16:51:22 RRSAgent has joined #social 16:51:22 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-irc 16:51:24 RRSAgent, make logs public 16:51:26 Zakim, this will be SOCL 16:51:26 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 16:51:27 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 16:51:27 Date: 01 December 2015 16:51:30 present+ 16:56:08 is there a way to turn off incoming video and just have audio in talky 16:57:35 the camera is pointed directly at me. I feel slighted haha. 16:58:06 I muted video and audio 16:58:13 I am a text-only ghost 16:58:28 ghost in the machine 16:58:31 that sounds pleasant 16:58:42 I'd like to turn off incoming video for you so I don't blow through my phone data plan in one train ride 16:59:39 yeah, it's not very necessary 17:01:19 also when the speed goes down to 3g it helps 17:02:38 present+ 17:02:39 present+ rhiaro 17:02:44 present+ 17:02:54 present+ 17:03:32 yes 17:03:48 present+ 17:03:52 present+ 17:04:02 anyone remote having trouble with Talky? 17:04:07 I see two "anonymous" 17:04:14 present+ 17:04:15 Click where it says "Your Name" in the left column and type 17:04:32 tantek, just changed my name :) 17:04:40 present+ 17:05:04 cool I see your black box 17:05:10 present+ 17:07:36 tsyesika is trying to connect to talky fwiw 17:07:58 acknowledged. Audio quality at talky is not very good. I find it hard to understand the speakers in SF 17:08:00 agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01 17:08:03 chair: Arnaud 17:08:22 corrections: only hard to understand speakers far away from the microphone 17:08:27 scribe: sandro 17:08:33 present+ 17:08:37 Audio should be better once I get there with my mic. 17:08:47 i can hear tantek great, i could hear arnaud, but faint 17:08:53 aaronpk: there is coffee 17:09:35 topic: intros 17:09:54 tantek: i'm hosting 17:10:21 cwebber2: I'm Chris Webber, mediagoblin 17:10:37 rhiaro: I'm Amy Guy 17:10:50 remote folks, if you could say if you can hear people as they introduce that would be good! 17:10:51 wilkie: I;m Wilkie 17:10:58 jasnell: James Snell 17:11:13 evan not on IRC yet 17:11:22 azaroth: Rob Sanderson 17:11:30 eprodrom has joined #social 17:11:30 Arnaud: Arnaud 17:11:36 azaroth: liason with Annoation 17:11:57 bengo: Ben G at Livefyre, implementing AS1, observing 17:12:15 sandro: Sandro Hawke, MIT and W3C staff contact 17:12:39 he is unmuted 17:12:43 i could hear 17:12:45 rene: ... no audio 17:12:50 I heard rene 17:13:07 (debugging speaker) 17:13:41 I cna hear rené 17:13:44 and ben 17:14:08 you won't be able to hear me as I am muted 17:14:15 obviously it's a problem in SF with the sound. 17:14:43 i guess we'll just have our own private F2F online :P 17:15:10 sound works! 17:15:22 are you nodding ben? 17:15:22 rene: speaking from Germany 17:15:38 ben_thatmustbeme: Ben Roberts, in Massachusetts 17:16:05 kevinmarks: calling from caltrain 17:16:36 tsyesika, you on audio? 17:16:47 I'm here but don't have audio connected right now 17:16:50 will do shortly 17:17:16 o/ 17:17:25 I'm in the front train carriage, so you'd get the 'ding ding ding' as we go through level crossings 17:17:33 topic: agenda review 17:18:12 Arnaud: morning today is on activity streams. any suggested changes? 17:18:56 sandro: agenda+ cloising github issues 17:19:05 eprodrom: agenda+ testing framework 17:19:14 tantek++ 17:19:17 tantek has 263 karma 17:19:23 tantek: I'll try to put these on the agenda 17:19:40 I propose https://hypothes.is/a/28iF2d2ESHu55ZMRLnFOfw 17:19:41 Current open github issues: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues 17:20:02 Kmarks2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86956&oldid=86955 17:22:44 pause - editing! 17:23:34 +1 to Arnaud's agenda suggestion 17:23:47 can someone scribe? 17:23:57 lot of background noise here 17:24:04 melvster has joined #social 17:24:06 I'm behind on updating agenda now in realtime 17:24:16 adding items from proposed to in-line 17:24:22 arnaud: lets do the added agenda items in the block where they fit 17:24:40 .. like, syntax items this morning 17:25:06 tantek: skipping items where the person's not here 17:25:11 Arnaud: yes 17:26:42 now looking at https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/2015-12-01&action=edit#Liaison_with_Annotations_WG 17:26:48 not that one 17:26:50 this one: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_technical_items 17:27:07 rene, kevinmarks asks if you can turn off video when not talking that would help connection 17:28:17 in general, it's nice to have remote video on, though, once kevinmarks is off the train. 17:28:33 topic: Activity Streams 17:28:55 I'm trying to work out how to just get audio 17:29:08 Arnaud: a few weeks ago, the editor said it seemed stable and maybe it was time to go to CR. the chairs challenged the group 17:29:29 .. I think we were happily surprised to see a significant increase in activity 17:29:39 .. inclusing from folks who weren't engaged in AS2 17:29:42 .. two issues 17:29:55 .. where do we stand in terms of moving toward REC, going to Candidate Recommendation 17:30:02 Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86958&oldid=86956 17:30:10 .. CR means we've closed all the issues, we're basically done, and we're asking the world to implement and make sure it works 17:30:15 all proposed agenda items from those present have been incorporated into agenda time slots per chair request 17:30:17 we have 21 open issues in github 17:30:20 .. Then the other level is 17:30:24 .. there are still open issues 17:30:35 .. can we close the remaining issues 17:31:01 q+ to encourage prioritization of high level AS2 issues/problems that would benefit more from in-person discussion 17:31:12 sandro: can we be clear about where issues are being tracked? 17:31:44 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/raised 17:31:45 eprodrom:also are the fundamental structural objections, like using JSON, or Subject/Verb/Object framing, ... or other fundamental objections that haven't been captured 17:31:48 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/open 17:32:15 ack tantek 17:32:15 tantek, you wanted to encourage prioritization of high level AS2 issues/problems that would benefit more from in-person discussion 17:32:17 Arnaud: RIght, do we have all the issues recorded at this point? Would closing all issues mean we're ready to go to CR? Or are there people still waiting in the wings? 17:32:29 tantek: nice summary Arnaud 17:32:49 tantek: When we brought it to the group, saying I think we're done, I think we realized we were seeing apathy 17:33:02 .. from folk who didn't believe in it, but just disengaged 17:33:10 .. We've gotten a lot more activity 17:33:25 Silence can also mean agreement 17:33:28 .. During the F2F, I'd like to prioritize the ones that need more nuance 17:33:42 .. If there's a fundamental issue, F2F is the best time to bring that up. 17:33:47 humming can mean agreement 17:33:51 .. That's the best time to acheive consensus on things like that 17:33:56 +1 to Tantek 17:34:01 q+ 17:34:17 tantek: I went back and did a naive re-reading of the AS2 specs 17:34:21 ack jasnell 17:34:23 .. I'll share those comments later 17:34:39 jasnell: A quick summary. 21 open issues in github, 4 in W3C tracker 17:34:48 jasnell: 1 raised issue in W3C tracker 17:35:24 tantek: jasnell what workflow would you like with issues? 17:35:27 jasnell: github 17:35:42 jasnell: editorial changes, pull request is nice 17:36:31 sandro: clarifying --- "I'm not sure what this sentence means" -- should be open an issue? 17:36:34 jasnell: Yes 17:37:18 tantek: If you have issues with AS2, dont just talk about them in irc or something 17:38:17 sandro: refined to: it's you job to make sure each of your issues is open in github 17:38:28 arnaud: except the five on the W3C tracker 17:38:40 tantek: right, let's record that. 17:39:05 q+ 17:39:06 one issue that needs clarification from my point is the "this can be easily done with an extension" argument 17:39:09 q+ 17:39:29 a high level concern is AS1 compatibility - need AS1 implementers feedback 17:39:32 proposed RESOLUTION: All new issues for ActivityStreams should be raised in github or via synchronous communication, and then captured in github 17:39:38 ack bengo 17:39:38 Arnaud: We're trying to produce a Recommendation that the world solve this problem with this technology. If you have issues, speak up.... 17:39:51 I've raised that in the github discussion. James should know about this. I think today would be a great time to talk about that 17:40:02 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86959&oldid=86958 17:40:08 bengo: In the charter, it mentions a social syntax deliverable. Is there a reason this is the only one? What about Turtle or something? 17:40:29 tantek: There's nothing that makes AS2 the only spec. It's just the most mature and active of the inputs. 17:40:38 tantek: Re turtle, the charter does say JSON 17:41:27 jaywink has joined #social 17:41:35 bengo: If there are completely left-field concerns .... 17:41:43 (scribe didnt follow that) 17:41:44 ack eprodrom 17:41:55 (not advocating turtle) 17:42:24 q+ to raise general re-reading feedback on AS2 17:42:28 eprodrom: One of the architectural concerns, brought up by people not here, that's it's not PURELY JSON-LD. There's an expectation that it will be useful if parsed by a regular JSON parser. 17:42:39 .. I think that's something regulars from AS1 are used to, but it's a culture clash. 17:42:40 aaronpk you can walk in 7 minutes from Embarcadero station to MozSF! 17:42:55 Still on the Oakland side 17:43:03 .. things like language support, 17:43:09 .. have been acrimonious discussions 17:43:15 q+ to also follow-up to eprodrom 17:43:28 Arnaud: Is there a specific issue on this? 17:43:45 tantek: We resolved this ages ago. That all JSON-LD support was to be optional. 17:43:50 cwebber2: We resolved this in Boston 17:44:11 tantek: I'd prefer not to re-open that unless there's really new information 17:44:29 azaroth: Could someone clarify? 17:45:07 cwebber2: AS is a JSON document, with an implied json-ld vocab, so if you run it through a json-ld processor with the right context, you'll get out triples. 17:45:14 not sure you can bike over the bay bridge 17:45:21 .. but you can work on it with a normal json processor 17:45:33 .. cf mime type discussion 17:45:39 q+ 17:45:48 .. with a couple of potential exceptions, it's json data with an implied context. 17:45:50 ack jasnell 17:46:01 jasnell: The only exception is when dealing with extension. 17:46:13 .. Because json-ld is the extensions mechanism 17:46:22 .. so to do extensions, you need json-ld. 17:46:23 q- 17:46:38 tantek: It's the chairs responsibility to uphold resolutions 17:46:57 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-03-17#Day_1_-_Tuesday_17_March_2015 17:47:14 Arnaud: we don't do a good job of gathering up the resolutions 17:47:54 eprodrom: problem with minutes from Boston F2F 17:48:01 Arnaud: the charter calls for JSON 17:48:15 .. james suggested json-ld in a way that's not intrusive 17:48:21 .. json-ld is designed for that 17:48:24 Thanks for the clarification, and +1 to the existing resolution that JSON-LD specific processing is not required, but still possible for people who want it. Using JSON-LD as intended :) 17:48:26 q+ to object to "JSONLD is designed for that" 17:48:35 can we collect all the resolutions on a single wiki page or something? 17:48:45 .. not productive to say let's go json-ld all the way, forgetting the compromise 17:49:03 aaronpk, we need minutes to reflect RESOLUTIONs at the top in order to do that 17:49:08 Arnaud: trying to pull the rug your way is non-productive. 17:49:24 ack tantek 17:49:24 tantek, you wanted to raise general re-reading feedback on AS2 and to also follow-up to eprodrom and to object to "JSONLD is designed for that" 17:50:02 tantek: I agree the marketing pitch is JSON-LD is designed for that. But in practice we've seen in the group, "because it's json-ld, we must do this...." THere have been so many threads in that direction, it's really unproductive. 17:50:19 .. I'd say it's a failure on the part of the chairs not to stop those discussion. We should be drawing that hard line. 17:50:51 .. It should not be the problem of this WG to adapt to JSON-LD, since the promise of JSON-LD was that it wouldn;t get in the way 17:50:55 Arnaud: Agreed! 