IRC log of social on 2015-11-03

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:59:19 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:59:19 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:59:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:59:23 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:59:23 [Zakim]
I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
17:59:24 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:59:24 [trackbot]
Date: 03 November 2015
17:59:38 [Shane_]
Made dinner, ready at 1 minute to the hour. That is good timing!
18:00:08 [azaroth]
azaroth has joined #social
18:00:32 [azaroth]
Present+ Rob_Sanderson
18:00:35 [aaronpk]
18:00:42 [Arnaud]
18:00:52 [Shane_]
18:01:10 [cwebber2]
present+ cwebber
18:01:10 [aaronpk]
someone is really noisy on the call
18:01:30 [cwebber2]
Zakim, who's making... oh
18:01:30 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'who's making... oh', cwebber2
18:01:34 [cwebber2]
we miss you Zakim !
18:01:46 [azaroth]
18:01:48 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 51 karma
18:02:20 [tantek]
present+ tantek
18:02:39 [wilkie]
present+ wilkie
18:02:41 [sandro]
present+ sandro
18:02:48 [rene]
18:03:19 [Shane_]
I can scribe
18:03:50 [eprodrom]
Sorry, is the code still SOCL?
18:04:14 [Arnaud]
no, you need to follow the link from the meeting page
18:04:25 [Arnaud]
we can't type it here or it will be public
18:04:26 [Shane_]
scribeNick: Shane_
18:04:31 [aaronpk]
it's in the channel topic O.o
18:04:41 [wilkie]
haha it's in the title
18:04:47 [Shane_]
18:05:22 [eprodrom]
present+ eprodrom
18:05:27 [hhalpin]
Yep, I put in there just while people we're dialing in - will change it once we get everyone in.
18:05:30 [jasnell]
18:05:43 [cwebber2]
yeah I got in with no password
18:06:00 [Shane_]
I normally need don't need a password but did this time
18:06:25 [tantek]
tantek has changed the topic to: Today's agenda:
18:06:47 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
18:06:47 [RRSAgent]
18:07:12 [tantek]
tantek has changed the topic to: Today's agenda: IRC logs:
18:07:28 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 2015-10-20
18:07:44 [eprodrom]
Scanning now
18:07:52 [eprodrom]
18:07:54 [cwebber2]
I think the standard procedure is drop on irc and everyone scrambles to review :)
18:07:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+ ben_thatmustbeme
18:08:06 [eprodrom]
+1 looks complete
18:08:09 [tantek]
18:08:10 [cwebber2]
+1 on approval
18:08:10 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 2015-10-20
18:08:12 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 52 karma
18:08:34 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Quickly another reminder about face to face meeting, if you haven't done so please indicate your attendance.
18:08:50 [Shane_]
... we will soon start working on logistics for the face to face
18:09:14 [hhalpin_]
hhalpin_ has joined #social
18:09:15 [tantek]
with AnnB and rhiaro !
18:09:16 [Shane_]
... Tantek entertained a breakout session at TPAC, about 25 people or so at the session
18:09:21 [tantek]
rhiaro took minutes
18:09:46 [Shane_]
...Not much to take away from the working group, but worth reading through the minutes
18:10:07 [Shane_]
tantek: The discussion was very lively and had interest for participation in the WG
18:10:34 [tantek]
18:10:59 [Shane_]
...Photo there, you can see lots of people there. You can see Tim Berners-Lee attended, it was very animated
18:11:05 [tantek]
rhiaro's minutes in IRC:
18:11:14 [Shane_]
Arnaud: The primary goal was to advertise the WG and any new members so much the better
18:11:41 [Shane_]
... Trying to streamline the discussion on the agenda
18:12:03 [Shane_]
... Evan has voluntered to be a co-editor
18:12:11 [jasnell]
+1 to Evan being co-editor
18:12:17 [Shane_]
... If anyone is concerned, let us know
18:12:17 [cwebber2]
massive +1 to Evan being co-editor
18:12:18 [azaroth]
+1 and Evan++
18:12:33 [hhalpin_]
18:12:37 [rene]
18:12:42 [Shane_]
Evan: My only question is if there is any conflict with being a chair and co-editor?
