16:59:38 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:59:38 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-irc 16:59:40 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:59:40 Zakim has joined #social 16:59:42 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:59:42 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute 16:59:43 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:59:43 Date: 26 May 2015 16:59:52 Zakim, code? 16:59:52 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), hhalpin 17:00:15 hhalpin: didn't say it wasn't. 17:00:37 jasnell, hhaplin: that reinforced to me that we don't need two separate things 17:00:48 zakim, this is socl 17:00:49 ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:00:50 Jasnell, I think the 'activity' model is quite useful 17:00:54 +aaronpk 17:00:55 zakim, who's on the phone? 17:00:55 On the phone I see Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk 17:01:01 rhiaro: they aren't two separate things, that's the point 17:01:10 Activity derives from Object 17:01:11 Zakim, .aaaa is AdamB 17:01:11 sorry, AdamB, I do not recognize a party named '.aaaa' 17:01:19 +??P6 17:01:26 every Activity is just a specialized form of Object with specific semantic detail 17:01:34 Any volunteers with a scribe? 17:01:48 Zakim, pick a victim 17:01:48 + +1.401.305.aabb 17:01:49 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose elf-pavlik (muted) 17:02:13 Zakim, aabb is me 17:02:13 +ben_thatmustbeme; got it 17:02:18 jasnell: raised ithttps://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42 17:02:19 +??P8 17:02:20 ohhhh! it's meeting time 17:02:23 sorry, dialing in 17:02:23 +Sandro 17:02:24 Zakim, mute me 17:02:25 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted 17:02:43 cwebber2++ 17:02:45 cwebber2 has 32 karma 17:02:58 chair: Arnaud 17:03:03 Scribe: aaronpk 17:03:06 Zakim, aaaa is me 17:03:06 +AdamB; got it 17:03:08 +??P10 17:03:13 tantek was here a second ago 17:03:24 scribenick: aaronpk 17:03:34 zakim, ??p10 is me 17:03:34 +tantek; got it 17:03:38 zakim, mute me 17:03:38 tantek should now be muted 17:03:39 s/Arnaud/tantek 17:03:40 + +1.773.614.aacc 17:03:51 Zakim: unmute me 17:03:53 Zakim, +aacc is me 17:03:53 sorry, cwebber2, I do not recognize a party named '+aacc' 17:03:56 zakim, unmute me 17:03:56 tantek should no longer be muted 17:03:59 Zakim, aacc is me 17:04:00 +cwebber2; got it 17:04:33 trackbot, start meeting 17:04:35 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:04:37 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:04:37 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 4 minutes ago 17:04:38 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:04:38 Date: 26 May 2015 17:04:42 Minutes are here: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-12-minutes 17:05:01 tantek: first order of business is approval of 2 weeks ago minutes. any objections? 17:05:05 +1 on approving 17:05:07 +1 17:05:11 +1 17:05:13 +1 17:05:18 +1 17:05:34 tantek: not seeing any objections and some +1s, approved minutes 17:05:41 ... looking at actions pending review 17:05:44 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/pendingreview 17:05:48 TOPIC: actions pending review 17:05:57 action-14 17:05:58 action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:05:58 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/14 17:06:03 tantek: harry anything to report on action 14? 17:06:12 hhalpin: yeah that's been done for a while, the answer is yes 17:06:27 eprodrom has joined #social 17:06:34 action-34 17:06:34 action-34 -- Pavlik elf to add explaination to the spec about multiple serializations used in examples -- due 2015-02-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:06:34 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/34 17:06:47 zakim, this is SOCL 17:06:47 ok, tantek; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 17:07:01 + +1.408.335.aadd 17:07:05 tantek: anything you wanted to point out, elf? 17:07:08 Zakim, unmute me 17:07:08 ben_thatmustbeme should no longer be muted 17:07:18 + +1.514.554.aaee 17:07:19 Zakim, unmute elf-pavlik 17:07:19 elf-pavlik should no longer be muted 17:07:20 zakim, unmute elf-pavlik 17:07:20 Zakim, mute me 17:07:20 elf-pavlik was not muted, tantek 17:07:20 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted 17:07:29 aadd is me 17:07:29 Zakim, aaee is me 17:07:29 +eprodrom; got it 17:07:33 RESOLVED: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-12-minutes are approved 17:07:42 zakim, aadd is me 17:07:42 +KevinMarks; got it 17:08:10 tantek: let's set the status of 34 to open, awaiting a pull request from elf 17:08:16 No updates for me on context URI, given versioning discussion. 17:08:31 action-41 17:08:32 action-41 -- Harry Halpin to Review with wendy to figure out best way forward with microformats -- due 2015-03-10 -- CLOSED 17:08:32 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/41 17:08:44 hhalpin: already completed 17:09:02 tantek: did you record the conclusion in the action? 