17:51:14 .. it represents a compromise 17:51:49 q+ 17:52:04 tantek: I'd like the chairs and staff to agree to enforce that, summarily dismissing arguments based on the idea needing to do things for the LD part of JSON-LD 17:52:31 tantek: I've been seeing folks saying "because I'm using a JSON-LD processor, you must do X" 17:52:38 .. I'd like us to reject those. 17:52:49 .. (something about a subset) 17:52:52 q? 17:52:54 ack azaroth 17:53:07 q+ 17:53:23 scribe: tantek 17:53:30 sandro: this gets tricky around extensions 17:53:35 sandro: it's a hammered out compromise 17:53:38 scribe: sandro 17:54:14 is this the issue of JSON-LD rejecting some kinds of JSON, eg lists of lists, which means geojson is incompatible? 17:54:27 azaroth: +1 having a compromise that makes our job slightly harder is more work for the WG, but fulfils the goals, where a JSON-LD processor is optional 17:54:42 kevinmarks - sort of - that's the "publishers must use a subset of JSON" issue 17:54:46 q? 17:54:51 ack cwebber 17:55:28 cwebber2: Yes, it only gets complex in extensions, but still you can think in dumb json. 17:55:48 .. it's only if you want to be able to consume from everybody, that's when you need json-ld. 17:56:01 .. so it's only if you want to be able to robustly handle every extension. 17:56:05 interesting, so even for extensions, if you have special knowledge of particular extensions, you don't need JSONLD? 17:56:14 .. a lot of people are saying they don't want to do that, and that's fine, they don't have to do that. 17:56:17 but if I nest lists the JSON-LD processor will fail? 17:56:19 .. it's not that much of a challenge. 17:56:37 Arnaud: Back to my point, any other issues not recorded? 17:57:00 As I said before: I'd like to talk about the "this can be easily implemented as an extension" argument. We should have a rule on that 17:57:25 q+ 17:57:26 tantek: I proposal all mentions of json-ld in AS2-core go into a section, "Considerations for JSON-LD". 17:57:28 Annotation WG JSON-LD appendix: http://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#json-ld-considerations 17:57:32 q+ 17:57:49 And we intend to move it out of the Model and into a document more like -core 17:58:14 ack cwebber 17:58:28 PROPOSAL: All JSON-LD related details should go into an Appendix: Considerations for JSON-LD (similar to the section in Annotations WG spec), both typical publishers and developers should not have to worry about them. 17:58:41 Sorry, more like as-vocabulary 17:58:56 cwebber2: I'd be fine with that, but maybe an easier approach, with less major re-architecting, is to add it to a pre-amble, -- this whole spec can be deal with like that. 17:59:00 My colleagues don't even know what JSON-LD is. Appendix better than preamble 17:59:05 tantek: I think the work is worth it. 17:59:40 tantek: expecting the editor to say "Great, send me pull requests" 17:59:48 Arnaud: How much work would that be? 18:00:12 jasnell: There are several mentions where I could s/json-ld/json/ without harm. 18:00:12 Shane_ has joined #social 18:00:18 @bengo: colleagues not knowing about certain technologies seem no argument to me 18:00:20 mostly I'm seeing it in section 1.2 of AS2 Core 18:00:24 jasnell: I don't think it would take much. 18:00:39 .. not an appendix, but in extensions, and in a section at the top. 18:00:47 rene: Just relevant because barrier of adoption for JSON publishers 18:01:01 tantek: Specifically, the proposal was about 1.2, serialization notes. 18:01:23 q+ 18:01:23 ack sandro 18:03:24 I have to leave for approximately 1,5 hours and try to catch up after 11:30 a.m. your time 18:03:40 q? 18:04:15 sandro I agree your modification of my proposal with Appendix Considerations for JSONLD + Extensions sections 18:04:17 +1 to only JSON... we could put the rest in another document 18:04:22 sandro: I like the idea of hiding everything but plain-old-json from people, putting them into a particular couple sections. 18:04:31 q+ to note related Annotation decision to only show JSON 18:04:34 I thought it was resolved to keep them *for the time being* 18:04:40 q? 18:04:41 jasnell: I'd like to leave the tabs in, they;re useful, and we agreed in the past. 18:04:45 rhiaro: it was resolvd 18:04:59 q- 18:05:00 eprodrom: Not sure there's much value to talking it through more. 18:05:02 ack cwebber 18:05:18 eprodrom: we did already talk this through and decided to keep all the tabs 18:05:50 q+ to ask about testing of multiple syntaxes 18:06:09 cwebber2: This seems like a useful thing, but I'm concerned about whether this is a CR blocker. It's an editorial change. This meeting, my goal is to see how many CR-blockers we can knock off the queue. Let's kick those boulders off the path! 18:06:23 Arnaud: it's not a blocker, although it's a big change. 18:06:36 q+ to note I think we're talking about two different things. my proposal (+ sandro re: Extensions), and the examples tabs 18:06:50 Arnaud: If it doesn't change compliance, we can do it later. 18:06:52 q+ 18:07:02 ack azaroth 18:07:02 azaroth, you wanted to ask about testing of multiple syntaxes 18:07:07 melvster has joined #social 18:07:50 q+ 18:07:52 azaroth: If there are four syntaxes in the document, testing them will be really hard. So that's a blocker for CR. 18:08:01 ack tantek 18:08:01 tantek, you wanted to note I think we're talking about two different things. my proposal (+ sandro re: Extensions), and the examples tabs 18:08:11 Arnaud: All these other tabs are informative. 18:08:47 PROPOSAL: All JSON-LD related details should go into an Appendix: Considerations for JSON-LD (similar to the section in Annotations WG spec) and also allowed in the Extensions section. Both typical publishers and developers should not have to worry about JSONLD. 18:08:53 tantek: two things. My proposal was to move json-ld to an appendic, which I think IS cr-blocking. 18:09:08 -1 if as a CR blocker 18:09:12 +1 if not a CR blocker 18:10:12 cwebber2: I think this is a great proposal, but I don't see how it will change implementations. So how is a CR blocker. 18:11:03 +1 18:11:11 tantek: If people see it as a JSON spec, they can jump right in. If they think it's JSON-LD, they'll think they need all that tooling. 18:11:53 tantek: I think we'll get more implementations faster if we move JSON-LD to an appendix. 18:12:01 q+ 18:12:28 tantek: I have specific issues I could raise on this. 18:12:47 ack jasnell 18:13:00 present+ 18:13:04 kevinmarks has joined #social 18:13:12 -q 18:13:15 jasnell: counter-proposal -- I don't think adding an appendix would help too much. Give me an opportunity to come up with a counter proposal. 18:13:17 q- 18:13:19 q? 18:13:24 ack eprodrom 18:13:43 UPDATED PROPOSAL: All JSON-LD related details should go into a separate section (e.g. Appendix: Considerations for JSON-LD similar to the section in Annotations WG spec, but open to Editor alternatives) and also allowed in the Extensions section. Both typical publishers and developers should not have to worry about JSONLD. 18:14:27 eprodrom: We have a section, relationship to AS1, it may be simple to to lay out rel to json-ld, express our simple expections, that you should be able to produce and consume as without knowing about json-ld 18:14:43 .. my only reluctnance is that we have json-ld spread throughout the doc 18:14:49 .. so a lot of editorial work 18:15:28 +1 18:15:35 q? 18:15:38 tantek: I found it confusing reading it as a JSON developer, all the LD bits sprinkled around 18:16:06 +1 18:16:08 +1 for the proposal, find json-ld parts could be gathered into a separate appendix 18:16:08 +1 18:16:11 +1 18:16:13 +1 18:16:15 +1 18:16:21 0 18:16:26 +1 18:16:26 +1 18:16:33 +1 to moving JSON-LD details to a section, appendix or otherwise 18:16:52 And +1 to eprodrom for expressing the intent in the intro in an informative sense 18:17:08 +1 18:17:18 sandro: key point is: no more sprinking of json-ld through the document 18:17:18 +1 18:17:22 +1 to sandro :) It should be skippable if you don't care... +1s all round 18:17:24 +1 18:17:46 RESOLVED: All JSON-LD related details should go into a separate section (e.g. Appendix: Considerations for JSON-LD similar to the section in Annotations WG spec, but open to Editor alternatives) and also allowed in the Extensions section. Both typical publishers and developers should not have to worry about JSONLD. 18:18:14 kevinmarks has joined #social 18:18:40 aaronpk: Hi I'm Aaron Parecki, I got here from Portland 18:18:52 kevinmarks: Hi I'm Kevin Marks and you saw me on the train. 18:19:13 Good to see everyone! 18:19:24 q+ re: deadline vs. other approaches 18:19:34 q+ 18:19:37 sandro: does it make sense to try to make a deadline for new issues from the WG? 18:20:08 Arnaud: Yeah, we want all the issues on the table as soon as possible, not at the last minute 18:20:10 ack tantek 18:20:10 tantek, you wanted to discuss deadline vs. other approaches 18:20:14 sandro, how about, +1 to deadline for CR blocking issues 18:20:39 but non-blocking CR issues of course can happen at some point 18:20:51 q+ 18:21:00 tantek: I've seen multiple approach to convergence for CR. "I better get my issue in by this point". Or "waht is the rate of new issues coming in" then say hey, apply a deadline 18:21:23 .. right now it feels like we're still in the post-chair-threat, with lots of new issues coming in. 18:21:39 q+ to ask about process 18:21:48 q+ to clarify goal for this meeting 18:22:01 jasnell: let's see, new issue 1 hour ago, then 7 days, then 21 days 18:22:13 tantek: I think we'll get a burst of new issues at this meeting 18:22:38 q? 18:22:46 ack eprodrom 18:23:05 eprodrom: On that note, I think as we get more into implementations phase, we'll see new issues 18:23:49 .. one question I have, we seem to have a rough process of submitting github issue when we see something wrong, we leave it up to editors to make decisions, if not palatable then take it to group. Deeper issues go to group. 18:25:00 sandro: clarifyiong, thje "issue" that matter for going to CR are Substantive Issues -- things needing a WG decision 18:25:24 Arnaud: github allows for more a agile approach, but there are some issues. 18:25:57 ack cwebber 18:26:28 cwebber2: I like having a deadline for putting issues in 18:26:49 cwebber2: AS2 core hasn't change much in the past year. THe vocab doc has had a lot of tweaks 18:27:08 .. what big changes have their been? It seems very stable. 18:27:34 put on agenda for telecon 18:27:35 q+ sandro2 to ask about core moving separately 18:27:48 tantek: I suggest waiting a week before setting a deadline. 18:27:58 .. to see if we get a boost. 18:28:02 ack sandro 18:28:02 sandro, you wanted to ask about process and to clarify goal for this meeting 18:28:12 q+ to propose discussing issues and return to timeline after that 18:30:02 q+ 18:30:11 tantek: if the thought of spec going to CR or NOTE scares you, you need to speak up right away. 18:30:13 +1 azaroth 18:30:38 I did an implementation over the last month :P 18:31:17 tantek: we're unlikely to go CR today, but we're also unlikely to drop it down to a NOTE. 18:31:19 I do like tantek's suggestion though 18:31:27 set a deadline at next's meeting 18:31:34 could we make that into a real proposal? 18:32:06 Arnaud: unlikely to go to NOTE 18:32:24 q+ 18:33:02 Arnaud: The next hurdle is whether we can meet the exit criteria. We need sufficient implementations. We can discuss this. Two is the minimum, but seems like of ... lame... 18:33:03 ack sandro2 18:33:03 sandro2, you wanted to ask about core moving separately 18:33:51 jasnell: quick question (hopefully), answer at leisure - is there a branch more up to date than master/gh-pages? Noticed to and bto are still there and displayName isn't name in core (both of which I thought were resolved, but correct me if I'm wrong!) 18:33:54 ack azaroth 18:33:54 azaroth, you wanted to propose discussing issues and return to timeline after that 18:34:01 sandro: Can core move ahead of vocab? 