18:12:57 [cwebber2]
I'm also happy to be an editor if that would be helpful, though I think Evan + James is more than sufficient
18:13:03 [wilkie]
18:13:03 [hhalpin_]
Its unusual but three chairs is also unusual.
18:13:13 [Shane_]
Arnaud: If you are willing to put in the time it takes, you are very welcome
18:13:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:13:24 [eprodrom]
18:13:25 [tantek]
18:13:26 [eprodrom]
Thanks everyone
18:13:27 [cwebber2]
18:13:29 [hhalpin_]
I would suggest that if you feel there is a conflict of interest between the two roles, you simply tell the other chairs and editor.
18:14:28 [Shane_]
Arnaud: I sent an email about the agenda, there was a lot of different proposals regarding AS 2.0 and it would be time consuming to go through them one by one
18:14:28 [jasnell]
in the batch of "proposed to accept", let's pull [Activity Streams 2.0] Proposal: Remove @context from all examples - (Ben) out separately.
18:14:49 [azaroth]
+1 to separating 233, per email
18:14:54 [hhalpin_]
present+ hhalpin
18:14:57 [Shane_]
... I took the liberty to bunch together some propsals, proposing to approve all as a batch
18:15:10 [Shane_]
... If you have any concerns with any one proposal, say so. No need to justify now
18:16:04 [Shane_]
... Please speak up, otherwise we will vote on the rest and hopefully agree these are the proposals, then focus on the others on a more systematic approach
18:16:15 [cwebber2]
yay to the idea of resolving many proposals at once :)
18:16:18 [Loqi]
18:16:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q+ removal of @context example
18:16:37 [cwebber2]
ben_thatmustbeme: heh!
18:16:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q- removal of @context example
18:16:43 [cwebber2]
q- removal
18:16:49 [Shane_]
Arnaud: There are proposals from a few people
18:17:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
that one has had a fair number of -1s
18:17:20 [cwebber2]
q- m4nu
18:17:37 [jasnell]
The Proposal then is to approve: #220, #218, #225, #226, #227, #213, #229, and #232
18:18:07 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Is there any request for removal from that batch?
18:18:14 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve the following proposals: #220, #218, #225, #226, #227, #213, #229, and #232
18:18:19 [cwebber2]
18:18:21 [jasnell]
18:18:21 [azaroth]
18:18:23 [rene]
18:18:24 [Shane_]
18:18:28 [aaronpk]
18:18:37 [tantek]
18:18:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
wait, that list is missing 223
18:18:45 [aaronpk]
that's correct
18:18:48 [tantek]
it's missing 233
18:18:48 [cwebber2]
ben_thatmustbeme: that's up for seaprate discussion
18:18:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:18:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:19:04 [tantek]
the remove @context from all examples - postponed to specific discussion after this poll
18:19:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
wasn't sure the way it was nested
18:19:11 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Ben, we can look at that one next
18:19:20 [wilkie]
18:19:28 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve the following proposals: #220, #218, #225, #226, #227, #213, #229, and #232
18:19:30 [eprodrom]
18:19:36 [cwebber2]
whooo, talk about getting stuff done!
18:19:55 [tantek]
Aside: I think that was a reasonable improvement on the flat/FIFO agenda building.
18:20:03 [Arnaud]
[Activity Streams 2.0] Proposal: `mediaType` on Content objects - (James)
18:20:04 [Loqi]
Hhalpin made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]]
18:20:05 [Loqi]
Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-20-minutes]]
18:20:09 [kevinmarks]
18:20:57 [Shane_]
jasnell: This proposal is from Elf, he may be able to explain it better. It is about whether we need object types for Blob, such as image data. We already have Image and Video but that is for describing metadata of the image. The proposal is about the actual data.
18:21:04 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Elf is not on today
18:21:18 [Shane_]
jasnell: Defer it until he is here
18:21:23 [cwebber2]
elves with invisibility cloaks
18:21:24 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Unless anyone else wants to speak up?
18:21:48 [Shane_]
jasnell: #229 should cover it, but will wait for Elf
18:21:58 [Shane_]
Arnaud: There is the @context, do we want to start with that one?