17:09:08 hhalpin: it was recorded in the issue, but not the action 17:09:12 +[IPcaller] 17:09:15 Zakim, IPcaller is me 17:09:15 +wilkie; got it 17:09:24 I think it's been discussed that normative referening of microformats are OK. 17:09:26 AnnB: is there confusion between 41 and 14? 17:10:03 Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-26]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84249&oldid=84248 17:10:11 hhalpin: the microformats issue is closed as ok to reference, the jsonld one is open in elf and sandro's hands 17:10:24 q+ 17:10:28 we can close action-14 since we have action-63 17:10:28 tantek: if it's in elf and sandro's hands we should open it 17:10:29 They got a new ACTION, happy to close the current one. 17:10:34 hhalpin: we gave them a new action, so can close the current one 17:10:38 action-14 17:10:38 action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:10:38 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/14 17:10:41 sandro has joined #social 17:11:08 issue-38 17:11:08 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/38 17:11:24 pfefferle has joined #social 17:11:37 q? 17:11:43 tantek: sounds like this action is not complete but has outstanding issues to resolve, fine with assigning it to sandro 17:11:56 Sandro? 17:12:18 tantek has joined #social 17:13:22 tantek: that takes us back to 14 17:13:35 q? 17:13:36 q? 17:13:36 ... 41... harry said this one is closed because it's okay to reference microformats 17:13:52 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 .. the other issues are independent of that fact 17:14:14 yep, I put a context document there but wasn't sure if that was right URI due to this versioning discussion 17:14:16 .. that document will need to be updated next time we publish a working draft 17:15:15 I'm happy to close 38 but in terms of a context URI, we do have a functional one 17:15:24 it may not be perfect 17:15:26 tantek: action-51 17:15:27 :) 17:15:27 action-52 17:15:27 action-52 -- Harry Halpin to Discuss re github -- due 2015-03-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW 17:15:27 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/52 17:15:28 tantek: action-52 17:15:32 s/51/52 17:15:41 ... this was also harry 17:16:08 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 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 hhalpin: i can do that 17:17:02 action-60 17:17:02 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/60 17:17:29 elf-pavlik: finished this today, and will send to everyone later today 17:17:45 tantek: thanks elf, let's close this 17:17:57 reading scrollback, surely chess already has a more compact text form than posting boards e2-e4 etc 17:17:57 close action-60 17:17:58 Closed action-60. 17:18:03 trackbot++ 17:18:04 trackbot has 1 karma 17:18:04 Sorry, Loqi, I don't understand 'trackbot has 1 karma'. Please refer to for help. 17:18:15 action-63 17:18:15 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/63 17:18:29 tantek: this is the one it sounds like you were done with 17:18:34 jasnell: i think elf created this and assigned it to me 17:18:48 ... the other conversation abotu whether we need a different URI for versioning. i didn't understand why this was created 17:19:05 .. there's nothing to do except updating the context document when the draft is udpated 17:19:12 elf-pavlik: we can close it, we discussed it after the telcon last week 17:19:20 close action-63 17:19:20 Closed action-63. 17:19:22 tantek: okay if you both agree let's close it 17:19:32 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/pendingreview 17:19:35 TOPIC: issues pending review 17:19:40 tantek: only three! that's good 17:19:44 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/16 17:19:48 issue-16 17:19:48 issue-16 -- better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure -- pending review 17:19:48 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/16 17:20:06 tantek: erik raised this 17:20:25 .. is erik on the call? 17:20:29 we can check with Erik via mailing list to verify if we can close it? 17:20:39 q+ 17:20:42 doen't look like he is in irc either 17:20:47 ack jasnell 17:21:03 jasnell: waiting on specific recommendations. i'm happy to accept pull requests but i haven't received any 17:21:17 .. there were comments on having the spec be structured better but no concrete suggestions 17:21:18 i suggest setting it back to open 17:21:31 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 this looks like a catch-all issue 17:21:51 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 given the number of related emails 17:21:55 -??P15 17:21:56 I would propose without specific feedback we eventually close it 17:22:11 tantek: this issue isn't really actionalbe it sounds like 17:22:23 +1 17:22:24 .. anyone disagree with harry's proposal? 17:22:28 +1 17:22:33 close issue-16 17:22:33 Closed issue-16. 