18:34:07 rhiaro: there will be after today 18:34:17 jasnell: not really, core normative refers to vocab for things like object 18:34:19 ack cwebber 18:34:19 great :) 18:34:20 the current published WD is the reference poit for discussion today 18:34:41 rhiaro: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/253 18:35:02 cwebber2: cage rattling worked, but lets not have cage rattling for its own sake. 18:35:05 Aha thanks bengo, didn't look at that PR, was the next tab I had open to switch to 18:35:30 melvster https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Activity_Vocabulary 18:36:48 cwebber2++ 18:36:50 jaywink_ has joined #social 18:36:51 cwebber2 has 59 karma 18:37:11 ack eprodrom 18:37:14 +1 on that 253 pull that fixes names 18:37:31 PROPOSED: Social WG will continue working on Activity Streams 2.0 in order to get it to Candidate Recommendation. 18:37:55 tantek: that's the default state 18:38:10 should I write up a proposal for the deadline next week? 18:38:44 PROPOSAL: Keep AS2 work going on the Recommendation track. 18:38:53 tantek++ 18:38:56 tantek has 264 karma 18:39:35 +1 18:39:42 +1 18:39:44 +1 18:39:49 +0 18:40:04 +1 18:40:04 +1 18:40:08 +1 18:41:03 azaroth: We'd like to be able to refer to AS2 collections from Annoations soon, so please keep it moving along! 18:42:06 PROPOSAL: Everyone will try to have substantive issues raised by next week (Dec 15) or at least will ask for an extension by then 18:42:19 s/next week/next next week/ 18:42:27 RESOLVED: Keep AS2 work going on the Recommendation track. 18:42:27 PROPOSAL: Everyone will try to have substantive issues (on AS2) raised by two weeks (Dec 15) or at least will ask for an extension by then 18:42:35 +1 18:42:40 +1 18:42:40 +1 18:42:42 +1 18:42:43 +1 18:42:43 +1 18:42:45 +1 18:42:50 +1 18:43:16 RESOLVED: Everyone will try to have substantive issues (on AS2) raised by two weeks (Dec 15) or at least will ask for an extension by then 18:43:21 \o/ 18:43:31 +1 18:54:29 melvster has left #social 18:57:35 azaroth has joined #social 19:03:57 bengo has joined #social 19:04:19 azaroth_ has joined #social 19:04:23 Shane_ has joined #social 19:05:05 who is remote? ben_thatmustbeme ? 19:05:13 rhiaro++ 19:05:15 scribenick: rhiaro 19:05:16 rhiaro has 187 karma 19:05:19 Arnaud: Time to get into the issues 19:05:32 yes dealing with a screaming baby atm 19:05:33 ... Asked james to look at issues during the break to come up with a list we should start with 19:05:37 ... Suggested to start with tracker 19:05:45 jasnell: Will we have time to talk about testing this morning? 19:05:48 Arnaud: We'll keep the last hour 19:06:07 ... Issues for an hour, test suite for an hour 19:06:22 tantek: We've finished the first item - CR vs note 19:06:26 kevinmarks3 has joined #social 19:06:35 ... One other item on there, didn't capture testing framework 19:06:51 eprodrom: I'd like to present the testing framework that chris and I worked up, get comment on it, talk about what to do next, what makes sense 19:06:58 ... as we have more implementations, make sure we're working towards that test suite 19:07:13 Arnaud: My proposal is to use next hour for tackling issues on AS2 19:07:20 added AS2 testing framework present, feedback, architecturally what next - Evan to agenda 19:07:20 ... Then switch to other two items - jf2, and test suite 19:07:28 ... Work for everybody? 19:07:32 Good 19:07:44 tantek: I'd like to add a (perhaps brief) agenda item for sometime today or tomorrow, which is "Does the Social WG expect to draft a 'client-side API' specification as described in the charter?" (and what does that mean? HTTP API or WebIDL API?) 19:08:20 jasnell: We have 4 open issues in the w3c tracker and one raised issue 19:08:23 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/products/1 19:08:26 ... We should get those out of the way, then go to github issues 19:08:35 ... On github, we start with ones that primarily effect core, just a handful 19:08:41 ... Then there's another group which deal with vocabulary 19:09:02 that's one way to mute 19:09:23 tantek: do you only want to look at old issues, or look at new ones from today? 19:09:28 Arnaud: tackle ones recorded already 19:09:41 jasnell: if you came up with new issues reading through it, open a new one in github and we'll get to it as we have time 19:09:53 eprodrom: Makes sense. Rather not have issues come up in person that we don't record as github issues 19:09:55 ... Record first 19:10:02 Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86966&oldid=86959 19:10:12 jasnell: What I'd like to do is go through w3c tracker first, then go through github oldest to newest 19:10:19 ... Then hopefully as we're going through we get through them fast enough we can get to new ones 19:10:26 ... Start with raised issue on tracker 19:10:30 issue-46 19:10:30 issue-46 -- AS2.0 tries to address some Social API responsibilities -- raised 19:10:30 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/46 19:10:33 ... Raised by elf-pavlik 19:10:41 ... Believe this is specifically with regards to thinks like paging 19:10:55 ... We've had prior resolutions about paging and links, I propose we don't open this 19:11:00 Arnaud: related issues on github too 19:11:03 ... So close issue-46 as is 19:11:18 sandro: deferring to github issue 19:11:29 jasnell: we've dealt with this several times already, to no longer discuss 19:11:36 ... Paging model in the spec is what we're going with 19:11:43 +1 to closing issue-46 19:11:43 sandro: so paging at two levles of the protocol 19:11:45 jasnell: yes 19:11:52 PROPOSAL: CLose issue 46 19:11:59 +1 19:11:59 +1 19:12:01 +1 19:12:03 +1 19:12:03 +1 19:12:04 +1 19:12:10 +1 19:12:54 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-46 as redundant according to jasnell. Yes, there might be paging at multiple levels of the protocol. 19:13:13 +1 19:13:24 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-46 as redundant according to jasnell. Yes, there might be paging at multiple levels of the protocol. 19:13:24 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-46 as redundant according to jasnell. Yes, there might be paging at multiple levels of the protocol. 19:13:38 jasnell: issue-4, longest standing 19:13:47 ... Last discussed about a year ago, raised by tantek 19:13:56 tantek: Now an editor's draft 19:14:02 Arnaud: what do we need to do to close this issue? 19:14:16 tantek: We could close the issue as we accepted an ED that resolves the issue 19:14:25 ... My goal is to publish that 19:14:32 Link to the ED please? 19:14:38 Arnaud: has no impact on the spec? 19:14:46 tantek: I agree it has no impact on the spec in good faith 19:14:50 sandro: Doesn't it say you can leave out the types 19:14:58 tantek: I Don't know how you would interpret that as a change 19:15:03 tantek: My draft allows for types to be omitted 19:15:12 jasnell: CUrrent spec doesn't require types 19:15:21 tantek: my spec says if types *are* omitted, here's how to get one 19:15:22 http://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery 19:15:25 jasnell: fine with that 19:15:30 is the draft tantek is talking about 19:15:35 kevinmarks: Many thanks 19:15:39 sandro: even if your spec becomes a rec, people will be able to do conforming AS2 without post-type discovery 19:15:45 tantek: yes 19:15:45 tantek: yes, it's a building block 19:15:48 :-) 19:16:24 PROPOSAL http://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery addresses Issue-4. 19:16:31 +1 19:16:44 +1 19:16:46 +1 19:16:48 +1 19:16:50 PROPOSED: http://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery addresses Issue-4. 19:17:08 +1 19:17:10 aww 19:17:16 :) 19:17:19 and so ISSUE-4 can be closed, safe in the belief that post-type-discovery will proceed as warranted. 19:17:21 are you going to +present your babies ben? 19:17:33 kevinmarks, haha 19:17:35 +1 19:17:37 +1 19:17:41 +1 19:17:41 I'm happy the working group discussion is so lulling 19:17:47 +1 19:17:55 +1 19:18:03 he can +present them when they wake up 19:18:11 tantek: college students everywhere attempt to refute your assertion 19:18:15 (note I said attempt) 19:18:27 :) 19:18:36 as:wokeUp as:fellAsleep 19:19:00 RESOLVED: CLOSE ISSUE-4 addressed by http://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery which can proceed on its own 19:19:09 if those are activity types it should be as:Awoke and as:Sleep 19:19:13 kevinmarks: you need an extension for that one ;) 19:19:24 jasnell: issue-37, raised by elf 19:19:29 ... LPD and AS2 paging alignment 19:19:36 ... Believe we just resolved this by not opening other issue 19:19:46 ... Current model already accepted 19:19:55 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-37, as is - no alignment 19:19:57 ... If we want to go with LDP Paging we can look at that at API level 19:19:58 +1 19:19:59 +1 19:20:00 +1 19:20:01 +1 19:20:01 +1 19:20:02 +1 19:20:05 +1 19:20:12 +1 19:20:27 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-37, as is - no alignment 19:20:45 jasnell: Next, issue-38, do we need to add a version number to context uri 19:20:49 ... rasied by sandro 19:20:56 *sandro looks guilty* 19:21:06 sandro: I thik the answer is yes 19:21:10 Arnaud: the answer is always no. 19:21:27 sandro: How do you deal with... if you ever add a term to AS2 and somebody has made an extension that uses that same term.. 19:21:43 jasnell: Is there any expectation that once this WG is done and we've published this, that they would want to do another version later? 19:21:46 Arnaud: We don't know 19:21:50 q+ 19:21:56 sandro: Yes! Vocab is clearly not completelyd escriptive 19:22:05 jasnell: Can these new terms be introduced by extensions? 19:22:12 sandro: Where would they be? Wouldn't be standard? 19:22:29 cwebber2: At this point you can go JSON-LD crazy and add your own 19:22:30 descriptive of entire human existence - this is Maciej's critique 19:22:47 sandro: But if someobdy does it outside of w3c, what's the point? We lose the interoperability 19:23:00 jasnell: If we're only talking about adding new terms, that can be done in a backwards incompatible way 19:23:06 add AS2 gold pro edition levelpack 19:23:07 ... Existing implementations can already ignore anything they don't understand 19:23:12 ... If a new term is added they can ignore it 19:23:19 wilkie you're with me right 19:23:24 maceij's critique http://blog.pinboard.in/2011/11/the_social_graph_is_neither/ 19:23:33 sandro: Some large players comes up with something they like, called Loves - the loves extension gets deployed cos likes aren't strong enough 19:23:39 ... Gets deployed across some large subsection 19:23:44 ... So they want to go standardise it 19:23:47 q+ 19:23:53 ... And it might conflict with extensions already otu there 19:23:59 jasnell: Depends on json-ld context 19:24:04 my response to maciej's critique http://epeus.blogspot.com/2011/11/our-brains-make-social-graph-real.html 19:24:04 ... We say you cannot redefine anything in context 19:24:12 ... It could conflict later on 19:24:22 ack tantek 19:24:25 ... As far as... whether we should care about that conflict? I'm not convinced 19:24:31 tantek: all @context handling is completely optional 19:24:49 ... So to maintain backcompat if we're adding or changing term sin AS2, the requirement is even stricter than worrying about context versioning, but worrying about spec versioning 19:24:50 +1 to tantek 19:24:58 ... And breaking json implementations that literally follow vocab hard coded in spec 19:25:09 ... That constraint already constraints us sufficiently that version numbers in context is irrelevant 19:25:21 ... To solve this problem we need to look at the spe cand make sure it doesn't conflict with any existing terms 19:25:30 ... So implementations can handle it 19:25:36 q+ to note that would be as3 19:25:41 sandro: The only solution is to have a registry used by all extensions 19:25:47 ... Any prominent extensions have to claim a keyword 19:25:57 tantek: just about core spec, not extensions 19:26:00 q+ 19:26:07 ... We don't need to version context, as we're already overconstrained by json-only requirement 19:26:24 ... If you want to change a term in the spec, you can only do so in a back compatible way with the spec, the spec is the registry 19:26:29 q+ 19:26:32 sandro: but you can add 19:26:52 ... html uses the hyphen so people can add elements 19:26:56 ... but html WG doesn't have to do that 19:27:05 tantek: Feel like that's a different issue, agree that that is an issue 19:27:13 kevinmarks: you only need a version number if you're going to break things 19:27:22 ack eprodrom 19:27:24 we are breaking AS1 right? 