18:22:38 [kevinmarks]
just the 9 digit one
18:22:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q+ to say that I'm okay to waiting for this on non-telcon time
18:22:47 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Happy to leave it to those who are involved in the discussion, if they would gain from using the teleconference time
18:22:50 [tantek]
18:22:52 [Arnaud]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
18:22:52 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme, you wanted to say that I'm okay to waiting for this on non-telcon time
18:22:53 [kevinmarks]
POTS via google
18:22:55 [tantek]
18:23:08 [jasnell]
18:23:14 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:23:15 [Shane_]
ben_thatmustbeme: I'm ok with not wasting time on it. Sounds like annotations group are going to go other direction on it
18:23:39 [Shane_]
tantek: The only thing I was going to add is since we have rob and ben on the phone it may be good to have the chance for them to discuss it
18:23:50 [jasnell]
18:24:39 [Shane_]
Rob: The annotations group originally left them off to make samples clearer, we reversed it on the grounds of developers being likely to cut and paste and make sure their code produces code that looks like the samples. Which is not what we wanted to end up with
18:24:47 [Shane_]
... We haven't yet published the reversal
18:24:49 [tantek]
18:25:03 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Ben, since the discussion is still going do you want to respond?
18:25:16 [jasnell]
fwiw, I'm -1 on #233. having the @context there doesn't hurt and is beneficial
18:25:23 [Shane_]
Ben: I'm ok with leaving them there, there have been several -1s so I would be ok leaving them there
18:25:34 [jasnell]
paying attention to @context is optional for *some* users
18:25:37 [jasnell]
not all
18:25:43 [Shane_]
... James has said context is optional in the past, based on other arguments people say it must be there for JSON-LD
18:25:45 [cwebber2]
18:25:48 [wilkie]
shouldn't it use a default context when absent?
18:25:59 [cwebber2]
18:26:04 [Shane_]
Arnaud: There are people pushing for just JSON. We should not tie this question to the bigger issue
18:26:08 [jasnell]
wilkie: it does
18:26:12 [Shane_]
... We should separate the discussions
18:26:15 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:26:25 [wilkie]
jasnell: ok. that makes it seem like less a big deal either way then.
18:26:31 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Keep @context from all examples - (Ben)
18:26:43 [jasnell]
+1 to keeping @context
18:26:49 [azaroth]
18:26:54 [rene]
18:26:58 [tantek]
18:27:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:27:01 [cwebber2]
I agree taht we need to have that other discussion
18:27:03 [wilkie]
18:27:05 [cwebber2]
18:27:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i can live with it
18:27:13 [Shane_]
+0 I have no reason not to, not a big fan though
18:27:22 [aaronpk]
18:27:26 [melvster]
18:28:03 [azaroth]
q+ to clarify
18:28:13 [Shane_]
jasnell: The annotations working group have the option of requring JSON-LD things, in this WG we decided to say JSON as in charter but never required JSON-LD
18:28:19 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think the points you're raising are important, I agree with Arnaud that we need to have that larger conversation to clarify this
18:28:28 [jasnell]
Shane_ that's not me talking
18:28:42 [Shane_]
Oh whoops, it is ben then?
18:28:52 [cwebber2]
Shane_: it was tantek
18:29:03 [Shane_]
oops, sorry!
18:29:08 [rene]
looking at the current drafts it seems a lot like JSON-LD is the primary serialization the WG is looking at
18:29:14 [Shane_]
Arnaud: It was approved by the working group
18:29:30 [Shane_]
tantek: Then we have a difference between a couple of the chairs, we can discuss later
18:29:33 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Keep @context from all examples - (Ben)
18:29:33 [kevinmarks]
at the time we discussed JSON-LD we were told that @context was optional
18:29:39 [Shane_]
Arnaud: I can live with a 0 and so will call it resolved
18:29:41 [cwebber2]
kevinmarks: it is optional still
18:29:43 [azaroth]
18:29:54 [Arnaud]
Proposal: Remove "hreflang" -
18:29:54 [cwebber2]
kevinmarks: maybe it can be better clarified in the docs, I need to re-look
18:29:59 [Shane_]
Arnaud: A proposal to remove href lang
18:30:00 [cwebber2]
the context is implied, so
18:30:11 [tantek]
right kevinmarks, we only ever resolved that optional JSON-LD was ok. I don't remember ever resolving to require JSONLD in AS2. If we did then we have bigger problems. :/
18:30:25 [azaroth]
kevinmarks, cwebber2: +1 to clarifying. 1.2 of AS-core implies it's required, at least to me
18:30:29 [cwebber2]
what we resolved in boston iirc
18:30:30 [Shane_]
cwebber2: The object wasn't designed to have parity, the justification for removing it hasn't been made
18:30:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:30:35 [cwebber2]
was that the context was implied
18:30:35 [kevinmarks]
right, cwebber2 - the implied @context was the way to map the JSON to JSON-LD for those who want it
18:30:37 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Ok, anyone wants to speak to the flip side?