17:22:34 .. let's go ahead and close it 17:22:46 issue-29 17:22:46 issue-29 -- Removing Activity Types not used by User Stories -- pending review 17:22:46 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/29 17:22:53 .. noting that james is happy to accept PRs for specivic feedback 17:22:58 tantek: this sounds like a lot of work 17:23:19 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 Upon first look over, the user types looked pretty close to what was required in user stories 17:23:28 +??P15 17:23:34 Zakim, ??P15 is me 17:23:34 +tsyesika; got it 17:23:38 Zakim, mute me 17:23:38 tsyesika should now be muted 17:23:48 q? 17:24:14 tantek: it sounds like we accepted this and your'esaying that everyone takes an action to remove types? 17:24:24 Should probably be kept open and someone *other* than jasnell should check it 17:24:26 jasnell: i can go throguh it myself, if folks are happy with me making those decisions 17:24:32 " The candidates for removal are: Achieve, Claim, Reservation, Arrive, Travel" 17:24:36 tantek: the issue has a specific list of things to remove 17:24:38 jasnell: those have been removed 17:24:44 Then close it out 17:24:56 tantek: then let's close this as completed, and if there is specific feedback we can look at it later 17:25:05 close issue-29 17:25:05 Closed issue-29. 17:25:17 issue-35 17:25:17 issue-35 -- Simplify the Actor Types -- pending review 17:25:17 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/35 17:25:30 jasnell: we simplified them by removing half of them 17:25:36 tantek: thanks james, let's close this one as well 17:25:46 close issue-35 17:25:46 Closed issue-35. 17:25:49 tantek++ 17:25:52 tantek has 194 karma 17:26:06 tantek: normally we look at raised issues next 17:26:11 TOPIC: raised issues 17:26:26 issue-25 17:26:27 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/25 17:26:37 + +33.6.43.93.aaff 17:26:48 tantek: we should probably accept this as part of the quetsions the group should answer 17:26:52 +1 17:26:57 Again, so far it's JSON-LD mandatory, everything else is optional 17:27:07 +1 17:27:11 Ugh 17:27:15 q+ 17:27:20 0 17:27:20 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised 17:27:20 issue-25 17:27:20 ack eprodrom 17:27:21 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/25 17:27:38 eprodrom: is the question to this group is too complex? 17:27:51 tantek: the question this is asking is the group should decide what syntaxes should be used int he social api 17:28:01 .. we haven't made this decision yet 17:28:16 .. based on some of the discussions, it's reasonable to open this and accept it assuming those folks continue forward 17:28:27 eprodrom: sorry i was mixing up 25 and 35 17:28:28 +1 17:28:29 q? 17:28:33 open issue-25 17:29:01 issue-38 17:29:01 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 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/38 17:29:20 tantek: this was blocking other actions, but james you were saying this was a non issue? 17:29:37 jasnell: we discussed this before, deciding to mint this context uri back in october, we decided not to include versioning information 17:29:57 .. it wa sdecided then to just have a URI that says activitystreams without version 17:29:57 yes fall back! 17:30:05 q+ 17:30:09 q+ 17:30:16 .. and it does mean that when we get to CR we limit backwards incompatible changes 17:30:23 tantek: can you word that as a proposal in IRC? 17:30:26 q- 17:30:26 hhalpin_ has joined #social 17:30:30 jasnell: the proposal is don't open this issue 17:30:35 the_frey has joined #social 17:30:37 q? 17:30:45 ack bblfish 17:30:46 Don't open issues that have been previously closed without very clear reasoning 17:31:17 bblfish, so we're keeping version numbers out of the URI with the current AS 2.0 draft 17:31:24 JSON-LD @context != namespace ! 17:31:33 bblfish: i don't think it's a good idea to pub version numbers in namespaces 17:31:39 ack sandro 17:31:41 only add a version number for breaking chanegs 17:32:01 sandro: once we get to rec, what is the story going to be once we want to make a change 17:32:06 ... this is also a json context uri 17:32:08 let's open it! 17:32:16 q+ 17:32:27 bblfish: is there a way to deprecate terms? 17:32:27 q+ 17:32:31 sandro: foaf is not a recommendation 17:32:40 let's not attempt to solve problems that don't exist yet. AS3 can mint a brand new URI if necessary 17:33:01 q? 17:33:24 tantek: it sounds like what you're saying is there is a path forward that doesn't require version numbers 17:33:29 q- hhalpin 17:33:32 .. so for the purposes of this issue, i'd like to close it summarily 17:33:40 ack elf-pavlik 17:33:43 .. elf harry do you have opinions that warrant opening this? 17:34:07 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 ok, so I don't know how contexts work in json-ld work 17:34:13 q+ 17:34:34 .. 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 .. it's not about hte namespace of the terms but about the jsonld context which isdifferent 17:34:57 bblfish: i think i need to find out what jsonld context are 17:34:58 seems like versioning will remain a dividing issue forever 17:35:07 q+ 17:35:14 i can take action 17:35:19 ack jasnell 17:35:20 tantek: elf it sounds like you think this is enough of an issue that you want it assigned to you 17:35:29 My two cents is if we do a breaking versiioning change, we just use normal W3C process. 