19:27:36 tantek: AS2 is not compatible with AS1 19:27:37 eprodrom: I wanted to point out that the reason we may need to break thing sin the future is not apparent to us right now 19:27:40 we are breaking AS1, yes 19:27:48 jasnell, but they have different mime types right? 19:27:50 AS1 can be processed as AS2 but not vice versa 19:28:03 ... Sometimes, seeming emergency situations, if we have wide enough deployment of AS2 that it becomes important for security or other considerations that we're not seeing from our vantage point now 19:28:06 jasnell, that's better than I thought then. 19:28:09 ... We will be glad to be able to do breaking backward compatible changes 19:28:10 AS1 has no official mime type actually. there is an informal mime type that has been used by convention 19:28:18 ... That said, those are rare occasions, usually are security issues 19:28:21 AS1 can only be processed as AS2 if you mung it to JSON-LD and back, right? 19:28:25 AS2 processors can consume AS1 then? 19:28:25 what is the informal mime type for AS1? 19:28:35 application/stream+json 19:28:36 application/stream+json? 19:28:36 ... Does end up causing a lot of compatibility problems for implementors, where they have to be aware of different contexts 19:28:44 can JSON-only AS2 processors consume AS1? or do they require @context processing to alias things? 19:28:49 ack azaroth 19:28:49 azaroth, you wanted to note that would be as3 19:28:50 ... Personal feeling, if there's not a strong reason not to do it, I'd love to just throw a 2 in there andhope we never have to use it 19:28:58 versioning-- 19:29:01 versioning has 0 karma 19:29:05 azaroth: If we were going to change something normatively, surely that would be an AS3 rather than AS2.1 19:29:14 ... at which point, future selves can decide what the new uri for the new context is 19:29:20 sandro: current one doesn' thave a 2 in it 19:29:31 ack jasnell 19:29:33 please don't set 1 - that will be confusing with AS1 19:29:37 Arnaud: good point, decide later on if we keep same uri or create a new one 19:29:37 azaroth++ 19:29:40 azaroth has 6 karma 19:29:57 jasnell: also possible if we do produce a new version with this context, with its own url/namespace, can import the existing one and add teh existing terms 19:30:01 ... So the existing normative context doesn't have to change 19:30:04 ... Just import and extend 19:30:13 ... New implementations can use that, assuming you're using LD processing 19:30:22 ... If you're not using that, we already say you're going to run into problems with extensions anyway 19:30:27 ... Already clear that LD is the extension mechanism 19:30:35 ack cwebber 19:30:36 ... If you're not doing that and new things are introduced that you don't understand, you're on your own 19:30:37 q? 19:30:52 luxuryproblems++ 19:30:53 luxuryproblems has 1 karma 19:31:13 bengo, could your as1 context be used to make a JSON compliant as2 version of an as1 stream? 19:31:17 cwebber2: If AS2 adoption grows so well that the world converges around a new set of terms that ar eso good that everybody just wants them in an official recommended way, couldn't we make a new vocabulary that's called ActivityStreams-Foo, where Foo is whatever super cool hot new thing in the future that we have no capacity to envision 19:31:24 ... This is a bit different from the security issue 19:31:33 ... For most extensions, there's nothing blocking us from doing AS-whatever 19:31:42 kevinmarks My Livefyre ontology? Maps to As2 not at1 19:31:43 ... AS-Pro, I dunno.. 19:31:56 jasnell: We already have a few of those terms starting to collect, things pulled out vocab recently 19:31:56 kevinmarks our implemented product is AS1 with no context 19:32:03 ... that I'm starting to put in extension vocab to serve that purpose 19:32:04 I thought it mapped from as1 to as2-LD 19:32:05 q+ to note that that incorporation of popular extensions into a revision of the spec is something other specs in this space have had trouble with, e.g. RSS, Atom actions 19:32:10 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-38, leaving that to be decided later on if deemed necessary 19:32:12 kevinmarks no but james made that 19:32:37 sandro: there is a version number now 19:32:37 http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/activitystreams2-context.jsonld 19:32:41 ... I was confusing namespace and contet 19:32:51 ... the context has a 2 in it 19:33:00 jasnell: that's the file, i'ts not the URI 19:33:02 http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams is used in the spec 19:33:05 +1 19:33:05 http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystream 19:33:18 +1 19:33:20 http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams 19:33:21 +1 19:33:27 "@context": "http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams", 19:34:06 jasnell: Last year when we minted this url, the question of whether we should put a year in it, and decided not to do that 19:34:11 ... related prior resolution 19:34:18 +1 19:34:20 Arnaud: Can vote on proposal? 19:34:31 eprodrom: this sounds like we're leaving the issue to be decided on later? 19:34:35 Arnaud: the issue gets closed 19:34:41 +1 19:34:43 +1 to closing for AS2 19:34:43 ... for this version of the spec 19:34:50 ... What 'later' refers to is for future *versions* 19:35:06 -0 I don't think this is well enough understood, but whatever. 19:35:10 +1 for closing 38 19:35:33 q+ 19:35:40 sandro: noted, fwiw I understand the concern that you're voicing but I'm just not convinced that it's a problem we need to solve right now 19:36:01 q- 19:36:06 this sentence is misleading: Following are three examples of activities with varying degrees of detail. Each of the examples uses an implied JSON-LD @context equal to that provided here. 19:36:25 (which links to http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/activitystreams2-context.jsonld ) 19:36:27 +1 close 38, no action needed 19:36:30 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-38, leaving that to be decided later on, when a new version of the spec is developed, if deemed necessary 19:36:39 That's clear to me 19:36:42 sandro: as an editing point, I plan to update the links to the context in the document to the official URL once it's been fully updated 19:36:46 q 19:36:48 q? 19:36:48 ack tantek 19:36:49 tantek, you wanted to note that that incorporation of popular extensions into a revision of the spec is something other specs in this space have had trouble with, e.g. RSS, Atom 19:36:49 ... actions 19:36:57 s/sandro:/sandro,/ 19:37:01 I'm not sure if the document served by http://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams currently points to the right version of the document 19:37:05 tantek: trying to do editor requested workflow, to capture a different point that sandro brought up 19:37:10 ... THe notion of lifecycle of extensions 19:37:16 ... If extensions become popular.. 19:37:27 rene has joined #social 19:37:29 ... We assume AS2 succeeds, becomes popular, and industry starts to develop widely implemented extensions 19:37:41 ... Such taht we have convergence that people want to standardise extensions 19:37:50 ... How do we ensure that that lifecycle proceeds smoothly? 19:38:02 ... Now, in this space, we have prior examples of failures, RSS and Atom 19:38:07 ... extensions never got standardised 19:38:14 ... never made it to the popular extensions became a standard, thing 19:38:28 ... never a mechansim defined for how your extension got to transition to becoming official 19:38:32 conversely, OpenSocial did incorporate them 19:38:34 ... in RSS there was actually resistance 19:38:51 ... Would encourage this group to think more in terms of optimisitc extensions becoming popular and being added to the spec 19:39:00 ... Similarly, html wg had process which in some cases worked (I don't know what that is) 19:39:06 tantek is there a github issue for this? 19:39:13 ... Sandro had the straw proposal that here's a naming convention 19:39:18 back in the irc and also on talky,io 19:39:21 ... Only going to raise the issue as a need, don't have a proposal 19:39:28 ... Only raising that because sandro brought it up 19:39:32 Arnaud: one more in tracker 19:39:36 ... issue-45 19:39:41 issue-45 19:39:41 issue-45 -- Conflicts between json-ld and mf2 examples -- open 19:39:41 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/45 19:39:49 jasnell: Goes back to the non-normative examples, discrepencies 19:39:55 ... THere have been quite a few updates 19:40:14 ... to microformats examples. They're closer, but still not a normative mapping between mf2 and as2 model, still not one-to-one 19:40:19 ... I would prefer to handle this as an editorial issue 19:40:31 ... If folks want to make continued improvements to make a closer match, open a PR 19:40:41 ... But before submitting, double check you don't introduce other errors 19:40:47 ... So many changes, difficult to review and catch all those errors 19:40:56 ... So just double check that if you're changing syntax stuff that everything is correct 19:41:02 ... Or break it down to fewer changes per PR 19:41:04 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE-45, as "good enough", PRs to be submitted for any further improvements 19:41:11 ... But I prefer ot handle this as an editorial issue and close in the tracker 19:41:11 +1 19:41:14 ... Not a blocker 19:41:17 +1 19:41:19 +1 19:41:23 +1 19:41:25 +1 19:41:25 +1 19:41:29 +1 19:41:31 +1 19:41:35 +1 19:41:44 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE-45, as "good enough", PRs to be submitted for any further improvements 19:41:48 +1 19:41:57 Arnaud: that takes care of w3c tracker, switch to github 19:41:58 though i wonder if jf2 replacing mf2 in serializations might be better 19:42:06 jasnell: there are a numer. 14 marked as proposals 19:42:16 ... I would prefer to start with syntax 19:42:21 but can discuss in jf2 discussion 19:42:25 ... Start with 248 19:42:32 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/248 19:42:47 ... Received +1s in the thread 19:42:49 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/pull/253/files#diff-994ce053ce1a3000232d15b7e6b66bf6R236 19:42:51 ... Seems to be preferred 19:43:03 ... It is a breaking change as far as as1 19:43:14 ... Does anyone have an objections? 19:43:17 q+ 19:43:21 +1 to "name" instead of "displayName" 19:43:35 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE #248, renaming displayName to name 19:43:36 eprodrom: as someone who implemented as1, since we are doing a lot of backwards compat breaking, I don't see us using name for anything else, so this makes a lot of sense 19:43:37 +1 19:43:40 +1 19:43:40 ack eprodrom 19:43:40 +1 19:43:41 1+ 19:43:42 +1 19:43:43 +0 19:43:43 +1 19:43:46 q+ history was displayName was a function 19:43:51 +1 19:43:56 bengo: I know there's part of the spec that compares with as1.. 19:43:57 +1 19:44:02 jasnell: will do the same for this 19:44:03 +1 19:44:05 +1 19:44:16 ... for anyone who wants to process an as1 document as as2, there's a supplemental context that would map displayName to name 19:44:20 bengo: does that also reserver displayName? 19:44:25 ack kevinmarks 19:44:26 jasnell: Yes, it should. I'll make that change. 19:44:33 +1 19:44:34 oops 19:44:37 I already +1'ed! 19:44:43 kevinmarks: the history of this was that displayName was a function in open social so we had to call displayName to join first name and last name 19:44:45 +1 19:44:47 ... old piece of code we should get rid of 19:44:49 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE #248, renaming displayName to name 19:44:51 Arnaud: sounds not controversial 19:45:01 jasnell: *and* I already did it 19:45:03 Aside: is this the right format for new CR blocker issues? https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261 cc: sandro 19:45:09 q? 19:45:11 q+ 19:45:16 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/247 19:45:17 jasnell: Next, removing title 19:46:02 tantek: quick question, I filed issue regarding lifecycle/naming. Quick thumbs up / thumbs down for naming convention, of issue. Right method of filing? 