18:30:38 [Arnaud]
ack ben_thatmustbeme
18:30:39 [cwebber2]
and that way
18:30:43 [cwebber2]
you could have json-ld
18:30:57 [cwebber2]
but someone who just has json can just use json
18:31:12 [azaroth]
q+ to agree with jasnell that it's useful
18:31:15 [Shane_]
Ben: I can't see how it is useful, yes it is in html but so is a lot of things. We should prove useful not what's not useful. You can't prove a negative
18:31:16 [tantek]
+1 on being required to prove that it is useful
18:31:26 [hhalpin_]
I think you can prove a 'negative' if its not used by developers in the wild.
18:31:29 [cwebber2]
so simultaneously it's both json-ld but not needing to be json-ld
18:31:36 [hhalpin_]
That's an empirical question, but we're a bit early here.
18:31:46 [hhalpin_]
We could see if href was heavily used in Atom though.
18:31:50 [azaroth]
18:31:55 [hhalpin_]
18:32:06 [Shane_]
Ben: I didn't see anything very conclusive, I didn't see anything in the language spec/best practises spec that was published
18:32:19 [azaroth]
18:32:45 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Are you saying you don't buy it as being valid?
18:32:47 [hhalpin_]
18:32:50 [wilkie]
if you remove this, how does an extension add it back?
18:32:50 [Shane_]
Ben: Not really
18:33:02 [Arnaud]
ack azaroth
18:33:02 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to agree with jasnell that it's useful
18:33:02 [jasnell]
it's not new...
18:33:22 [tantek]
can we postpone it from AS2? whose implementation needs this?
18:33:41 [Shane_]
azaroth: We had the same use case with the same outcome, we useful DC language but the result is the same
18:33:55 [Shane_]
... The language are not available by content negotiation
18:34:14 [Arnaud]
ack hhalpin_
18:34:19 [Shane_]
...The annotation might be the only source of language, you may not know which source to use
18:34:32 [melvster]
tantek: JSON LD generic processing would require @context -- list of adopters:
18:34:50 [wilkie]
there needs to be some space for this functionality for this exact thing as extension if it is removed
18:35:03 [kevinmarks]
+1 on deleting things not used in practice
18:35:06 [Shane_]
hhalpin_: Examples are easy to make. We may be premature in using hreflang, if there are elements that are not used once we go through them then they should be removed from the AS 2.0 spec or the vocab
18:35:08 [jasnell]
18:35:21 [tantek]
melvster: JSON LD generic processing is not a requirement for any our WG deliverables
18:35:28 [Shane_]
Arnaud: If there are certain features that no one wants to implement then we will delete them
18:35:29 [tantek]
therefore it cannot assert requirements on any specs
18:35:34 [jasnell]
18:35:34 [hhalpin_]
That being said, making the spec as simple as possible in the beginning (rather than as complex as possible, as we get with some specs) helps you get implementers for CR!
18:35:43 [Arnaud]
Proposal: keep "hreflang" -, revisit at CR
18:35:45 [Shane_]
Ben: I'm ok waiting till CR
18:35:46 [cwebber2]
+1 to revisiting at CR
18:35:50 [azaroth]
q+ to suggest maintaining at-risk list
18:35:52 [azaroth]
18:35:54 [azaroth]
18:36:01 [hhalpin_]
Marking it 'at risk' makes sense
18:36:04 [rene]
18:36:07 [Shane_]
+1 to at risk
18:36:08 [hhalpin_]
18:36:27 [melvster]
18:36:29 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: keep "hreflang" -, marking it "AT RISK"
18:36:33 [jasnell]
18:36:39 [azaroth]
+1 to keep, at risk
18:36:48 [cwebber2]
+1 to keep and put it at risk
18:36:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:36:54 [cwebber2]
that seems reasonable to me
18:36:54 [aaronpk]
18:36:58 [melvster]
18:37:05 [wilkie]
if we remove it, and yeah maybe it shouldn't be in core, but it's too hard someone to put back in, then that'd be bad for international implementations and bilingual usages.
