the telcon last week
17:19:20 [tantek]
close action-63
17:19:20 [trackbot]
Closed action-63.
17:19:22 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay if you both agree let's close it
17:19:32 [tantek]
17:19:35 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: issues pending review
17:19:40 [aaronpk]
tantek: only three! that's good
17:19:44 [tantek]
17:19:48 [tantek]
17:19:48 [trackbot]
issue-16 -- better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure -- pending review
17:19:48 [trackbot]
17:20:06 [aaronpk]
tantek: erik raised this
17:20:25 [aaronpk]
.. is erik on the call?
17:20:29 [elf-pavlik]
we can check with Erik via mailing list to verify if we can close it?
17:20:39 [jasnell]
17:20:42 [wilkie]
doen't look like he is in irc either
17:20:47 [tantek]
ack jasnell
17:21:03 [aaronpk]
jasnell: waiting on specific recommendations. i'm happy to accept pull requests but i haven't received any
17:21:17 [aaronpk]
.. there were comments on having the spec be structured better but no concrete suggestions
17:21:18 [elf-pavlik]
i suggest setting it back to open
17:21:31 [aaronpk]
tantek: i'm seeing a pretty long set of emails related to this so i'm not understanding the goal of this issue
17:21:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
this looks like a catch-all issue
17:21:51 [aaronpk]
jasnell: i've already restructred it a number of times, but it'd be great if someone had specific feedback and suggestiosns
17:21:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
given the number of related emails
17:21:55 [Zakim]
17:21:56 [hhalpin]
I would propose without specific feedback we eventually close it
17:22:11 [aaronpk]
tantek: this issue isn't really actionalbe it sounds like
17:22:23 [eprodrom]
17:22:24 [aaronpk]
.. anyone disagree with harry's proposal?
17:22:28 [cwebber2]
17:22:33 [tantek]
close issue-16
17:22:33 [trackbot]
Closed issue-16.
17:22:34 [aaronpk]
.. let's go ahead and close it
17:22:46 [tantek]
17:22:46 [trackbot]
issue-29 -- Removing Activity Types not used by User Stories -- pending review
17:22:46 [trackbot]
17:22:53 [aaronpk]
.. noting that james is happy to accept PRs for specivic feedback
17:22:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: this sounds like a lot of work
17:23:19 [aaronpk]
jasnell: this is not really a *lot* of work, just need to reconcile the objects in the spec with the stories we accepted
17:23:27 [hhalpin]
Upon first look over, the user types looked pretty close to what was required in user stories
17:23:28 [Zakim]
17:23:34 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P15 is me
17:23:34 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:23:38 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:23:38 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:23:48 [tantek]
17:24:14 [aaronpk]
tantek: it sounds like we accepted this and your'esaying that everyone takes an action to remove types?
17:24:24 [hhalpin]
Should probably be kept open and someone *other* than jasnell should check it
17:24:26 [aaronpk]
jasnell: i can go throguh it myself, if folks are happy with me making those decisions
17:24:32 [tantek]
" The candidates for removal are: Achieve, Claim, Reservation, Arrive, Travel"
17:24:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: the issue has a specific list of things to remove
17:24:38 [aaronpk]
jasnell: those have been removed
17:24:44 [hhalpin]
Then close it out
17:24:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: then let's close this as completed, and if there is specific feedback we can look at it later
17:25:05 [tantek]
close issue-29
17:25:05 [trackbot]
Closed issue-29.
17:25:17 [tantek]
17:25:17 [trackbot]
issue-35 -- Simplify the Actor Types -- pending review
17:25:17 [trackbot]
17:25:30 [aaronpk]
jasnell: we simplified them by removing half of them
17:25:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: thanks james, let's close this one as well
17:25:46 [tantek]
close issue-35
17:25:46 [trackbot]
Closed issue-35.
17:25:49 [elf-pavlik]
17:25:52 [Loqi]
tantek has 194 karma
17:26:06 [aaronpk]
tantek: normally we look at raised issues next
17:26:11 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: raised issues
17:26:26 [aaronpk]
17:26:27 [trackbot]
issue-25 -- What syntax is (syntaxes are) to be used in the social api (eg microformats vs json-ld; form-encoding vs json-ld) -- raised
17:26:27 [trackbot]
17:26:37 [Zakim]
+ +
17:26:48 [aaronpk]
tantek: we should probably accept this as part of the quetsions the group should answer
17:26:52 [elf-pavlik]
17:26:57 [hhalpin]
Again, so far it's JSON-LD mandatory, everything else is optional
17:27:07 [cwebber2]
17:27:11 [eprodrom]
17:27:15 [eprodrom]
17:27:20 [jasnell]
17:27:20 [tantek]
17:27:20 [tantek]
17:27:20 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:27:21 [trackbot]
issue-25 -- What syntax is (syntaxes are) to be used in the social api (eg microformats vs json-ld; form-encoding vs json-ld) -- raised
17:27:21 [trackbot]
17:27:38 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: is the question to this group is too complex?