19:46:06 jasnell: yeah it's fine 19:46:09 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE #247, removing title attribute 19:46:28 ... Okay, so renaming title. Short summary, name has always been plain text, default if they don't support markup. Title was always supposed to be marked up version of name 19:46:33 ... Equivalent except it allows markup 19:46:46 ... Aaron suggested we remove title and just have name, summary and content 19:46:58 As someone who has historically included HTML markup in his Atom entry titles and has broken TONS of Feed Readers - in my experience implementations get this WRONG 19:47:00 ... Simplifies vocab, but we lose ability to specify markup version of title, but I have never seen an implementation that actually uses that 19:47:07 +1 19:47:09 +1 19:47:10 +1 19:47:11 +1 19:47:13 +1 19:47:13 +1 19:47:14 +1 iff 'title' is reserved in future and equivalencies set up in context and AS1 interpretation (non-normative) bit 19:47:18 +1 19:47:36 +1 19:47:39 +1 19:47:58 +1 19:48:02 +1 19:48:03 maybe +0 19:48:21 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE #247, removing title attribute 19:48:38 cwebber2: would this end up taking over... if you look at pump.io, we put name where title currently is 19:48:44 ... that content would still hold the main content? 19:48:45 +1 19:48:49 ... Right, fine with me 19:49:04 jasnell: already have a commit for that 19:49:13 ... Another opened by aaron: as Link object 19:49:15 ... 245 19:49:19 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/245 19:49:27 ... Describes an indirect link to that resource 19:49:29 ... There has been some confusion 19:49:46 ... Link object allows us to describe properties of the Link, not the resource it's pointing to 19:49:51 ... Within that object we use href to point to the resuorce bieng referenced 19:49:58 q+ to question mediaType as property of the /link/ 19:49:59 ... We use url elsewhere as a way of pointing to a link 19:50:06 ... value of url is either a string or a Link Object 19:50:15 ... Link Object can have href to point to actual url 19:50:24 ... Aaron suggests using in both places 19:50:27 ... But that creates ambiguity 19:50:35 ... My preference would be to keep one distinct meaning for url 19:50:38 q? 19:50:50 kevinmarks: Examples are images and things. Would it be src rather than href? 19:51:05 ... The other thing is, we now have the ability to link to multiple variations o fthings. How do we represent that? 19:51:12 jasnell: The url property can have multiple values 19:51:32 ... If I have an image object with a url, I can describe image in abstract way,a nd use url to point to multiple representations, resolutions 19:51:41 ... Each one of those values within url is an as:Link 19:51:49 ... with the href property used to actually point to the actual location 19:51:54 ack tantek 19:51:56 kevinmarks: But doesn't necessarily catch all things in source? 19:52:02 q? 19:52:03 q? 19:52:09 ack azaroth 19:52:09 azaroth, you wanted to question mediaType as property of the /link/ 19:52:27 azaroth: Clarification - the link allows us to describ eproperties of the link, but not resource it's pointing to 19:52:34 ... Seems that the majority of properties actually describe resource 19:52:43 jasnell: Would be hints, just like what you can do with an anchor tag or a link header 19:52:53 ... Hints to what you're looking at, but not necessarily true 19:52:58 q+ 19:52:58 ... You'd have to follow url to resource 19:53:05 azaroth: Doesn't seem clear to me. Can we clarifiy? 19:53:10 jasnell: Can you open an issue to clarify that? 19:53:12 azaroth: yes 19:53:12 ack aaronpk 19:53:34 aaronpk: Specific example. I agree that the examples all given here seem to be describing the resource. The most common case being width and height of images 19:53:58 ... What's getting common now with high res displays, is double resolution image at the url, and image tag is served with width and height 19:53:59 there's also src-set, and element that solve this in HTML 19:54:08 ... Link object might have width/height of 100 but the image might actually be 200px 19:54:09 would prefer not to do this in a completely different way 19:54:11 that's what i was getting at 19:54:21 jasnell: that's what I was getting at 19:54:23 q+ 19:54:32 though srcset is more complex in that it has both 2x and width targetting 19:54:36 aaronpk: I think the wording is misleading 19:54:37 q+ 19:54:37 ack bengo 19:54:43 jasnell: issue to describe that, then will take as editorial 19:55:03 actually, we ought to be able to use the existing issue comments: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/245 19:55:04 bengo: a part of the existing language, if hyperlinked to qualified link relation documentation might clarify 19:55:07 q+ to note src-set, and element that solve this in HTML, would prefer to re-use one of those approaches/structure rather than have something halfway 19:55:10 ack tantek 19:55:10 tantek, you wanted to note src-set, and element that solve this in HTML, would prefer to re-use one of those approaches/structure rather than have something halfway 19:55:14 azaroth, are you drafting that issue right now? 19:55:16 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE #245, keeping both url and href separate, clarifying the spec 19:55:20 Arnaud: seems like we're getting convergence to spec being clarified 19:55:26 I'm kind of confused as to what solution we're looking at 19:55:35 tantek: challenge I have with this issue is that it's hitting the wrong middle ground 19:55:50 ... Rather than specifiying width and height (because it's informative)... I don't think it's helpful 19:55:54 width and height is red herring. mediaType hints are really where this is nice 19:55:59 for srcset 19:56:01 ... You need to take an approach that's already been solved, like html with srcset on image and picture element 19:56:17 ... So, two directions. One, drop width height stuff and literally have image b ea url. 'This is an image, no claims about dimensions' 19:56:42 ... Other side is, if your intent is to provide images of a particular resolution and hav ea particular behaviour, lets reuse solutions that have been implemented, with srcset and picture element 19:56:46 ... Rather than trying to have something half way 19:56:57 Arnaud: AMP are doing the opposite, requiring width and height for performance purposes 19:57:03 aaronpk: I don't think AMP is a good example 19:57:05 +1 on not making any suggestions on display size 19:57:07 aaronpk: Yes 19:57:11 I think AMP example is a bad example 19:57:24 Sorry, was listening to tantek's concern :) 19:57:38 I consider that part of formatting and that should be kept outside of AS2 19:57:46 jasnell: What I would ask, about the basic idea, is take a stab at a concrete example of what it would look like in this syntax: I have an image object, I want it available at multiple resoultions. What would that look like in the json? A strawman would make it a lot easier to work out what to do. 19:57:52 tantek: reasonable 19:57:59 ... I do think there's value in havin gan value of image that's a single url 19:58:18 ... Both useful to have image as a url, and also a solution for the use case you described 19:58:20 tantek { image: 'url' } is valid 19:58:21 ... I don't want one to stop the other 19:58:25 jasnell: righ tnow they don't 19:58:28 ... The value of url can just be a url 19:58:32 ... You don't have to use as:Link model 19:58:50 ... If you want to provide an additional metadata then the value of url can be an object that describes that link 19:58:53 ... You ahve either choice 19:59:00 ... Most common case, the value of url will be a string 19:59:03 bengo: also Image 19:59:09 jasnell: right 19:59:22 aaronpk: I didn't realise what was happening with the use of the two terms and that it was intentionally different 19:59:25 http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/qualified-relation.html 19:59:29 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE #245, keeping both url and href separate, clarifying the spec 19:59:29 q+ 19:59:30 ... Now it's been clarified, it makes sense 19:59:40 ack eprodrom 20:00:05 eprodrom: we were just talking about in Atom and other places, where 99% there would be no markup 20:00:10 .. then 1% it would break consumers 20:00:17 ... Are we setting up something like this for our url property? 20:00:19 aaronpk: I added https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/263 -- please edit to fix if I've misunderstood 20:00:36 ... Mostly it's just a string, but there are legitmate use cases. JSON objects could blow up consumers that are looking for strings. 20:00:46 +1 to eprodrom 20:00:54 jasnell: The response to that is, we know for a fact we have this use case wher emutliple resolutions of the image need to be provided 20:00:54 q+ 20:00:58 ... We know that's not hypothetical at all 20:01:04 ... The spec currently deals with that and allows for that use case 20:01:18 ... If we want to refactor that part to make it follow the most common case, we need a proposed solution to address the other case 20:01:20 if we want to refactor the complex case, let's please base it on src-set 20:01:21 @rhiaro: I don't understand how we can talk about breaking anything. I didn't know we are supposed to be backwards compatible to anything 20:01:36 ... A concrete strawman is what I suggest 20:01:38 +1 20:01:38 q- 20:01:41 q? 20:01:45 PROPOSED: Close ISSUE #245, keeping both url and href separate, clarifying the spec 20:01:46 +1 20:01:48 +1 for closing issue 245 20:01:48 +1 20:01:49 +1 20:01:50 +1 20:01:50 +1 20:01:52 +1 20:01:52 +1 20:01:53 +1 20:01:53 +1 20:01:54 +1 20:01:58 +1 20:02:03 +0 I don't understand it enough to disagree. trust rest of wg consensus. 20:02:05 understanding++ 20:02:07 understanding has 1 karma 20:02:10 RESOLVED: Close ISSUE #245, keeping both url and href separate, clarifying the spec 20:02:18 url: [Link(), Link() ] useful for specifying linkRelation of those urls 20:02:21 Arnaud: we're out of time based on what we agreed earlier 20:02:25 q+ 20:02:29 ... Switch gear, then we can go back to this if we have more time before lunch 20:02:36 eprodrom: Could we instead reserve half an hour to discuss testing? 20:02:39 Arnaud: no, tesing and jf2 20:02:43 ... Rather we stick with agenda 20:02:46 ... We can always come back 20:03:20 jasnell: most remaining are vocabulary not syntax 20:03:22 propose 30 min each on agenda items for 12:00-13:00 20:03:32 I would be glad if we could talk about the issues raised by me before lunch, because after your lunchtime it's 11 p.m. in Germany 20:03:47 Arnaud: big part of getting to CR is developoing a test suite 20:03:53 ... Several efforts, but not quite there yet 20:04:00 ... To get to CR we don't have to have a full fledged test suite 20:04:21 ... We have a link to the test suite, call for implementations and ask them to run against the test suite 20:04:26 ... And a link for people to provide implementation reports 20:04:29 Test suite of just Social SYntax? or are we talking all? 20:04:43 ... Someobdy will have to have the task of gathering these reports and putting them together 20:04:48 bengo: just AS2 20:04:53 q+ point of order re: rene's issues, jf2 testing framework 20:04:55 ... So we can present to w3c management when we claim we have met exit criteria 20:05:02 q+ to ask point of order re: rene's issues, jf2 testing framework 20:05:56 tantek: if we're going to reorder, that should be an explicit action, due to timezone of remote participants 20:06:17 Arnaud: does ben have to drop off? 20:06:30 PROPOSAL: reorder agenda to keep AS fresh in our brains without loading new context of jf2 20:06:52 ben_thatmustbeme: half an hour is fine 20:07:07 ack tantek 20:07:07 tantek, you wanted to ask point of order re: rene's issues, jf2 testing framework 20:07:15 q+ 20:07:16 ack eprodrom 20:07:36 ack rene 20:07:43 kevinmarks: I can't be here tomorrow, so would be good to discuss admin item re Annotation WG this afternoon if possible 20:07:56 rene: I have a hard time following the audio, so following in irc 20:08:05 ... not sure if it's my turn to speak on issues, or still talking about agenda? 20:08:11 Arnaud: we'r enot talking about AS2 issues any more 20:08:18 OK, I'm here all day 20:08:21 rene: makes more sense to talk about the rule before 20:08:27 eprodrom: which rule? 20:08:49 rene: the question is that james often argues that things could be easily implemented as extensions. My question is whether this arguement is a group one, or when it can be applied? 