18:37:06 [jasnell]
+1 to keeping, -0 to marking at risk
18:37:07 [Shane_]
18:37:09 [tantek]
+0 would prefer to drop early, but ok with at-risk to keep things moving forward
18:37:27 [wilkie]
+1 keep, 0 to mark at risk
18:37:45 [Shane_]
Arnaud: It allows you to drop things without cycling through the whole discussion again
18:37:50 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: keep "hreflang" -, marking it "AT RISK"
18:38:04 [Arnaud]
Proposal: Object partOf Collection -
18:38:14 [wilkie]
I only want it because it makes it more obvious there can be multiple representations of objects :)
18:38:15 [Shane_]
Arnaud: We don't have Amy on the call today
18:39:28 [Shane_]
jasnell: Previously we had a memberOf property, that was removed as there wasn't any interest at the time. When we revisited the paging model, part of that was indicating the model of the current page.
18:39:49 [Shane_]
Arnaud: So it is two-fold, should we have this information back should we piggy back or bring old name back
18:40:11 [kevinmarks]
how is this different from using categories/tags?
18:40:12 [Shane_]
jasnell: There are memberOf in other vocabs, so could use one of those as extension
18:40:24 [azaroth]
18:40:26 [Shane_]
Arnaud: It sounds like she wants the relationship but doesn't care about the name
18:40:31 [Arnaud]
ack azaroth
18:40:45 [tantek]
q+ to ask which one is closer to AS1/JSON if either?
18:41:00 [jasnell]
tantek: AS1 did not have a memberOf property at all
18:41:27 [Shane_]
Rob: It would be valuable, regarding the memberOf and other vocabularies, my understanding is that AS has long since decided to create its own vocabulary regardless of other exisiting. So it shouldn't affect us here.
18:41:40 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:41:40 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask which one is closer to AS1/JSON if either?
18:41:40 [Shane_]
...With my annotations WG head on, this would be very useful to us
18:41:52 [kevinmarks]
in AS1 it was implicit
18:41:59 [eprodrom]
unfortunately I have to drop off
18:41:59 [kevinmarks]
as there were many streams
18:42:11 [eprodrom]
Will read the minutes
18:42:14 [Shane_]
Tantek: I was wondering if there is any precedant in AS 1 that could help our decision
18:42:22 [Shane_]
jasnell: Nope
18:42:26 [jasnell]
in my opinion, this is easily something that can be done via an extension
18:42:26 [rene]
if we reject the proposal with the reason that other vocabularies can be used, I would suggest to keep a hint somewhere in the spec how this specific case should be treated with an extension
18:42:30 [jasnell]
if it's absolutely necessary
18:42:40 [azaroth]
-1 to tagging/categories
18:42:57 [tantek]
that was kevinmarks speaking about tagging/categories
18:43:06 [Shane_]
jasnell: Folks can do it with tags and categories but this is more about the current properties
18:43:18 [Shane_]
Arnaud: There is no backwards compatibility, the question is do we add it or not
18:43:33 [Shane_]
... It can be done as an extension and sounds like the annotations working group will do that
18:43:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 to Defer for Amy
18:44:04 [Arnaud]
Proposal: Type for object of an Offer - (Evan
18:44:07 [Shane_]
Arnaud: I don't want to close it without Amy being here. Let's move on
18:44:18 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: evan had to drop off
18:44:20 [wilkie]
he left I think
18:44:29 [cwebber2]
time to defer!
18:44:42 [Shane_]
Arnaud: I missed the fact Evan had dropped off. He has a bunch of issues
18:44:56 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Evan and Elf next week
18:45:08 [jasnell]
18:45:08 [Arnaud]
Media type discussions -
18:45:24 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:45:38 [tantek]
what did AS1/JSON use for media type?