17:27:51 [aaronpk]
tantek: the question this is asking is the group should decide what syntaxes should be used int he social api
17:28:01 [aaronpk]
.. we haven't made this decision yet
17:28:16 [aaronpk]
.. based on some of the discussions, it's reasonable to open this and accept it assuming those folks continue forward
17:28:27 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: sorry i was mixing up 25 and 35
17:28:28 [eprodrom]
17:28:29 [tantek]
17:28:33 [tantek]
open issue-25
17:29:01 [tantek]
17:29:01 [trackbot]
issue-38 -- Do we need to add a version number to the as context uri, to avoid breaking software when new terms are added? -- raised
17:29:01 [trackbot]
17:29:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: this was blocking other actions, but james you were saying this was a non issue?
17:29:37 [aaronpk]
jasnell: we discussed this before, deciding to mint this context uri back in october, we decided not to include versioning information
17:29:57 [aaronpk]
.. it wa sdecided then to just have a URI that says activitystreams without version
17:29:57 [cwebber2]
yes fall back!
17:30:05 [eprodrom]
17:30:09 [bblfish]
17:30:16 [aaronpk]
.. and it does mean that when we get to CR we limit backwards incompatible changes
17:30:23 [aaronpk]
tantek: can you word that as a proposal in IRC?
17:30:26 [eprodrom]
17:30:26 [hhalpin_]
hhalpin_ has joined #social
17:30:30 [aaronpk]
jasnell: the proposal is don't open this issue
17:30:35 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
17:30:37 [tantek]
17:30:45 [tantek]
ack bblfish
17:30:46 [hhalpin_]
Don't open issues that have been previously closed without very clear reasoning
17:31:17 [hhalpin_]
bblfish, so we're keeping version numbers out of the URI with the current AS 2.0 draft
17:31:24 [elf-pavlik]
JSON-LD @context != namespace !
17:31:33 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i don't think it's a good idea to pub version numbers in namespaces
17:31:39 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:31:41 [KevinMarks]
only add a version number for breaking chanegs
17:32:01 [aaronpk]
sandro: once we get to rec, what is the story going to be once we want to make a change
17:32:06 [aaronpk]
... this is also a json context uri
17:32:08 [elf-pavlik]
let's open it!
17:32:16 [elf-pavlik]
17:32:27 [aaronpk]
bblfish: is there a way to deprecate terms?
17:32:27 [hhalpin_]
17:32:31 [aaronpk]
sandro: foaf is not a recommendation
17:32:40 [jasnell]
let's not attempt to solve problems that don't exist yet. AS3 can mint a brand new URI if necessary
17:33:01 [elf-pavlik]
17:33:24 [aaronpk]
tantek: it sounds like what you're saying is there is a path forward that doesn't require version numbers
17:33:29 [hhalpin_]
q- hhalpin
17:33:32 [aaronpk]
.. so for the purposes of this issue, i'd like to close it summarily
17:33:40 [tantek]
ack elf-pavlik
17:33:43 [aaronpk]
.. elf harry do you have opinions that warrant opening this?
17:34:07 [aaronpk]
elf-pavlik: to clarify, we don't talk about namespace in jsonld context, it's worth keeping this issue open because we don't have a strategy of how to manage jsonld context
17:34:13 [bblfish]
ok, so I don't know how contexts work in json-ld work
17:34:13 [jasnell]
17:34:34 [aaronpk]
.. the other example is the people in the credentials group use version numbers in their context, so we can ask why they use that
17:34:49 [aaronpk]
.. it's not about hte namespace of the terms but about the jsonld context which isdifferent
17:34:57 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i think i need to find out what jsonld context are
17:34:58 [Arnaud]
seems like versioning will remain a dividing issue forever
17:35:07 [hhalpin_]
17:35:14 [elf-pavlik]
i can take action
17:35:19 [tantek]
ack jasnell
17:35:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: elf it sounds like you think this is enough of an issue that you want it assigned to you
17:35:29 [hhalpin_]
My two cents is if we do a breaking versiioning change, we just use normal W3C process.
17:35:43 [aaronpk]
jasnell: what we're talking about is the normative context document. nothing stops implementers from creating their own modified version of it, that extends but does not modify the base terms
17:35:43 [tantek]
hhalpin_ I tend to agree
17:35:44 [cwebber2]
jasnell: I've done my part to suggest dropping something from the spec ;)
17:35:54 [aaronpk]
.. they can put it wherever they want, they can put it in the context URL of their implementation
17:36:10 [aaronpk]
.. using a different context URL is already possible withotu changing our default one
17:36:29 [aaronpk]
.. the fact that our default one only deals with AS2.0 vocab we aren't making any backward compatible changes to the vocab past CR, so we don't need version number there
17:36:35 [hhalpin_]
17:36:38 [aaronpk]
.. everything elf wants to do can already be done without making a change to the context URI
17:36:38 [bblfish]
that also makes sense
17:37:03 [elf-pavlik]
can we open this issue and discuss it further?
17:37:04 [aaronpk]
.. the context document can live wherever
17:37:09 [hhalpin_]
In particular apps they can change the @context
17:37:18 [hhalpin_]
For application-specific apps
17:37:19 [aaronpk]
sandro: if you change the bytes in the context you use, then the consumers won't do the right thing
17:37:28 [hhalpin_]
17:37:45 [aaronpk]
jasnell: the spec says you can create your own context as long as you don't redefine any of thecore terms
17:37:46 [bblfish]
I suppose if we want people to read the JSON as JSON-LD then the context thing may be important for people who don't know the LD part?