17:35:43 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 hhalpin_ I tend to agree 17:35:44 jasnell: I've done my part to suggest dropping something from the spec ;) https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/113 17:35:54 .. they can put it wherever they want, they can put it in the context URL of their implementation 17:36:10 .. using a different context URL is already possible withotu changing our default one 17:36:29 .. 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 q? 17:36:38 .. everything elf wants to do can already be done without making a change to the context URI 17:36:38 that also makes sense 17:37:03 can we open this issue and discuss it further? 17:37:04 .. the context document can live wherever 17:37:09 In particular apps they can change the @context 17:37:18 For application-specific apps 17:37:19 sandro: if you change the bytes in the context you use, then the consumers won't do the right thing 17:37:28 q? 17:37:45 jasnell: the spec says you can create your own context as long as you don't redefine any of thecore terms 17:37:46 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 .. i can create one context document that imports another 17:38:02 .. as long as they don't redefine one of the core terms it's all good 17:38:20 q? 17:38:33 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 jasnell: if those changes are backwards compatible then what's the problem 17:38:45 Q? 17:38:50 -tsyesika 17:38:54 q? 17:39:00 IS this a problem to do with non JSON-LD parsers? 17:39:23 ack hhalpin_ 17:39:27 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 +??P13 17:39:35 .. so the question is do we want to be able to change the terms in the base after we pass CR 17:39:42 Zakim, ??P13 is me 17:39:42 +tsyesika; got it 17:39:43 .. i don't see a good use case for this, since the context is already extensible 17:39:45 Zakim, mute me 17:39:45 tsyesika should now be muted 17:39:54 .. if there is a good case for this then we can visit this after CR and make a note 17:40:10 q? 17:40:14 q+ 17:40:16 ack sandro 17:40:24 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 I think we could discuss this indefinitely :) 17:40:37 tantek: it sounds like there is sufficient debate on this 17:40:54 .. i'm going to propose opening this and assigning to sandro 17:41:05 bblfish: i think it would be a good idea to have a debate on the mailing list about this 17:41:07 action: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs 17:41:07 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 -1 to opening, it's entirely unnecessary to keep open at this point 17:41:18 Maybe an ACTION on Sandro and elf to actually figure out a driving use-case and then edits to the spec? 17:41:26 hhalpin_, i just took action 17:41:29 It's a generic problem bblfish 17:41:38 ok. need to learn more about json-ld 17:41:38 regardless of whether one is using RDF or JSON 17:41:48 tantek: it's hard to not open the issue if people think there is something to debate 17:41:51 They can open it, but they need to have a concrete proposal. 17:42:55 anyone is free to propose closing any dormant issue 17:42:57 issue-39 17:42:57 issue-39 -- Do we need the overall system to be robust even when nodes fail? -- raised 17:42:57 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/39 17:43:06 that is very vague 17:43:31 +1 sandro 17:43:34 ,q 17:43:34 and the chairs propably could probably do a bit of dusting off and come up with a list of such issues 17:43:39 +q 17:43:40 propose extending the call 30 minutes 17:43:50 +1 jasnell 17:43:53 jasnell: +1 17:43:54 last meeting we resolved to do activities at the end, right? 17:43:56 er 17:44:00 issues 17:44:01 agree close it 17:44:01 q+ 17:44:01 Happy to extend for 30 minutes but yes, we've opened a bunch of issues that need closing 17:44:04 q- 17:44:07 tantek: i suggest we close issue 39 because there's no information about who it's from 17:44:11 In general, we should be much more parsimonious with issues 17:44:31 bblfish: usually issues are opened in other groups after debating on the mailing list 17:44:38 ..it seems like here issues are brought up before they are even debated 17:44:39 q? 17:44:40 close issue-39 17:44:40 Closed issue-39. 