18:45:43 [azaroth]
q+ to note discussion with IETF last week
18:45:54 [Shane_]
jasnell: The short summary is that currently the AS spec defines the slot, the argument is the build upon the JSON-LD type with a profile parametre
18:45:56 [jasnell]
application/ld+json; profile=""
18:46:00 [melvster]
18:46:03 [rene]
There seems no consensus on that we are actually building on JSON-LD
18:46:24 [tantek]
rene - correct, no consensus that we are building on JSONLD
18:46:39 [tantek]
rene - the charter only dictates JSON for the Social Syntax
18:46:46 [hhalpin_]
+1 jasnell
18:46:55 [cwebber2]
18:46:59 [Shane_]
jasnell: We are not supporting all JSON-LD mechanisms, we are not requiring all implementers to use it. I think using JSON-LD is the correct way to do it. There is a discussion on going
18:47:01 [Arnaud]
ack azaroth
18:47:01 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to note discussion with IETF last week
18:47:03 [tantek]
-1 on JSONLD media type
18:47:13 [jasnell]
I have offered the following compromise:
18:47:22 [jasnell]
18:48:10 [Shane_]
Rob: At TPAC we had a discussion, at IETF meeting there has just been a discussion about having media types at the same weight as the regular media types
18:48:35 [Shane_]
... If that was a concern then the annotations group will be pushing them on it, it should be possible
18:49:19 [Shane_]
... We considered that we also have a bunch of restrictions, the profile was sufficent to add in the requirements in a machine processable and normative fashion. You must do JSON-LD and use this frame, can't say that normatively of course.
18:49:32 [Shane_]
... Not to push this group one way or another, but worth considering
18:49:34 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
18:50:14 [Shane_]
cwebber2: I think this ties in partly with what tantek was discussing about requiring @context, we agreed that there would be an implied @context with JSON-LD under the hood.
18:50:25 [tantek]
with *optional* JSON-LD under the hood
18:50:47 [melvster]
under the hood == out of band
18:50:47 [Shane_]
... If someone with a scripting language is just hacking away, they will know it will be provided without having to worry about it. Keeping it simple.
18:51:13 [jasnell]
example: {"@context": "", "@type": "Place", "coordinates": [[1,2],[3,4]]} is valid Activity Streams 2.0 but is not valid JSON-LD because JSON-LD does not support GeoJSON lists of lists
18:51:22 [azaroth]
q+ to ask if *every* schema should register a media type?
18:51:38 [Shane_]
... It seems weird as the core doesn't do much without the core vocab, the way I understood before is that we would deliver it based on having a mime type. If there are other ways to express it, technically it was always possible.
18:52:07 [Shane_]
...I think it is useful to have some way to say to teh users that there is a simple document, it is technically JSON-LD but no need to overcomplicate it
18:52:19 [tantek]
cwebber2++ this is exactly what I was distinguishing between this WGs approach and AnnotationsWG
18:52:21 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 53 karma
18:52:34 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:53:18 [Shane_]
jasnell: A valid AS 2.0 document is not a valid JSON-LD, it allows things to be used that are not valid. It does say there is additional processing required for some features
18:53:30 [Shane_]
... Advertising that as a JSON-LD document is a bit of a lie, because it is not
18:53:43 [Shane_]
... There is enough differences between the two that warrants AS having its own media type
18:53:58 [Shane_]
... Okay we can address it with a profile but that is optional for implementors to support
18:54:13 [cwebber2]
jasnell: manu was telling me there was some likely possibility that the nested lists issue might be handled
18:54:14 [Shane_]
... The JSON-LD spec only says what a implementation SHOULD do
18:54:15 [MarkS_]
MarkS_ has joined #social
18:54:21 [cwebber2]
in json-ld
18:54:22 [cwebber2]
in some way
18:54:24 [hhalpin_]
Also, rss and atom had their own media-types, so there is precedent
18:54:37 [tantek]
hhalpin_ indeed
18:54:54 [rene]
if it is true that a valid AS 2.0 document doesn't have to be a valid JSON-LD document, than the profile is no solution
18:55:20 [Shane_]
Arnaud: The JSON-LD portion appears to be controversal, some people want more linked data. This is loosing sight of the fact that the spec was written for two possible views of the world, not force one view on everybody
18:55:23 [cwebber2]
jasnell: is there any blocker from the "it's technically a compacted json-ld doc" other than the geojson example
18:55:24 [cwebber2]
18:55:37 [jasnell]
18:55:45 [Shane_]
... The pressure I see on both sides are pushing for one view or another, the current draft is trying to carve a compromise
18:56:06 [Arnaud]
ack azaroth
18:56:06 [Zakim]
azaroth, you wanted to ask if *every* schema should register a media type?