17:37:50 [aaronpk]
.. i can create one context document that imports another
17:38:02 [aaronpk]
.. as long as they don't redefine one of the core terms it's all good
17:38:20 [hhalpin_]
17:38:33 [aaronpk]
sandro: it sounds like if we want to add more terms to the core, then they will have broken the rules for extension without knowing they did
17:38:40 [aaronpk]
jasnell: if those changes are backwards compatible then what's the problem
17:38:45 [bblfish]
17:38:50 [Zakim]
17:38:54 [tantek]
17:39:00 [bblfish]
IS this a problem to do with non JSON-LD parsers?
17:39:23 [tantek]
ack hhalpin_
17:39:27 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: until we have a good case for changing thet erms in the context dynamically, then we have a w3c process for changin....
17:39:34 [Zakim]
17:39:35 [aaronpk]
.. so the question is do we want to be able to change the terms in the base after we pass CR
17:39:42 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:39:42 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:39:43 [aaronpk]
.. i don't see a good use case for this, since the context is already extensible
17:39:45 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:39:45 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:39:54 [aaronpk]
.. if there is a good case for this then we can visit this after CR and make a note
17:40:10 [bblfish]
17:40:14 [bblfish]
17:40:16 [tantek]
ack sandro
17:40:24 [aaronpk]
sandro: i don't think we want to freeze things, since it will take at least 2 years to make any changes by that proess
17:40:27 [hhalpin_]
I think we could discuss this indefinitely :)
17:40:37 [aaronpk]
tantek: it sounds like there is sufficient debate on this
17:40:54 [aaronpk]
.. i'm going to propose opening this and assigning to sandro
17:41:05 [aaronpk]
bblfish: i think it would be a good idea to have a debate on the mailing list about this
17:41:07 [elf-pavlik]
action: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs
17:41:07 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-65 - Document why some of json-ld authors use v1 etc. in context uris [on Pavlik elf - due 2015-06-02].
17:41:09 [jasnell]
-1 to opening, it's entirely unnecessary to keep open at this point
17:41:18 [hhalpin_]
Maybe an ACTION on Sandro and elf to actually figure out a driving use-case and then edits to the spec?
17:41:26 [elf-pavlik]
hhalpin_, i just took action
17:41:29 [hhalpin_]
It's a generic problem bblfish
17:41:38 [bblfish]
ok. need to learn more about json-ld
17:41:38 [hhalpin_]
regardless of whether one is using RDF or JSON
17:41:48 [aaronpk]
tantek: it's hard to not open the issue if people think there is something to debate
17:41:51 [hhalpin_]
They can open it, but they need to have a concrete proposal.
17:42:55 [Arnaud]
anyone is free to propose closing any dormant issue
17:42:57 [tantek]
17:42:57 [trackbot]
issue-39 -- Do we need the overall system to be robust even when nodes fail? -- raised
17:42:57 [trackbot]
17:43:06 [hhalpin_]
that is very vague
17:43:31 [elf-pavlik]
+1 sandro
17:43:34 [cwebber2]
17:43:34 [Arnaud]
and the chairs propably could probably do a bit of dusting off and come up with a list of such issues
17:43:39 [cwebber2]
17:43:40 [jasnell]
propose extending the call 30 minutes
17:43:50 [elf-pavlik]
+1 jasnell
17:43:53 [eprodrom]
jasnell: +1
17:43:54 [cwebber2]
last meeting we resolved to do activities at the end, right?
17:43:56 [cwebber2]
17:44:00 [cwebber2]
17:44:01 [bblfish]
agree close it
17:44:01 [eprodrom]
17:44:01 [hhalpin_]
Happy to extend for 30 minutes but yes, we've opened a bunch of issues that need closing
17:44:04 [bblfish]
17:44:07 [aaronpk]
tantek: i suggest we close issue 39 because there's no information about who it's from
17:44:11 [hhalpin_]
In general, we should be much more parsimonious with issues
17:44:31 [aaronpk]
bblfish: usually issues are opened in other groups after debating on the mailing list
17:44:38 [aaronpk] seems like here issues are brought up before they are even debated
17:44:39 [elf-pavlik]
17:44:40 [tantek]
close issue-39
17:44:40 [trackbot]
Closed issue-39.
17:44:43 [eprodrom]
17:44:46 [tantek]
17:44:46 [trackbot]
issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- raised
17:44:46 [trackbot]
17:45:00 [aaronpk]
jasnell: the post activity was part of AS1.0
17:45:00 [hhalpin_]
My suggestion would be, once we get an API document FPWD, we stop using tracker as much as possible and just move it all to github
17:45:02 [aaronpk]
.. as the default activity
17:45:20 [aaronpk]
.. we have "create" "add" as separate more semantically specific activities
17:45:26 [rhiaro]
+1 Create over Post
17:45:29 [eprodrom]
17:45:29 [aaronpk]
.. there's obvious confusion with "post" used in other contexts
17:45:37 [elf-pavlik]
+1 deprecate Post
17:45:42 [aaronpk]
.. can be deprecated, doesn't cause much harm and simplifies
17:45:46 [aaronpk]
tantek: that makes sense, will open this
17:45:47 [eprodrom]
17:46:08 [tantek]
17:46:08 [trackbot]
issue-41 -- PubSubHubbub license clarification requires contacting current editor Julien -- raised
17:46:08 [trackbot]
17:46:27 [aaronpk]
tantek: this one came up because we were mistaken about who was editing pubsubhubbub right now
17:46:41 [aaronpk]
.. there are some of us who would liek toconsider PuSH in what we're working on
17:46:45 [aaronpk]
.. harry this probably involves you
17:46:58 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: there's a normative dependency between the new version by julien and the old version
17:47:05 [aaronpk]
.. and because there's no licensing attached to the earlier one
17:47:14 [cwebber2]
17:47:14 [aaronpk]
.. the answer is we can reference julien's version informatively no problem
17:47:29 [aaronpk]
.. but we cannot push it in as a working draft until we clarify bradfitz commits
17:47:34 [elf-pavlik]
+1 open
17:47:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: are you okay with reopening this?