17:44:43 q- 17:44:46 issue-40 17:44:46 issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- raised 17:44:46 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/40 17:45:00 jasnell: the post activity was part of AS1.0 17:45:00 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 .. as the default activity 17:45:20 .. we have "create" "add" as separate more semantically specific activities 17:45:26 +1 Create over Post 17:45:29 q+ 17:45:29 .. there's obvious confusion with "post" used in other contexts 17:45:37 +1 deprecate Post 17:45:42 .. can be deprecated, doesn't cause much harm and simplifies 17:45:46 tantek: that makes sense, will open this 17:45:47 q- 17:46:08 issue-41 17:46:08 issue-41 -- PubSubHubbub license clarification requires contacting current editor Julien -- raised 17:46:08 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/41 17:46:27 tantek: this one came up because we were mistaken about who was editing pubsubhubbub right now 17:46:41 .. there are some of us who would liek toconsider PuSH in what we're working on 17:46:45 .. harry this probably involves you 17:46:58 hhalpin_: there's a normative dependency between the new version by julien and the old version 17:47:05 .. and because there's no licensing attached to the earlier one 17:47:14 -q 17:47:14 .. the answer is we can reference julien's version informatively no problem 17:47:29 .. but we cannot push it in as a working draft until we clarify bradfitz commits 17:47:34 +1 open 17:47:36 tantek: are you okay with reopening this? 17:47:36 +q 17:47:51 .. i'd like to request you contact julien directly to try to resolve this 17:48:00 hhalpin_: i've already done this once, bradfitz already said no 17:48:05 tantek: because julien is editing this now 17:48:18 > 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 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 from https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-12-minutes 17:48:30 was that for this meeting or for future meetings? 17:48:33 er 17:48:34 that meeting 17:48:36 I think the closest we have is http://web.archive.org/web/20120101132018/http://www.openwebfoundation.org/announcements/introducingtheopenwebfoundationagreement 17:48:51 This has been extensively discussed with W3C before launching the WG. 17:48:52 q+ 17:48:55 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 -1 to opening this issue at this time until it's clear new information is available 17:49:03 sandro: would you like me to take this? 17:49:08 https://www.w3.org/community/pubsub/ 17:49:16 action sandro to follow up with Julien regarding Pubsubhubbub licensing 17:49:16 Created ACTION-66 - Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-06-02]. 17:49:17 -q 17:49:22 +1 to sorting this out with julien 17:49:32 tantek: the new information is that we should have contacted julien in the first place, not brad 17:49:46 .. rather than making assumptions about the spec we should have contacted the author 17:49:47 q- 17:49:56 action-66 17:49:56 action-66 -- Sandro Hawke to Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing -- due 2015-06-02 -- OPEN 17:49:56 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/66 17:50:00 tantek: let's close the issue with the related action 17:50:21 issue-42 17:50:21 issue-42 17:50:21 issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised 17:50:21 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42 17:50:21 issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised 17:50:23 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42 17:50:51 +q 17:51:02 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 .. there's nothing this group can do, it's a w3c issue 17:51:28 Arnaud: is there a link to this? 17:51:31 new license? 17:51:36 Arnaud: there's a new license doc that will allow re-use 17:51:47 .. in that AC meeting it was reported, so that should solve itself 17:52:10 Yes, but lots of groups will do that so it's not a big deal 17:52:11 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 .. 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 +1 extend call 17:52:34 tantek: there was a request to extend the call 17:52:37 +1 to extend 17:52:39 I would be fine with extending 17:52:41 +1 to extend 17:52:42 +1 17:52:43 +1 17:52:50 +1 17:52:51 +0, it depends on how rhiaro and tsyesika and aaronpk feel 17:52:54 -0 i have to go at 11 17:52:55 okay it's extended :) 17:53:09 Aaron is also probably needed to help do API discussion 17:53:16 welllllllllllll, doesn't this involve aaron as part of this conversation? 17:53:25 I also have to go, but am fine with extending 17:53:29 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 tantek: let's go ahead and extend 17:53:35 tantek: wait 17:53:37 aaron would need to be yep cwebber2 and hhalpin_ 17:53:39 Arnaud: that hasn't been a problem for me in the past 17:53:49 we did this before and I was able to get back on 17:53:52 I can scribe 17:53:54 q? 17:53:56 wilkie++ 17:53:57 thanks wilkie 17:53:59 wilkie has 12 karma 17:54:03 cwebber2: is aaron required for the items we have? 17:54:12 hhalpin_: there's the api discussion and the microformat/rdf discussion 17:54:22 yep 17:54:26 let's do it 17:54:28 scribenick: wilkie 17:54:43 https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/blob/master/README.md 17:54:43 topic: Social API 17:54:46 tantek: that brings us to social API 17:54:50 q? 17:54:50 aaron and rhiaro, could you intro this? 17:54:53 tantek: who wants to go first 17:54:56 ack cwebber2 17:54:57 -tsyesika 17:55:02 tantek: let's ack cwebber2 17:55:17 ack aaronpk 17:55:20 cwebber2: my +q was from earlier. I suggest either aaron or amy go first. 