18:56:10 [Shane_]
... It would be wise to bring up things if they are required to be tuned, try not to get into religious debate about linked data or not
18:56:15 [tantek]
it sounds like james's proposed media type allows for the two possible views of the world, not force one view on everybody
18:56:29 [rene]
I wonder whether it is necessary to allow AS 2.0 documents that look like JSON-LD but are not valid due to subtle differences
18:56:46 [Shane_]
Rob: Given was James' said, it seems justified that a different media type be used, but I would propose that any features that are not JSON-LD compatible will be called out so that people know what would be lost
18:56:48 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:57:21 [rene]
+1 to rob
18:57:39 [cwebber2]
+1 to having the mimetype and also saying it SHOULD be considered a profile
18:57:45 [azaroth]
+1 to jasnell suggestion of equivalent profile
18:57:47 [Shane_]
jasnell: For leaving in the application activity + json activity type, but should treat with profile as being equivalent. If they don't care then it is fine.
18:57:48 [cwebber2]
because then implementers can ignore that
18:57:54 [cwebber2]
but technically, it's true
18:58:02 [cwebber2]
I think it's a good route
18:58:07 [azaroth]
Propose that profile doc might be good place for listing non-round-trippable content?
18:58:13 [Shane_]
Arnaud: We will not close this issue yet, hoping we are starting to see the light
18:58:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
perhaps a note of how to convert AS2 to JSON-LD ?
18:58:59 [Shane_]
... There are two more items on the agenda, will use the last minute to let cwebber2 make an announcement
18:59:00 [rene]
if there are two worlds, why not express that in using different media types?
18:59:56 [tantek]
q+ to remind folks about IndieWebCamp MIT Nov 7-8! please sign-up on the Guest List if you want to come (no charge, no need to be member of WG)
19:00:00 [Shane_]
cwebber2: I have a very short announcement which is I just posted to the list an implementation of AS 2.0 that tries to implement as simplified so that it uses JSON-LD behind the hood
19:00:05 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
19:00:05 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to remind folks about IndieWebCamp MIT Nov 7-8! please sign-up on the Guest List if you want to come (no charge, no need to be
19:00:08 [Zakim]
... member of WG)
19:00:41 [Shane_]
tantek: Just a quick announcement, this week coming up is IWC MIT 7th 8th all day, posted a URL into IRC. Can sign up by adding to wiki page, no charge. Welcome to bring any friends, don't need to be a member of WG
19:00:49 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Let's close on this, thank you all for joining
19:00:50 [jasnell]
I will have an updated WD ready to review by next week
19:01:00 [wilkie]
19:01:01 [azaroth]
Thanks all!
19:01:02 [Shane_]
Arnaud: Evan should be chairing on Nov 10th
19:01:04 [Loqi]
I added a countdown for 11/10 12:00am (#5735)
19:01:06 [cwebber2]
thank you Shane_ !
19:01:08 [cwebber2]
19:01:10 [tantek]
Shane_++ for scribing!!
19:01:11 [Loqi]
Shane_ has 1 karma
19:01:11 [wilkie]
19:01:12 [cwebber2]
Arnaud++ for chairing
19:01:12 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:01:12 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:01:12 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber,
19:01:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
19:01:13 [Loqi]
Shane_ has 2 karma
19:01:14 [Loqi]
Shane has 3 karma
19:01:15 [Loqi]
Arnaud has 27 karma
19:01:16 [Loqi]
Shane has 4 karma
19:01:16 [Zakim]
... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene
19:01:16 [Shane_]
Sorry about the slight name mismatches heh
19:01:19 [cwebber2]
btw jasnell
19:01:20 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:01:20 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:01:21 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:01:21 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
19:01:22 [cwebber2]