20:09:16 ... My main concern for a standard like AS2 is assuirng some kind of interoperability, the worst thing that can happen is we have two implementations that all pass th etests, but they dont' interop with each other 20:09:22 rene++ 20:09:26 rene has 2 karma 20:09:36 note related issue: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261 20:10:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86971&oldid=86966 20:10:07 ... would new types improve on interop, or an extension mechanism that falls back to default type doesn't improve interop, this would be a good criteria to decide whether to integrate an additional object type or activity type or not 20:10:11 rene, is this filed in github? it does seem worthy of capturing 20:10:19 ... as far as I understood it, that makes it easier for object types to postpone them to extensions 20:10:25 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/265 20:10:37 ... my preferred way of doing that would be to keep an appendix of proposed object types, so people can reuse extensions 20:10:48 Arnaud: goign to have to interrupt, we have moved on to another topic 20:10:53 ... This seems to be worth time and discussion 20:11:00 ... Don't mean to imply otherwise. Do we have an open issue on this? 20:11:13 rene: we could also discuss next week if worst comes to worst right? 20:11:17 ... This should be recorded as an open issue so we can get to it eventually 20:11:25 ... Unfortunately we don't have time, trying to keep up with agenda 20:11:31 TOPIC: test suite 20:11:49 rene could you capture that concer in a new github issue? https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/ 20:11:52 eprodrom: testing - two levels of interop for AS2 20:11:58 ... One is at application level 20:11:59 and please reference issue#261 20:12:05 ... Applications that are publishing AS2 on the web 20:12:09 ... And applications that are consuming 20:12:13 ... That's an interesting level to attack 20:12:19 ... The second is implementation libraries 20:12:30 ... With the guess that there will probably be many more applications that use aS2 than libraries 20:12:45 ... We have one test tool already which is the validator that was put together by JP 20:13:02 link? 20:13:03 ... I believe that uses the javascript implementation already, and just takes a url and parse and dump out the information about that url 20:13:07 ... If it's a valid as2 document 20:13:14 ... Sorry, if it's an okay as2 document, not valid 20:13:27 ... My suggestion is we continue to keep that running and keep it useful 20:13:33 ... For applications implementations 20:13:46 ... THe implementations that we're going to see over the next few months, mayb enext 6-12 20:13:49 ... are going to be libraries 20:13:53 ... we have a python library recently done 20:14:05 ... we have js libraries that have existed before, as well as a currently bitrotting java library 20:14:12 ... all of these are the first line of implemenations that we need to test 20:14:18 ... probably the most valuable places for us to put our test effort 20:14:19 btw, it doesn't have the fancy formatting applied, but everyone can track my almost live edits to the spec as we've been discussing / resolving here: https://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/next-round/activitystreams-core/index.html 20:14:34 ... one question for those who have been through this process before, is whether testing at that level is what we're looking for in implementation tests? 20:14:45 ... Testing a library that produces and consumes as2 20:14:52 ... Without necessarily publishing it on the web 20:14:52 there are some changes that have not yet been fully discussed (re: the revised language around the JSON-LD requirements) 20:14:54 q+ 20:14:54 Arnaud: absolutely 20:14:59 eprodrom: good 20:15:04 tantek: necessary but not sufficient 20:15:10 kevinmarks: what is it translating from and to? 20:15:21 q+ 20:15:25 eprodrom: expectation that it would be using an internal representation for programming language it's using 20:15:35 ... eg. js one parses into objects, python into in-memory objects, in that programming language 20:15:44 ... But there is an interesting quesiton of if we are trying to test it, how do we test that internal representation 20:15:51 q- 20:15:55 q+ to note that internal model isn't normative and hence isn't testable? 20:16:15 ... The tack that chris and I took is that we would have a commandline interface as inteface between the test suite and the implementation 20:16:19 melvster has joined #social 20:16:30 ... that the testing suite would basically be spawing out a stub commandline programme that we assume uses the library implementation 20:16:35 ... it calls it with certain commandline options 20:16:42 ... so will expect certain output back from the stub 20:16:47 ... the question is, do you understand this josn? 20:16:51 s/josn/json 20:16:58 ... if you understand this json, you will be able to tell me the type of this activity 20:17:03 ... and it will return the type of this activity 20:17:09 ... so it is testing any level of understanding on the part of that library 20:17:22 https://github.com/w3c-social/as2test 20:17:34 ... This is the link to the test framework 20:18:01 ... There may be some libraries that only implement one or other sides of this conversation 20:18:06 ... Some that only produce, some that only parse 20:18:12 ... There's an interface listed for waht those stubs need to do 20:18:26 ... They'll eitehr get as2 json as standard input, and a request in commandline interface 20:18:42 ... or they will be for the producer, it will be passed all the information as commandline activity and it should output as2 json on stdout 20:18:46 melvster has left #social 20:18:49 q- 20:18:52 ... that's not the only way that this could work 20:18:57 ... We could do a web interface rather than commandline 20:19:00 ... good parts and bad parts 20:19:08 ... overhead of producing commandline input and output is a lot lower than web 20:19:10 q+ 20:19:17 ... so good sides and bad sides to that 20:19:40 ... but what I'd like to do is get us to a point where we agree that this mechanism makes sense, or if we think another mechanism makes sense, that we get to that, because I'd like to put more time into putting more test cases into this framework 20:19:46 ... but don't want to do that if this is not the right way to go 20:19:52 Arnaud: I do want to point out that there are two aspects to this 20:20:00 ... At the end of the day, what does it mean to be compiant with the spec? It's a format 20:20:06 ... Being able to produce an dconsume 20:20:20 ... It's kind of.. the challenge is how do we test compliance without requiring a specific API 20:20:29 ... We can choose to provide a test harness or not 20:20:38 ack cwebber 20:20:39 it's a question of what is an implementation, for the purposes of exiting CR 20:20:41 ... We could have a collection of them in different languages, and people can use them or not 20:20:45 *also a 20:20:55 cwebber2: I think this is also one fo the things proposed is that ther eare different formats that might be pushed forward 20:21:13 ... Presumably what we're going to do is what we demand that everyone do 20:21:24 q+ to suggest json-schema ? 20:21:28 +1 20:21:36 ... so we have some structure for tests, it would be interesting to get a sense, even if you're not an as2 person and might go in another direction, we could still use your help about direction of tests 20:21:45 ... Because that's probably the direction that we'll hope everybody goes 20:21:49 q? 20:21:55 ack kevinmarks 20:21:55 ... (including testing for alternatives to as2) 20:22:03 kevinmarks: two models - universal feed parser test suite 20:22:19 ... Python based, defines a very rich test suite with several thousand test cases for mapping things 20:22:26 ... it defines here's the input, output should look like this 20:22:50 universal feed parser test suite: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/feedparser#testing 20:22:51 -1 20:22:52 ... Other pattern that we foudn useful was defining a set of test cases for mapping microformats into parsed json. Doing this on the web was really useful, we could cross test between implementations 20:23:00 ... Check round trips 20:23:10 ... Wrapping a web server around the commandline thing is really valuable 20:23:12 sorry 20:23:12 q- 20:23:29 ... If you can do it on the web so we can just feed urls, that's really useful 20:23:33 +1 to having web front end 20:23:34 ack azaroth 20:23:34 azaroth, you wanted to suggest json-schema ? 20:23:36 https://github.com/microformats/tests 20:23:52 q+ 20:23:53 +q 20:24:04 azaroth: json schema - should be possible to describe requirements 20:24:10 jasnell: for core that would be possible 20:24:25 ... but json schema, most of the implementations currently available do not implement 100% of json schema spec 20:24:42 ... and some aspects of json-ld serialization, and we support some propertis with either or, many json schema implementations don't understand that 20:24:45 ... they don't do union values 20:24:50 my fork of feedparser is at https://github.com/kevinmarks/feedparser 20:24:51 ... in theory that should be possible, in practice it's not 20:25:08 azaroth: json schema is a json document that describes what another json document should look like 20:25:10 the mainline one has been stripping tests out and dropping support 20:25:14 ... with various advanced features 20:25:26 ... can ignore, must not ignore etc 20:25:32 ... the python implementation that I've used does support union 20:25:50 eprodrom: so what we would do is say a producer has produced some as2 json, we would use json schema to validate it, but it would not test parsers 20:25:54 q? 20:26:04 ack cwebber 20:26:12 you have tests like this: https://github.com/kevinmarks/feedparser/blob/develop/feedparser/tests/wellformed/atom/entry_author_homepage.xml 20:26:17 cwebber2: when I first started working on first version, the thing that ended up becoming my implementaiton of as2, I started writing a validator, and evan pointed out a validator is not the same thing as what we need 20:26:22 ... json schema is a validator 20:26:32 ... but we actually want to see whether some sort of action is correct right? 20:26:42 azaroth: but the actions taken by user agents in response to the format is not normatively testable? 20:26:50 cwebber2: that starts to become api territory 20:26:53 q? 20:26:55 ... as2 is api neutral 20:26:58 q+ 20:27:00 ... I made that mistake initially 20:27:16 ... Theoretically we're writing a format test suite, not a validator, not an api test suite 20:27:21 ... that's why it gets tricky 20:27:23 q+ 20:27:24 q? 20:27:24 ack bengo 20:27:42 bengo: json schema useful building block, but it only does json 20:28:06 ... wanted to express support of general idea of test suite shell interface to facilitate many language implementaitons 20:28:09 the mf2 ones have parallel html and json files like https://github.com/microformats/tests/blob/master/tests/microformats-v2/h-card/hcard.html https://github.com/microformats/tests/blob/master/tests/microformats-v2/h-card/hcard.json 20:28:13 err, is talky still running at your end? 20:28:24 ... there's something either in npm or node core, a test suite that is a series of shell scripts with exit code 0 or 1, works or doesn't 20:28:28 ... Really easy to add test cases 20:28:35 tantek: is talky broken? 20:28:35 looks like it is tsyesika 20:28:37 ack sandro 20:28:55 hum okay, thanks, must be my end 20:28:57 sandro: You have a framework. Do you have a list of tests? 20:29:03 eprodrom: a few tests right now from core 20:29:12 ... Idea would be.. issues to start adding the rest of them 20:29:23 ... So all the examples from the document should be in there 20:29:36 ... Then also if there are other interoperability problems that come up, we should add as test cases too 20:29:44 ... That would be the point of having tests in this framework 20:29:50 ... Does that answer the question? 