17:55:29 +??P13 17:55:36 aaronpk: I'm going to assume people haven't read this yet 17:55:40 tantek: assume they have read it 17:55:43 Zakim, ??P13 is me 17:55:43 +tsyesika; got it 17:55:45 I also made some changes to it within the last hour, sorry :p 17:55:46 Zakim, mute me 17:55:46 tsyesika should now be muted 17:55:52 (people were supposed to have read it from last week) 17:55:53 aaronpk: my goal with this was to collect examples of what micropub would look like in json 17:56:08 aaronpk: to look at the parts of it that were awkward or caused 'discomfort' with people 17:56:21 read what? URL? Amy's post? 17:56:24 http://rhiaro.co.uk/2015/05/micropubbing-with 17:56:35 rhiaro++ 17:56:37 rhiaro has 98 karma 17:56:37 aaronpk++ 17:56:40 aaronpk has 818 karma 17:56:43 aaronpk: amy did a much thorough comparison she just published. i've only had a brief chance to look over it. 17:56:44 for doing these 17:56:47 rhiaro++ 17:56:50 rhiaro has 99 karma 17:56:51 also rhiaro's post is really awesome 17:56:52 aaronpk++ 17:56:54 aaronpk has 819 karma 17:57:00 aaronpk: rhiaro? anything you could add to this? 17:57:01 does rhiaro have voice? 17:57:04 ack rhiaro 17:57:09 -q 17:57:09 q+ re: next steps on that? 17:57:10 -ben_thatmustbeme 17:57:57 q? 17:57:59 Q+ 17:57:59 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 q? 17:58:15 rhiaro: would love to hear anybody else's feedback 17:58:18 ack elf-pavlik 17:58:19 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss next steps on that? 17:58:21 tantek: elf? 17:58:25 https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/issues 17:58:30 +ben_thatmustbeme 17:58:34 elf-pavlik: thank you rhiaro and aaronpk for working on that. I already created a few issues. 17:58:38 Zakim, mute me 17:58:38 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted 17:58:48 elf-pavlik: my question would be: "what are the next steps on this topic?" 17:58:55 q? 17:59:00 tantek: response? 17:59:12 rhiaro: I think the next steps are for people to start publishing stuff 17:59:19 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Deployments 17:59:21 ack bblfish 17:59:22 tantek: sounds reasonable 17:59:27 tantek: henry go ahead 17:59:37 q+ 17:59:39 tilgovi has joined #social 17:59:39 q? 17:59:41 bblfish: there's interest in LDP being tied in 17:59:44 bblfish: I don't see how you can get LDP tied into that 17:59:52 bblfish: could you help? 17:59:56 rhiaro: I haven't thought about LDP yet. haven't had time. 18:00:07 bblfish: is it part of your plan? are you thinking of it? 18:00:29 Pull Requests :) 18:00:34 rhiaro: yes. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. haven't had much feedback from those involved with LDP. 18:00:34 pullrequests++ 18:00:36 pullrequests has 2 karma 18:00:42 q+ 18:01:12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Self-identified_issues_with_API_candidates 18:01:14 jasnell: there's a section on the github on this that can be expanded for comparison 18:01:15 ack eprodrom 18:01:25 s/jasnell/aaronpk 18:01:55 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 all verbs are nouns now ;) 18:02:14 cwebber2++ 18:02:17 cwebber2 has 33 karma 18:02:24 eprodrom: I agree, like activity vs like post are the same 18:02:31 eprodrom: the difference between like-type activity and like-type post as being very small and insignificant 18:02:37 -Ann 18:02:53 q? 18:02:54 eprodrom: we should not ignore the rest of the scope of our user stories and over focus on CRUD type interactions 18:03:06 eprodrom: (pre-meeting-end, request that before you disappear that we sync up on implementation stuff) 18:03:08 Zakim, unmute me 18:03:08 rhiaro should no longer be muted 18:03:25 eprodrom: I did put up the flask thing, and I'm working on some scheme stuff on my own time too :) 18:03:34 aaronpk: CRUD is a good place to start, I feel, but we need to move ahead of it quickly 18:03:35 cwebber2: thanks, I appreciate it 18:03:40 Sorry I haven't dug into too much 18:03:48 q? 18:03:51 ack hhalpin_ 18:03:51 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 has joined #social 18:04:24 hhalpin_: I was wondering (I sent an email) if we could eventually get an editor's first draft out. 18:04:54 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 +1 18:05:14 q? 18:05:15 yeah, I agree with aaronpk re: vocab 18:05:19 that's what I was going to say 18:05:25 i also agree for what it's worth 18:05:29 q+ 18:05:43 ack eprodrom 18:06:24 eprodrom, we have another point on agenda for today about that :) 18:06:27 usecases++ 18:06:28 usecases has 1 karma 18:06:32 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 eprodrom: we need some decisions around vocabulary in there 18:06:45 Agreed, we'll need to tie it all the use-cases and specify examples with vocabularies *before* FPWD publication 18:06:54 +1 for incremental progress 18:06:55 However, starting the editors' draft ASAP may help us reach that point 18:06:56 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 eprodrom: I agree, and I think aaronpk is right re: incremental progress 18:07:01 q+ re: vocab for editor's draft 18:07:05 q? 18:07:10 ack q 18:07:12 -KevinMarks 18:07:14 aaronpk: I totally agree, just need to look at places for incremental progress 18:07:19 ack tantek 18:07:19 tantek, you wanted to discuss vocab for editor's draft 18:07:21 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 tantek: I agree if people saw an abstract draft that it would not look good 18:07:44 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 progress++ 18:08:02 q? 18:08:03 we can jump into this dicussion right now :) 18:08:04 q+ 18:08:05 progress has 4 karma 18:08:10 Bravo to rhiaro tsyesika and aaronpk 18:08:14 hhalpin_: it's not the only difference but it's certainly a sticking point 18:08:20 indeed! 