17:47:36 [cwebber2]
17:47:51 [aaronpk]
.. i'd like to request you contact julien directly to try to resolve this
17:48:00 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: i've already done this once, bradfitz already said no
17:48:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: because julien is editing this now
17:48:18 [cwebber2]
> eprodrom: In previous telecons we've gone over raised issues, but that's been controversial. What I'd like to do is do that at the end of the agenda if we have time
17:48:19 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: it doesn't matter if julien is editing, becasue it refers to a previous document that we don't have any licensing on
17:48:22 [cwebber2]
17:48:30 [cwebber2]
was that for this meeting or for future meetings?
17:48:33 [cwebber2]
17:48:34 [cwebber2]
that meeting
17:48:36 [eprodrom]
I think the closest we have is
17:48:51 [hhalpin_]
This has been extensively discussed with W3C before launching the WG.
17:48:52 [eprodrom]
17:48:55 [aaronpk]
tantek: the point is julien is the editor and the chair of the WG, so he is the one we shuld be dealingwith
17:48:56 [jasnell]
-1 to opening this issue at this time until it's clear new information is available
17:49:03 [aaronpk]
sandro: would you like me to take this?
17:49:08 [elf-pavlik]
17:49:16 [aaronpk]
action sandro to follow up with Julien regarding Pubsubhubbub licensing
17:49:16 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-66 - Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-06-02].
17:49:17 [cwebber2]
17:49:22 [KevinMarks]
+1 to sorting this out with julien
17:49:32 [aaronpk]
tantek: the new information is that we should have contacted julien in the first place, not brad
17:49:46 [aaronpk]
.. rather than making assumptions about the spec we should have contacted the author
17:49:47 [eprodrom]
17:49:56 [tantek]
17:49:56 [trackbot]
action-66 -- Sandro Hawke to Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing -- due 2015-06-02 -- OPEN
17:49:56 [trackbot]
17:50:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: let's close the issue with the related action
17:50:21 [tantek]
17:50:21 [aaronpk]
17:50:21 [trackbot]
issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised
17:50:21 [trackbot]
17:50:21 [trackbot]
issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised
17:50:23 [trackbot]
17:50:51 [cwebber2]
17:51:02 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: dual licensing has been discussion, it's beyond this WG to do anything, the answer right now is no, but the answer in the future is likely to be yes
17:51:14 [aaronpk]
.. there's nothing this group can do, it's a w3c issue
17:51:28 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: is there a link to this?
17:51:31 [cwebber2]
new license?
17:51:36 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: there's a new license doc that will allow re-use
17:51:47 [aaronpk]
.. in that AC meeting it was reported, so that should solve itself
17:52:10 [hhalpin_]
Yes, but lots of groups will do that so it's not a big deal
17:52:11 [aaronpk]
tantek: i asked wendy about that at the AC meeting, our charter mentions a specific license, so we'd need to do a charter modification
17:52:27 [aaronpk]
.. i too would like to look at the new license but we can cross that bridge when it gets to the WG
17:52:31 [elf-pavlik]
+1 extend call
17:52:34 [aaronpk]
tantek: there was a request to extend the call
17:52:37 [jasnell]
+1 to extend
17:52:39 [cwebber2]
I would be fine with extending
17:52:41 [eprodrom]
+1 to extend
17:52:42 [bblfish]
17:52:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:52:50 [wilkie]
17:52:51 [cwebber2]
+0, it depends on how rhiaro and tsyesika and aaronpk feel
17:52:54 [aaronpk]
-0 i have to go at 11
17:52:55 [cwebber2]
okay it's extended :)
17:53:09 [hhalpin_]
Aaron is also probably needed to help do API discussion
17:53:16 [cwebber2]
welllllllllllll, doesn't this involve aaron as part of this conversation?
17:53:25 [AnnB]
I also have to go, but am fine with extending
17:53:29 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: if you drop off the call after 11 you probably won't be able to join back, but we can continue
17:53:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: let's go ahead and extend
17:53:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: wait
17:53:37 [tsyesika]
aaron would need to be yep cwebber2 and hhalpin_
17:53:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: that hasn't been a problem for me in the past
17:53:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
we did this before and I was able to get back on
17:53:52 [wilkie]
I can scribe
17:53:54 [tantek]
17:53:56 [elf-pavlik]
17:53:57 [tantek]
thanks wilkie
17:53:59 [Loqi]
wilkie has 12 karma
17:54:03 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: is aaron required for the items we have?