20:29:52 snarfed has joined #social 20:29:56 ack eprodrom 20:30:12 ... For other document formats, say css or html, there are tests for interoperability means parsing as well as producing 20:30:21 ... if we ignore parsing, that simplifies our effort in testing quite a lot 20:30:23 q+ 20:30:27 ... but not sure if that's somethign we can do 20:30:32 Arnaud: good segue for what I wanted to bring up 20:30:41 ... Primary goal is to be able to report implementations that are compliant 20:30:47 ... First level to achieve that is to let people make claims 20:31:06 ... We should try to provide some way to test this so we can report to w3c management with some facts 20:31:24 ... In this regard, you could have a list of documents that you say to be compliant you should be able to consume all of this 20:31:26 ... could just be that 20:31:33 ... how they do it is left up to them 20:31:35 q+ 20:31:47 ... we could have a validator that says if you're producing an as2 document it should be validating against this 20:31:56 ... the validator goes so far, if you validate then you're compliant 20:32:00 https://github.com/w3c-social/as2test/issues/17 20:32:08 ... other aspect is, we might want to have test suite to help developers to figure out compliance 20:32:10 ... they may not be usre 20:32:13 q+ to suggest extracting all examples from specs to act as input for parser testing 20:32:17 ... so they can test if they got it right 20:32:23 ... whether we develop a harness, that's another level 20:32:36 ... the more we do the better, but in terms of what is required, it's this notion of being able to report on implementations 20:32:43 ... Bringing that up because I don't want us to lose sight of that 20:32:47 ... WGs vary in how they do this 20:32:51 ... Some are easier to test than others 20:33:08 ... Want to go beyond just being valid json 20:33:12 ... Try to find sweet spot 20:33:13 ack tantek 20:33:25 tantek: the importance of keeping that focus in mind cannot be understated 20:33:30 ... Reality check of implementations 20:33:49 ... By exiting CR we are making the claim that everything in the spec has been implemented by at least two or more implementaitons 20:33:56 ... Not necessarily all in one implementation 20:33:59 ... Could b eoverlaps 20:34:04 ... That's largely a judgement call 20:34:13 ... There's no definition of 'implementation' - is it a lbirary, is it a parser? 20:34:25 ... Would encourage the group to consider real world implementations as possible 20:34:47 ... To say, hey we have an implementation that meets an early use case is a bar to aim for to be taken seriously 20:34:52 ... Libraries ar eunlikely to meet end user use cases 20:35:13 ... There were plenty of different xml formats that did exactly what arnaud said - it's xml, we already have a parser so it already passed 20:35:24 ... But they were useless. Haven't implemented something real. 20:35:37 ... Want to warn against being overly confident of only having libraries and parsers 20:35:40 q+ 20:35:42 q+ 20:35:45 ... To clos ethe loop to real world use cases 20:35:45 ack sandro 20:35:51 sandro: agree with arnaud and tantek 20:35:55 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Social_Data_Syntax 20:36:03 ... What comes to my mind .. I don't know how to do an automated test 20:36:06 eprodrom: we have it 20:36:11 sandro: that doesn't achieve tantek and arnaud's goals 20:36:16 ... all it shows is that you have a library 20:36:50 ... So the test I'd like see - here's an example feed form the WG. it gets displayed through some software. I as a human read that. I re enter at by acting in software, to recreate the same feed 20:36:57 ... That way I've tested the consumer and producer software 20:37:13 bblfish has joined #social 20:37:16 ... Every possible thing in the feed is a thing can see and understand. Everything you can produce is a thing that a human can do. 20:37:22 cwebber2: you're making a human API 20:37:25 time check: we're over the half hour mark 20:37:31 ... This stuff is really useful once you get to the api level 20:37:40 sandro: the entering stuff I'm going out on... let's just test the consumer 20:37:52 ... the consuming software should be able to take any kind of feed and give something to a human 20:37:54 https://github.com/gobengo/activity-phraser 20:38:09 Arnaud: not realistic 20:38:12 AS2 does not define any normative requirements that can be tested by a user agent 20:38:16 sandro: what's the alternative? That's what html and css did 20:38:25 it doesn't define any display requirements, any use requirements 20:38:25 tantek: at the end of the day you have to have a human look at it 20:38:31 Arnaud: what does html do? 20:39:00 tantek: html5 has a test suite, it is manually testable, most of it is automatable, but a human can go to any test case in their browser and see if their browser can pass this test or not 20:39:10 sandro: the tests were cleverly designed. Took many years to figure that out 20:39:16 ... I can't think of how to do that for AS2 20:39:20 for instance, it does not say, "this like activity should be displayed like this, implementations must pay attention to these properties, and present the information in a particular way" 20:39:30 tantek: if AS2 is 'just a format' like html, I can direct my AS2 browser (aka a feed reader) at an activity stream, you should see x 20:39:34 https://github.com/gobengo/activity-element 20:39:36 cwebber2: still requires an api implementation 20:39:39 tantek: not necessarily 20:39:52 eprodrom: so testing some kind of AS2 to renderer that shows object in reader/browser 20:39:56 cwebber: You could read off of disk, rather than pull from online? 20:40:19 ... Interesting, valuable use case... I'm not sure all implelmentors will be generating human readable feeds that are supposed to be something you look at 20:40:20 https://github.com/gobengo/activity-mocks 20:40:21 q+ 20:40:25 sandro: what are they going to be generating? 20:40:38 Arnaud: we need to focus direction, we're out of time 20:40:40 q? 20:40:57 cwebber2: evan built something, is that a good direction? If not, is somebody willing to help something better? 20:40:57 Relevant libraries for human-reasable phrasing, HTML rendering. Both of those required a set of 'valid' AS2 Objects 20:41:03 SO I think 'isValid' is a useful building block 20:41:09 q? 20:41:12 a format validator is the best we can do without a defined API or documented display requirements 20:41:17 q- 20:41:22 ... We can talk about pie in the sky , but the goal, for me, AS2 is an intermediate step. What I really want to build is stuff on top of AS2 20:41:22 q- 20:41:33 ... I don't want to spend ages writing renderers, I want to build applications people can use 20:41:38 q? 20:41:46 tantek: not pie in the sky, we have feed readers 20:41:50 Atom never had a test suite 20:41:53 Atom had a validator 20:42:00 RSS had a validator also 20:42:13 ... Even if all you did was copy an existing rss feed reader ui and use for AS2, that's one simple example, that would resemble the browser equivalent of AS2 20:42:21 there is no "test suite" for RSS or Atom beyond validating syntax and best practices for syntax 20:42:27 ack azaroth 20:42:27 azaroth, you wanted to suggest extracting all examples from specs to act as input for parser testing 20:42:27 cwebber2: is pump.io already fulfilling this if it uses as2? 20:42:30 q? 20:42:42 https://github.com/gobengo/activity-phrase-feed 20:42:58 tantek: https://identi.ca/cwebber 20:42:58 azaroth: just to suggest that we have a really good doc.. if somethign is in there and there's no way it can be tested, be good to ahve that in there 20:43:01 ... how to test each feature 20:43:03 literal rendering of AS1 20:43:17 well, literally mapping to your suggestion 20:43:18 Arnaud: could we develop one document where every feature of the spec is at least used once. Bare minimum for test suite. 20:43:20 the feedparser test suite is an atom/rss test suite 20:43:27 cwebber2: right - if we can show that every feature is shown/used in something visual like that - that would be a great start 20:43:29 so in a certain extent, building the api / federation tools helps us achieve that? 20:43:30 ack eprodrom 20:43:30 ... And validator should be able to validate against this 20:43:30 q+ 20:43:36 the atom validator was built on feedparser as well 20:43:42 q+ 20:43:43 q- 20:43:49 ack sandro 20:44:15 q+ 20:44:18 q- 20:44:31 q+ remind that current level of implementations is probably going to be libraries 20:44:34 sandro: A feed that has everything in the AS2 vocabulary... a system has to handle eg. TentativeReject. The author of the system needs to tell us they're implementing TentativeReject 20:44:48 ... Displaying them to the user in a way that the user can distinguish them is good enough 20:44:50 q+ to remind that current level of implementations is probably going to be libraries 20:44:52 jasnell: spec does not say how they're used 20:44:53 Zakim, close queue 20:44:53 ok, tantek, the speaker queue is closed 20:45:01 sandro: conveying it ot the user in some way that the user understands... 20:45:05 ack cwebber 20:45:08 jasnell: someone would need to write up what that means 20:45:18 https://identi.ca/cwebber 20:45:23 cwebber2: sounds like ... I pointed to pump.io .. this is a rendering of as1 20:45:27 ... simialr to an rss feed 20:45:36 ... so if we move onto api and federation things and build applications, that will come for free 20:45:40 ... because that's literally building those tools 20:45:58 q+ 20:46:04 ... Can we at least say that we should be moving forward on those other things 20:46:08 psych! 20:46:11 boo Zakim! 20:46:28 ... And agree that building the things that implement api and federation is ueful 20:46:35 q? 20:47:00 jasnell: validator has test suites. nothing for atom that says it must be rendered this way, or even interpreted this way. Just valid or not 20:47:10 (another test suite example: https://github.com/snarfed/granary/tree/master/granary/test/testdata , along with https://github.com/snarfed/granary/tree/master/granary/test/ ) 20:47:14 ... Absent api or application use cases, there's literlaly nothing else we can test 20:47:19 ... Is it valid syntax or not 20:47:19 azaroth: haha 20:47:22 jasnell I disagree - this is why Feed Readers failed to handle e.g. my markup in my entry titles 20:47:23 azaroth++ 20:47:26 azaroth has 7 karma 20:47:30 azaroth: I have an IRC bot that does fate dice rolls 20:47:35 azaroth++ 20:47:38 azaroth has 8 karma 20:47:41 snarfed++ 20:47:45 snarfed has 176 karma 20:47:47 jasnell - necessary but not sufficient 20:47:49 ... We have to have a document that describes expected behaviour when you receive one of these activity statements. That's separate from saying is that statement valid or not. We need a document to describe those things to be able to test them. 20:47:54 Arnaud: we're going to have to move on 20:47:55 q? 20:48:07 ack eprodrom 20:48:07 eprodrom, you wanted to remind that current level of implementations is probably going to be libraries 20:48:10 ... Clear we're not going to finish this today. Will continue on next call. 20:48:16 eprodrom: the implementations that are going to be done are going to be libraries 20:48:23 ... Useful to implementors to give a test suite for those libraries 20:48:28 ... A test suite for libraries maeks sense right now 20:48:32 ... Id' like to ocntinue working on it 20:48:34 :) 20:48:36 ... Not sure if it will be our ultimate test suite 20:48:45 Arnaud: haven't haven't heard anyone disagree with that 20:48:53 eprodrom: have a look at the granary link snarfed posted 20:48:55 ... Useful to have docs with valid input to provide to devs to test their implementations 20:49:08 ... And we have a validator that allows people to test what they're producing is reasonable 20:49:09 https://github.com/gobengo/activity-mocks#mocks 20:49:14 ... Anything beyond that is bonus 20:49:36 (also https://github.com/snarfed/granary/issues/64 for running eprodrom's as2test on granary) 20:49:38 q? 20:49:55 zakim, open queue 20:49:55 ok, Arnaud, the speaker queue is open 20:50:34 TOPIC: jf2 serialization 20:51:20 ben_thatmustbeme: aaron and I started playing with this idea of bringing microformats to a simpler serialization 20:51:23 tantek: sandro: just rendering won't be enough though, because we have to show the side effects 20:51:29 tantek: sandro: for delete etc 20:51:31 ... There's a standard that microformats parses out to alraedy, we wanted to simplify it to something closer to AS2 20:51:32 so it has to be mutable 20:51:36 ... because it is difficult to work with that format 20:51:40 ... jf2 is much more useful 20:51:42 sandro: tantek: which really means api implementation, with renderer 20:51:46 https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-Syntax-Brainstorming/wiki/jf2 20:51:47 ... Direct, from microformats here's how we get to something somewhat close to as2 20:51:54 cwebber2, agreed - which is why I asked sandro to capture his proposal - e.g in a github issue - so you can comment on it like that! 20:51:58 ... I think it's a big setp forward in unifying microformats community in getting to as2 20:52:00 tantek: :) 20:52:01 ... Definitely still differences 20:52:06 ... Based on what is most useful to use 20:52:08 sandro: please link it to me when it's there 20:52:17 ... I think aaron and amy are already using it 20:52:26 Arnaud: when you say more useful, than what? 20:52:35 ben_thatmustbeme: More useful than the current serializaiton of microformats 20:52:47 ... Not covering all of as2, because microformats works with posts not activities 20:53:02 ... When james looked at it he said it might be possible to do this as some alternative serialization... can't remember exact wording 20:53:13 ... If that's the case, we're two steps away from unifying everything 20:53:19 ... Which is the ultimate goal of this 20:53:28 q+ 20:53:32 ... The other thing is I think it might actually be a better comparison to AS2 20:53:42 q+ to confirm that as only JSON is normative per -core, that this doesn't block progress? 