18:08:27 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 we could go forward with some decisions about vocab with some 'at risk' until a decision is made 18:08:30 The question is there any sticking points in terms of syntax (HTTP CRUD and end-points?) 18:08:39 I didn't see any per se 18:08:45 tantek: would rather see that convergence 18:08:50 minus the form encoding 18:08:54 q? 18:09:04 ack bblfish 18:09:07 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 Would love someone to drop LDP into that table 18:09:34 That's what I thought was well, so we're probably fine in terms minus the form-encoding of micropub 18:09:58 hhalpin_, that's ironic, because form-encoding is part of what makes micropub "micro" 18:10:01 did zakim hang me up? 18:10:04 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 q? 18:10:19 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 bblfish: that's the one thing I feel isn't addressed here, but perhaps I just looked too quickly 18:10:32 I would be happy to see form encoding, as I think developers want it, although REST folks might be unhappy 18:10:38 tantek: hhalpin_ seems to be discussing things in irc. anything for the record? 18:10:49 -tsyesika 18:10:59 ugh i dropped off 18:11:04 hhalpin_: minus the form encoding bit there isn't much difference between micropub/pump as far as syntax 18:11:10 bye for now! 18:11:16 -aaronpk 18:11:16 tantek: questions before moving to next topic? 18:11:20 +??P0 18:11:25 me 18:11:26 i dropped off 18:11:30 topic: Does as:Follow result in as:Subscribe? 18:11:32 Zakim, ??P0 is me 18:11:32 +tsyesika; got it 18:11:35 Zakim, mute me 18:11:35 tsyesika should now be muted 18:11:39 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Does_as:Follow_result_in_as:Subscribe.3F 18:11:42 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe 18:11:43 ack elf-pavlik 18:11:58 elf-pavlik: we had this conversation on the mailing list 18:12:12 elf-pavlik: this is about the distinction between following somebody and following their channels 18:12:14 -tantek 18:12:39 elf-pavlik: there is little clarity that if I follow somebody, what am I subscribing to? 18:12:39 +??P3 18:12:46 zakim, ??P3 is me 18:12:46 +tantek; got it 18:12:49 elf-pavlik: I don't know if anybody has had a chance to look at it. I posted it quite late. 18:12:50 following objects and subscribing to objects are exactly the same thing really 18:12:52 q? 18:13:14 you can follow a person, you can follow a feed, you can follow any kind of resource 18:13:21 jasnell: I agree with what you say 18:13:22 tantek: do people need to review the diagram? 18:13:29 elf-pavlik: I think it would be helpful 18:13:34 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 action all review https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe 18:13:41 Error finding 'all'. You can review and register nicknames at . 18:13:42 tantek: let's action that people review the diagram 18:13:58 -ben_thatmustbeme 18:14:14 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 topic: Social Syntax 18:14:22 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Aligning_AS2.0_and_Microformats 18:14:29 tantek: that takes us to the next topic: social syntax, and subtopic: aligning as2 and microformats 18:14:57 "works on" is a bit strong :p 18:15:29 also related https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Microformats_Mapping 18:15:41 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 has joined #social 18:16:17 q+ 18:16:38 +KevinMarks 18:16:38 tantek: we looked at this before and made a table of equivalences on the wiki 18:16:46 +ben_thatmustbeme 18:16:50 Zakim, mute me 18:16:50 ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted 18:16:51 tantek: we saw that microformats was a proper subset of AS concepts 18:17:23 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 tantek: the challenges will be similar to those found in interoperating existing formats such as Atom/RSS 18:17:53 q+ re: URIs for microformat terms? 18:17:55 q? 18:17:58 ack eprodrom 18:18:52 q+ 18:19:00 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 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 tantek: who is 'you'? 18:19:07 https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web/issues/1 18:19:09 what was the challenge? 