17:54:12 [aaronpk]
hhalpin_: there's the api discussion and the microformat/rdf discussion
17:54:22 [wilkie]
17:54:26 [wilkie]
let's do it
17:54:28 [tantek]
scribenick: wilkie
17:54:43 [rhiaro]
17:54:43 [tantek]
topic: Social API
17:54:46 [wilkie]
tantek: that brings us to social API
17:54:50 [tantek]
17:54:50 [hhalpin_]
aaron and rhiaro, could you intro this?
17:54:53 [wilkie]
tantek: who wants to go first
17:54:56 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
17:54:57 [Zakim]
17:55:02 [wilkie]
tantek: let's ack cwebber2
17:55:17 [tantek]
ack aaronpk
17:55:20 [wilkie]
cwebber2: my +q was from earlier. I suggest either aaron or amy go first.
17:55:29 [Zakim]
17:55:36 [wilkie]
aaronpk: I'm going to assume people haven't read this yet
17:55:40 [wilkie]
tantek: assume they have read it
17:55:43 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P13 is me
17:55:43 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:55:45 [rhiaro]
I also made some changes to it within the last hour, sorry :p
17:55:46 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:55:46 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:55:52 [tantek]
(people were supposed to have read it from last week)
17:55:53 [wilkie]
aaronpk: my goal with this was to collect examples of what micropub would look like in json
17:56:08 [wilkie]
aaronpk: to look at the parts of it that were awkward or caused 'discomfort' with people
17:56:21 [KevinMarks]
read what? URL? Amy's post?
17:56:24 [aaronpk]
17:56:35 [cwebber2]
17:56:37 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 98 karma
17:56:37 [cwebber2]
17:56:40 [Loqi]
aaronpk has 818 karma
17:56:43 [wilkie]
aaronpk: amy did a much thorough comparison she just published. i've only had a brief chance to look over it.
17:56:44 [cwebber2]
for doing these
17:56:47 [tsyesika]
17:56:50 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 99 karma
17:56:51 [cwebber2]
also rhiaro's post is really awesome
17:56:52 [tsyesika]
17:56:54 [Loqi]
aaronpk has 819 karma
17:57:00 [wilkie]
aaronpk: rhiaro? anything you could add to this?
17:57:01 [cwebber2]
does rhiaro have voice?
17:57:04 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
17:57:09 [cwebber2]
17:57:09 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: next steps on that?
17:57:10 [Zakim]
17:57:57 [bblfish]
17:57:59 [bblfish]
17:57:59 [wilkie]
rhiaro: just experimental. i don't really know what I could add other than it just feels like when i put micropub stuff into AS it was just objects in AS and that felt simpler
17:58:08 [tantek]
17:58:15 [wilkie]
rhiaro: would love to hear anybody else's feedback
17:58:18 [tantek]
ack elf-pavlik
17:58:19 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss next steps on that?
17:58:21 [wilkie]
tantek: elf?
17:58:25 [elf-pavlik]
17:58:30 [Zakim]
17:58:34 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: thank you rhiaro and aaronpk for working on that. I already created a few issues.
17:58:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
17:58:38 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:58:48 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: my question would be: "what are the next steps on this topic?"
17:58:55 [tantek]
17:59:00 [wilkie]
tantek: response?
17:59:12 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I think the next steps are for people to start publishing stuff
17:59:19 [elf-pavlik]
17:59:21 [tantek]
ack bblfish
17:59:22 [wilkie]
tantek: sounds reasonable
17:59:27 [wilkie]
tantek: henry go ahead
17:59:37 [eprodrom]
17:59:39 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #social
17:59:39 [hhalpin_]
17:59:41 [cwebber2]
bblfish: there's interest in LDP being tied in
17:59:44 [wilkie]
bblfish: I don't see how you can get LDP tied into that
17:59:52 [cwebber2]
bblfish: could you help?
17:59:56 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I haven't thought about LDP yet. haven't had time.
18:00:07 [wilkie]
bblfish: is it part of your plan? are you thinking of it?
18:00:29 [elf-pavlik]
Pull Requests :)
18:00:34 [wilkie]
rhiaro: yes. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. haven't had much feedback from those involved with LDP.
18:00:34 [tantek]
18:00:36 [Loqi]
pullrequests has 2 karma
18:00:42 [hhalpin_]
18:01:12 [elf-pavlik]
18:01:14 [wilkie]
jasnell: there's a section on the github on this that can be expanded for comparison
18:01:15 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:01:25 [aaronpk]
18:01:55 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I guess I'm finding the conversation pretty interesting. I think there is definitely an intense cluster around object CRUD lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) a particular object (note etc)
18:02:08 [cwebber2]
all verbs are nouns now ;)
18:02:14 [tantek]
18:02:17 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 33 karma
18:02:24 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I agree, like activity vs like post are the same
18:02:31 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the difference between like-type activity and like-type post as being very small and insignificant
18:02:37 [Zakim]
18:02:53 [tantek]
18:02:54 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we should not ignore the rest of the scope of our user stories and over focus on CRUD type interactions
18:03:06 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: (pre-meeting-end, request that before you disappear that we sync up on implementation stuff)
18:03:08 [rhiaro]
Zakim, unmute me
18:03:08 [Zakim]
rhiaro should no longer be muted
18:03:25 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I did put up the flask thing, and I'm working on some scheme stuff on my own time too :)
18:03:34 [wilkie]
aaronpk: CRUD is a good place to start, I feel, but we need to move ahead of it quickly
18:03:35 [eprodrom]
cwebber2: thanks, I appreciate it
18:03:40 [eprodrom]
Sorry I haven't dug into too much
18:03:48 [tantek]
18:03:51 [tantek]
ack hhalpin_
18:03:51 [wilkie]
rhiaro: I agree. add/remove from collections are going to be useful, but I feel most things can be reduced to Post
18:04:08 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
18:04:24 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: I was wondering (I sent an email) if we could eventually get an editor's first draft out.