18:19:39 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 q? 18:20:32 I'm mostly frustrated that it's personalized 18:20:33 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 ack elf 18:20:37 elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss URIs for microformat terms? 18:21:04 q- 18:21:06 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 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 q? 18:21:59 ack hhalpin_ 18:22:07 http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#compact-iris 18:22:43 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 name space idea seems good 18:22:58 q? 18:23:04 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 hhalpin_: I'm all for implementation union etc 18:23:25 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 tantek: is that a good enough incremental progress for us to move on? 18:23:27 hhalpin_: btw pump does already have deployment, so 18:23:38 Yes, but AS2.0 is still I think a bit more unstable 18:23:43 that's true 18:23:43 bblfish: this namespace idea, does this seem reasonable? 18:23:49 h:first-name for example 18:23:50 It might be useful to do a straw poll? 18:24:09 h:card , h:event etc. 18:24:21 cool 18:24:41 topic: Intended use of as:Profile 18:24:41 tantek: I don't think we are at the point of taking a straw poll 18:24:48 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Intended_use_of_as:Profile 18:24:59 tantek: next topic is also proposed by elf-pavlik 18:25:01 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/112 18:25:07 elf-pavlik: from the F2F we discussed the as:profile idea 18:25:37 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 q? 18:25:49 elf-pavlik: I don't know how this is supposed to be used nor is it clear 18:25:49 q+ 18:25:53 ack eprodrom 18:26:20 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 as:Actor rdfs:subClassOf as:Object . (AFAIK) 18:26:45 -tsyesika 18:26:47 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 eprodrom: yes, elf-pavlik, those are similar 18:27:18 eprodrom: we also had tangled in there the concept that you might have a user account with multiple profiles 18:27:42 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 q? 18:27:48 eprodrom: we have a few things tangled up in this profile concept 18:28:00 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/112 18:28:11 ok for me to continue on gh 18:28:17 +1 profile objects, -1 'real identity' 18:28:35 tantek: that brings us to last item about IJSON 18:28:36 topic: I-JSON 18:28:42 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#I-JSON_discussion 18:28:44 ack hhalpin_ 18:29:07 "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 from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493 18:29:22 http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159 18:29:34 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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159 18:29:46 Ah, beat me to it! 18:30:00 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 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015May/0066.html 18:30:16 jasnell: it is possible that JSON-LD implementations to not ~output~ I-JSON compatible documents 18:30:26 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 q+ 18:31:10 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 maybe action? 18:31:27 +1 issue 18:31:31 q- 18:31:38 q+ 18:31:54 tantek: the question is what if anything AS2 should say about I-JSON 18:32:05 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 issue: what if anything should AS2 say about I-JSON? per https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#I-JSON_discussion 18:32:06 Created ISSUE-43 - What if anything should as2 say about i-json? per https://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg/2015-05-26#i-json_discussion. Please complete additional details at . 18:32:12 fine for me, but got no idea about ijson 18:32:12 q? 18:32:14 q- 18:32:19 ha ha! 18:32:23 Snuck out of it. 18:32:32 -eprodrom 18:32:33 tantek: with that we are at the end of the agenda and the end of our call extension time 18:32:40 -jasnell 18:32:44 -Marilyn 18:32:46 thanks everyone! 18:32:47 thx all! 18:32:48 -Sandro 18:32:48 wave 18:32:49 -ben_thatmustbeme 18:32:50 -Arnaud 18:32:50 tantek: thanks everybody. next call is next tuesday, June 2nd 18:32:51 trackbot, end meeting 18:32:51 Zakim, list attendees 18:32:51 wilkie++ 18:32:51 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 ... +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +33.6.43.93.aaff 18:32:51 -AdamB 18:32:54 wilkie has 13 karma 18:32:55 - +33.6.43.93.aaff 18:32:56 -rhiaro 18:32:57 guess eprodrom and I won't be syncing up ;p 18:32:59 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 18:32:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-minutes.html trackbot 18:33:00 RRSAgent, bye 18:33:00 I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-actions.rdf : 18:33:00 ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [1] 18:33:00 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-irc#T17-41-07