18:04:54 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: two ways of doing this: drive two/three into convergence, or just pick one. I'd prefer the former rather than latter.
18:04:55 [eprodrom]
18:05:14 [tantek]
18:05:15 [rhiaro]
yeah, I agree with aaronpk re: vocab
18:05:19 [rhiaro]
that's what I was going to say
18:05:25 [tsyesika]
i also agree for what it's worth
18:05:29 [eprodrom]
18:05:43 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:06:24 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom, we have another point on agenda for today about that :)
18:06:27 [rhiaro]
18:06:28 [Loqi]
usecases has 1 karma
18:06:32 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I hate to be the stickler, but I think that for developers outside of the call, if we publish something that doesn't say this is how we post a note, etc, but rather this is how you do a thing without tying to use-cases, I would be worried it wouldn't be actionable outside of us.
18:06:43 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we need some decisions around vocabulary in there
18:06:45 [hhalpin_]
Agreed, we'll need to tie it all the use-cases and specify examples with vocabularies *before* FPWD publication
18:06:54 [eprodrom]
+1 for incremental progress
18:06:55 [hhalpin_]
However, starting the editors' draft ASAP may help us reach that point
18:06:56 [tsyesika]
i think maybe we can converge on the other things and if it comes down to it we can pick a vocab
18:06:56 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: I agree, and I think aaronpk is right re: incremental progress
18:07:01 [tantek]
q+ re: vocab for editor's draft
18:07:05 [tantek]
18:07:10 [tantek]
ack q
18:07:12 [Zakim]
18:07:14 [wilkie]
aaronpk: I totally agree, just need to look at places for incremental progress
18:07:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ack tantek
18:07:19 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss vocab for editor's draft
18:07:21 [eprodrom]
Let's just makes sure we don't publish the "Social API that sends a thing to a place to do some stuff"
18:07:43 [wilkie]
tantek: I agree if people saw an abstract draft that it would not look good
18:07:44 [hhalpin_]
If the big vocabulary difference is microformats vs. AS 2.0 Vocabulary, we can move to that discussion next - as I think elf was interested in RDF versions of microformats.
18:08:02 [eprodrom]
18:08:02 [bblfish]
18:08:03 [elf-pavlik]
we can jump into this dicussion right now :)
18:08:04 [bblfish]
18:08:05 [Loqi]
progress has 4 karma
18:08:10 [eprodrom]
Bravo to rhiaro tsyesika and aaronpk
18:08:14 [tsyesika]
hhalpin_: it's not the only difference but it's certainly a sticking point
18:08:20 [cwebber2]
18:08:27 [wilkie]
tantek: i think that it is good to give aaronpk and rhiaro and LDP people more time to discuss and converge on more concepts.
18:08:27 [rhiaro]
we could go forward with some decisions about vocab with some 'at risk' until a decision is made
18:08:30 [hhalpin_]
The question is there any sticking points in terms of syntax (HTTP CRUD and end-points?)
18:08:39 [hhalpin_]
I didn't see any per se
18:08:45 [wilkie]
tantek: would rather see that convergence
18:08:50 [hhalpin_]
minus the form encoding
18:08:54 [tantek]
18:09:04 [tantek]
ack bblfish
18:09:07 [rhiaro]
hhalpin_: I added a bit about endpoints to the brainstorming page not long ago, for AP and MP they're basically the same
18:09:17 [rhiaro]
Would love someone to drop LDP into that table
18:09:34 [hhalpin_]
That's what I thought was well, so we're probably fine in terms minus the form-encoding of micropub
18:09:58 [tantek]
hhalpin_, that's ironic, because form-encoding is part of what makes micropub "micro"
18:10:01 [KevinMarks]
did zakim hang me up?
18:10:04 [wilkie]
bblfish: I wonder if the vocabulary could be put different. I think the issue is what side-effects exist for publishing some kind of thing. if you post a picture, what are you liable to deal with to do that.
18:10:17 [tantek]
18:10:19 [rhiaro]
hhalpin_: also yeah we should do better at documenting our (me aaron jessica) discussions about form-encoding and json, we've thought a bit about this
18:10:26 [wilkie]
bblfish: that's the one thing I feel isn't addressed here, but perhaps I just looked too quickly
18:10:32 [hhalpin_]
I would be happy to see form encoding, as I think developers want it, although REST folks might be unhappy
18:10:38 [wilkie]
tantek: hhalpin_ seems to be discussing things in irc. anything for the record?
18:10:49 [Zakim]
18:10:59 [tsyesika]
ugh i dropped off
18:11:04 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: minus the form encoding bit there isn't much difference between micropub/pump as far as syntax
18:11:10 [aaronpk]
bye for now!
18:11:16 [Zakim]
18:11:16 [wilkie]
tantek: questions before moving to next topic?
18:11:20 [Zakim]
18:11:25 [tsyesika]
18:11:26 [tsyesika]
i dropped off
18:11:30 [tantek]
topic: Does as:Follow result in as:Subscribe?
18:11:32 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
18:11:32 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
18:11:35 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
18:11:35 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
18:11:39 [tantek]
18:11:42 [elf-pavlik]
18:11:43 [tantek]
ack elf-pavlik
18:11:58 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: we had this conversation on the mailing list
18:12:12 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: this is about the distinction between following somebody and following their channels
18:12:14 [Zakim]
18:12:39 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: there is little clarity that if I follow somebody, what am I subscribing to?
18:12:39 [Zakim]
18:12:46 [tantek]
zakim, ??P3 is me
18:12:46 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:12:49 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: I don't know if anybody has had a chance to look at it. I posted it quite late.
18:12:50 [jasnell]
following objects and subscribing to objects are exactly the same thing really
18:12:52 [bblfish]
18:13:14 [jasnell]
you can follow a person, you can follow a feed, you can follow any kind of resource
18:13:21 [eprodrom]
jasnell: I agree with what you say
18:13:22 [wilkie]
tantek: do people need to review the diagram?
18:13:29 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: I think it would be helpful
18:13:34 [rhiaro]
jasnell: I think the question is if you follow a person and they have several feeds, how do you decide the default?
18:13:40 [tantek]
action all review
18:13:41 [trackbot]
Error finding 'all'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.
18:13:42 [wilkie]
tantek: let's action that people review the diagram
18:13:58 [Zakim]
18:14:14 [wilkie]
tantek: elf-pavlik, if you could copy this agenda item forward to next week and we'll assume people have reviewed it by then
18:14:15 [tantek]
topic: Social Syntax
18:14:22 [tantek]
18:14:29 [wilkie]
tantek: that takes us to the next topic: social syntax, and subtopic: aligning as2 and microformats
18:14:57 [rhiaro]
"works on" is a bit strong :p
18:15:29 [tantek]
also related
18:15:41 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: I collected existing efforts and I posted awhile ago the invitation for people could subscribe to each other using these different formats
18:15:55 [pfefferle]
pfefferle has joined #social
18:16:17 [eprodrom]
18:16:38 [Zakim]
18:16:38 [wilkie]
tantek: we looked at this before and made a table of equivalences on the wiki
18:16:46 [Zakim]
18:16:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
18:16:50 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
18:16:51 [wilkie]
tantek: we saw that microformats was a proper subset of AS concepts
18:17:23 [wilkie]
tantek: the challenge is when microformats has a clear Atom-style stream that doesn't have the same type of activity abstraction
18:17:50 [wilkie]
tantek: the challenges will be similar to those found in interoperating existing formats such as Atom/RSS
18:17:53 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re: URIs for microformat terms?
18:17:55 [tantek]
18:17:58 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:18:52 [hhalpin_]
18:19:00 [elf-pavlik]
Invitation (challenge) addressed at two of Social WG chairs - Tantek & Evan proposing Proving usability of ActivityStreams2.0 and Microformats together by example
18:19:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: not interested in participating in this challenge. I find it condescending and rude. not interested in completing arbitrary challenges. please do not bring it up again. thank you.
18:19:06 [wilkie]
tantek: who is 'you'?
18:19:07 [elf-pavlik]
18:19:09 [KevinMarks]
what was the challenge?
18:19:39 [wilkie]
eprodrom: 'elf-pavlik' There is a github issue. I think I responded. But I do not want this to come up again.
18:20:28 [tantek]
18:20:32 [eprodrom]
I'm mostly frustrated that it's personalized
18:20:33 [wilkie]
tantek: I will point out for the record that previously eprodrom and I have gotten interoperability. there has been no problem in doing so. I'm also not immediately interested in this type of challenge.
18:20:36 [tantek]
ack elf
18:20:37 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss URIs for microformat terms?
18:21:04 [eprodrom]
18:21:06 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: apologies to eprodrom. I thought it would be a pragmatic way to address issues of interop. I will close the github issue and not bring it up again.
18:21:36 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: my question is that if we had clear prefix URIs we could use them in both. anyone who wants to use them can just use them.
18:21:54 [tantek]
18:21:59 [tantek]
ack hhalpin_
18:22:07 [elf-pavlik]
18:22:43 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: I think that's a reasonable way forward. there seems to be a lot of overlap. we have to make a choice. a good way is to choose one and make a union and where there is an overlap use microformats terms instead of making new ones.
18:22:47 [bblfish]
name space idea seems good
18:22:58 [tantek]
18:23:04 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: I don't think it really needs an implementation challenge, we should just make a decision on how we will handle these two vocabularies
18:23:17 [cwebber2]
hhalpin_: I'm all for implementation union etc
18:23:25 [hhalpin_]
Another way to go forward would just be to merge all stable microformats into AS2.0, and then if there's overlap go with microformats term as that already has wide deployment.
18:23:26 [wilkie]
tantek: is that a good enough incremental progress for us to move on?
18:23:27 [cwebber2]
hhalpin_: btw pump does already have deployment, so
18:23:38 [hhalpin_]
Yes, but AS2.0 is still I think a bit more unstable
18:23:43 [cwebber2]
that's true
18:23:43 [wilkie]
bblfish: this namespace idea, does this seem reasonable?
18:23:49 [elf-pavlik]
h:first-name for example
18:23:50 [hhalpin_]
It might be useful to do a straw poll?
18:24:09 [elf-pavlik]
h:card , h:event etc.
18:24:21 [bblfish]
18:24:41 [tantek]
topic: Intended use of as:Profile
18:24:41 [wilkie]
tantek: I don't think we are at the point of taking a straw poll
18:24:48 [tantek]
18:24:59 [wilkie]
tantek: next topic is also proposed by elf-pavlik
18:25:01 [elf-pavlik]
18:25:07 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: from the F2F we discussed the as:profile idea
18:25:37 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: I proposed how it could be used to jasnell that I have my identity on my own domain but I have other profiles elsewhere
18:25:45 [tantek]
18:25:49 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik: I don't know how this is supposed to be used nor is it clear
18:25:49 [eprodrom]
18:25:53 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
18:26:20 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think the idea with as:Profile is that it would be an object (not an actor) that you would be able to do things like update or delete.
18:26:40 [elf-pavlik]
as:Actor rdfs:subClassOf as:Object . (AFAIK)
18:26:45 [Zakim]
18:26:47 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the idea was that instead of having a person object update that same person object to represent profile update, we would have person update profile objecct
18:27:05 [wilkie]
eprodrom: yes, elf-pavlik, those are similar
18:27:18 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we also had tangled in there the concept that you might have a user account with multiple profiles
18:27:42 [wilkie]
eprodrom: or rather a person with multiple profiles so I can have a work profile, friends profile, or maybe a political profile
18:27:44 [tantek]
18:27:48 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we have a few things tangled up in this profile concept
18:28:00 [tantek]
18:28:11 [elf-pavlik]
ok for me to continue on gh
18:28:17 [hhalpin_]
+1 profile objects, -1 'real identity'
18:28:35 [wilkie]
tantek: that brings us to last item about IJSON
18:28:36 [tantek]
topic: I-JSON
18:28:42 [tantek]
18:28:44 [tantek]
ack hhalpin_
18:29:07 [tantek]
"I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON") is a restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that software can process it successfully with predictable results."
18:29:11 [tantek]
18:29:22 [hhalpin_]
18:29:34 [wilkie]
hhalpin_: there are overlap between JSON-LD and I-JSON so we can say in our spec that we will use JSON-LD
18:29:39 [eprodrom]
18:29:46 [eprodrom]
Ah, beat me to it!
18:30:00 [wilkie]
jasnell: the fact that AS relies on JSON-LD means we have to make sure JSON-LD implementations can read the I-JSON subset
18:30:13 [elf-pavlik]
18:30:16 [wilkie]
jasnell: it is possible that JSON-LD implementations to not ~output~ I-JSON compatible documents
18:30:26 [hhalpin_]
We'd have to do some double-checking in the test-suite that we were I-JSON compliant - it's a small issue, but Erik Wilde supported it as a best practice and I tend to do agree.
18:30:31 [elf-pavlik]
18:31:10 [wilkie]
jasnell: AS implementations should try to make I-JSON compatible documents. if consensus suggests we should make an explicit note about it, I'm happy to do that.
18:31:11 [elf-pavlik]
maybe action?
18:31:27 [elf-pavlik]
+1 issue
18:31:31 [elf-pavlik]
18:31:38 [eprodrom]
18:31:54 [wilkie]
tantek: the question is what if anything AS2 should say about I-JSON
18:32:05 [hhalpin_]
Sounds like its a reminder to check implementations for the edge-cases that I-JSON fixes and add a I-JSON check to the AS 2.0 validator.
18:32:05 [tantek]
issue: what if anything should AS2 say about I-JSON? per
18:32:06 [trackbot]
Created ISSUE-43 - What if anything should as2 say about i-json? per Please complete additional details at <>.
18:32:12 [bblfish]
fine for me, but got no idea about ijson
18:32:12 [tantek]
18:32:14 [eprodrom]
18:32:19 [eprodrom]
ha ha!
18:32:23 [eprodrom]
Snuck out of it.
18:32:32 [Zakim]
18:32:33 [wilkie]
tantek: with that we are at the end of the agenda and the end of our call extension time
18:32:40 [Zakim]
18:32:44 [Zakim]
18:32:46 [elf-pavlik]
thanks everyone!
18:32:47 [cwebber2]
thx all!
18:32:48 [Zakim]
18:32:48 [bblfish]
18:32:49 [Zakim]
18:32:50 [Zakim]
18:32:50 [wilkie]
tantek: thanks everybody. next call is next tuesday, June 2nd
18:32:51 [hhalpin_]
trackbot, end meeting
18:32:51 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:32:51 [elf-pavlik]
18:32:51 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk, elf-pavlik, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, Sandro, rhiaro, AdamB, tantek,
18:32:51 [Zakim]
... +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +
18:32:51 [Zakim]
18:32:54 [Loqi]
wilkie has 13 karma
18:32:55 [Zakim]
- +
18:32:56 [Zakim]
18:32:57 [cwebber2]
guess eprodrom and I won't be syncing up ;p
18:32:59 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:32:59 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
18:33:00 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:33:00 [RRSAgent]
I see 1 open action item saved in :
18:33:00 [RRSAgent]
ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [1]
18:33:00 [RRSAgent]
recorded in