20:53:51 ... I would be in favour of replacing the microformats serializations with this, so we're comparing apples to apples - two json formats 20:54:01 Arnaud: What do you want from us? 20:54:12 q+ 20:54:20 ben_thatmustbeme: I don't know. I created the serializaiton. Aaron, you originally added it to an agenda that got dropped for 3 or 4 weeks? 20:54:38 ... So carried voer to f2f 20:54:47 ... What I want, ideally I'd like it to be a profile of AS2 20:54:51 ack eprodrom 20:54:51 q+ 20:54:56 profile of AS2 would be interesting 20:55:10 new tab on the standard! :) 20:55:18 eprodrom: my question is - are we looking to replace as2 as social syntax? publish it parallel? examine it abstractly? have it be compatible? 20:55:26 ... sounds like of those four, have it be something compatible, or a part of as2 20:55:29 q+ to note re: AS2 Core model of "Activity/Action" is useful for "Notifications" but not the simplest that could expressed for publishing / consuming streams of posts (RSS, Atom, h-entry). I think jf2 provides this in a complementary fashion and we should consider it as a social syntax effort. 20:55:32 ben_thatmustbeme: ideally yes 20:55:47 ... Worst case, something to publish as a note, how to get from microformats to as2, and possibly back 20:55:52 ack azaroth 20:55:52 azaroth, you wanted to confirm that as only JSON is normative per -core, that this doesn't block progress? 20:56:11 azaroth: JSON as the only normative serialization of AS2, this doesn't block anything. This is a separate process? 20:56:39 and this is another JSON Social Syntax, so it is covered by the charter 20:56:42 ... Potential straw person, we're blitzing through CR and got the AS2 doc to TR, and work was done in jf2, we would not want to go back and change anything about AS2 core or vocab? 20:56:46 q+ 20:56:47 Arnaud: is this a subset of as2 or not? 20:57:05 ben_thatmustbeme: Just a subset? Part of it is. I think it's implementation experience that's useful input to possible changes to AS2 20:57:10 Arnaud: that's what we'd need to know 20:57:13 jf2 pointer? 20:57:16 ... If this motivates changes to AS2 we need to know that soon enough 20:57:20 aaronpk: it already has 20:57:23 ... The issues I filed came from that 20:57:26 Arnaud: is there more? 20:57:26 ack jasnell 20:57:29 aaronpk: don't know yet 20:57:37 jasnell: positioning jf2 as an extension makes sense 20:57:40 ben - can hear your kbd 20:57:46 ... In the original writeup there wer esome things that overlapped with as2 syntax 20:57:56 q+ to also note that jf2 has already helped as2 normatively and that's been very helpful. Should keep moving forward with it. 20:58:01 ... that proposal for changing displayName to name. So we've already been making some of those changes based on that experience 20:58:19 ... Whatever parts in jf2 currently have that overlap we need to look at as change proposals in the syntax 20:58:23 ... Please open as proposals 20:58:29 ... Everything else makes perfect sense as an extension 20:58:42 ... could be done fairly transparently, but doesn't require any substantive changes to as2 in order to make that happen 20:58:46 ack rhiaro 20:58:55 scribenick: cwebber2 20:59:20 rhiaro: I just wanted to add that I haven't followed the most recent updates to JF2 but I think JF2 maps more closely to AS2 content objects than anything else, potentially could converge on being the same 20:59:51 rhiaro: if they eventually converge to AS2, we could dissolve JF2 and eveyone's happy, but at the very least converging on content objects might help 20:59:57 ack tantek 20:59:57 tantek, you wanted to note re: AS2 Core model of "Activity/Action" is useful for "Notifications" but not the simplest that could expressed for publishing / consuming streams of 20:59:59 scribenick: rhiaro 21:00:00 ... posts (RSS, Atom, h-entry). I think jf2 provides this in a complementary fashion and we should consider it as a social syntax effort. and to also note that jf2 has already 21:00:00 ... helped as2 normatively and that's been very helpful. Should keep moving forward with it. 21:00:10 pulling Content objects out into a separate spec is an interesting idea 21:00:13 q? 21:00:21 tantek: this has resulted in the really productive outcome, started with what's a different way of doing this. We got improvements in AS2 with specific issues, and I apprecate james for driving that 21:00:24 aaronpk++ 21:00:27 ben_thatmustbeme++ 21:00:28 aaronpk has 13 karma 21:00:30 jasnell++ 21:00:31 ben_thatmustbeme has 122 karma 21:00:33 Nicely done 21:00:34 jasnell has 35 karma 21:00:56 ... The specific followup that I wanted to provide was, in re-reading AS2 with the contetx of 'I'm a naive json developer, dabbled with rss or atom' - the entire model of AS2 is it's very verb centric 21:01:02 ... We dropped verbs but they resurfaced as types 21:01:04 verbs AND noun 21:01:06 s 21:01:11 ... It's fine, and maps really well to the real world use case of notifications 21:01:14 there's verbs and nouns both 21:01:14 ... on almost every single social network 21:01:20 ... often at /notifications 21:01:28 ... where you literally get a stream of activities worded just like activities in AS2 21:01:51 my employer's AS1 implementation is what-tantek-is-saying-as-a-service http://answers.livefyre.com/early-access/personalizedstream/personalized-streams/ 21:01:53 ... Want to call that out because real world implementations have found a distinct example that is different frome a news feed / homepage feed, which is just a stream of posts 21:02:03 ... Social networks have both - streams of actions and nouns 21:02:06 ... Interesting input we need to take 21:02:20 ... Jf2 is the evolution... RSS and Atom are post/noun centric 21:02:25 ... Jf2 is a modern updated json equivalent of atom 21:02:30 ... Here are a bunch of posts 21:02:42 q+ 21:02:43 q+ 21:02:44 ... In addition to converging with the content object model in AS2, it may have application on its own 21:02:48 q+ 21:02:59 ... It's a very short path to go from publishing an Atom feed to parsing jf2 21:03:10 ... An excellent way to get people on the road to implementing activitystreams 21:03:11 well said tantek 21:03:21 ... Would like to see this effort contineu potentially as a seperable module 21:03:23 q- 21:03:25 Arnaud: I don't hear much controversy 21:03:38 ... This is good news, everybody seems to agree this is helping with convergence 21:03:43 q- 21:03:44 a specific proposal could be to consider this as an editor's draft 21:03:44 ack kevinmarks 21:03:46 ... Don't know that there is much to discuss beyond that 21:04:01 q+ 21:04:12 kevinmarks: I think the origianl motivation for activities was the assumption that they were a database query. In opensocial, where this spawned from, I have an application embedded in a social network and I need to know what the user has done recently 21:04:29 ... Database query saying give me everytin grelevant in this context 21:04:43 ... Original implementation did shoot them into atom 21:04:48 scribenick: rhiaro 21:04:50 ... eventually became activitystreams 21:05:00 ... It was more of a logfile format for a computer than a plublication for a human 21:05:11 ... That distinction got lost, and the aim is clariifying that again 21:05:24 q? 21:05:25 ... The distinction between the post - human readable - and the logfile version which is as2 21:05:34 ... And I think jf2 is a good representation of those core content pieces 21:05:38 ack cwebber 21:06:16 cwebber2: I just wanted to point out that in as2 in a certain sense, the whole make-things-more-content-centric, has been done, because verbs are nouns in AS2. Activities are subclasses of Objects 21:06:20 +1 kevinmarks as2+jf2 has a chance of being a sensible, clear model of all this stuff 21:06:32 In pump.io there are two streams that you are talking about - main stream of posts, and secondary stream of notification 21:06:40 q- 21:06:41 ... in as2 already, verbs are nouns. We're already on that track. 21:06:43 ack eprodrom 21:07:07 eprodrom: I really liked tantek's analysis of the two different kinds of streams. You can't actually have a Collection of Objects currently. 21:07:09 q? 21:07:10 q+ to note a specific proposal could be to consider this as an editor's draft to formally accept it as a working group item (since we agree that work on it is a good thing). 21:07:50 Arnaud: find out where there is misalignment between two approaches. I don't see any reason to change the way we are dealing with this. Note definitely a possiblity down the line. We don't need to agree on this. THe conversions can keep on going. 21:08:18 ... So what's left is empty bag and then we have absolute convergence and everybody's happy. If not, at some point we decide we have this chunk of material which has nowhere to be put in this spec, and we can look into having an ED and publishing as a Note or Rec 21:08:35 tantek: The question of what do we do next 21:08:35 ack tantek 21:08:35 tantek, you wanted to note a specific proposal could be to consider this as an editor's draft to formally accept it as a working group item (since we agree that work on it is a 21:08:38 ... good thing). 21:08:51 ... Since we agree that this work is useful and has been productve, we should accept it as an editor's draft 21:09:00 ... That does not commit us to anything further than that 21:09:07 ... Does not commit us to publishing as a WD or a Note or anything 21:09:21 ... Just that we think this work is worth continuing in WG 21:09:37 ... propose we adopt jf2 as ED with no further implications for it's track 21:09:41 Arnaud: I think it's premature to do this 21:09:45 ... Status quo seems to be working 21:09:55 ... I disagree with your assessment of implication of turning a document into ED 21:10:16 ... i think it's premature. For now, it seems to be working material that's useful for some people to help them instrument their comments and feedback to AS2 21:10:16 I would prefer to have it as a document within the group 21:10:19 ... We should keep it that way 21:10:27 ... We could revisit in the future 21:10:33 ben_thatmustbeme, what do you mean by "a document within the group"? 21:10:46 ... Once aaron tells me we have finished this process of evaluating we can revist... but for now I don't see the point 21:10:50 isn't it still being edited the definition of an editors draft? 21:10:50 tantek: point to adopt it as a working item 21:10:55 ... I think that's all an ED implies 21:10:55 a work item 21:11:00 Arnaud: I didn't hear people want to do this 21:11:06 tantek: I'm saying that, ben is saying that 21:11:19 ... Trying to label the consensus that we've arrived at 21:11:25 ... Any objections? 21:11:49 ben_thatmustbeme: it was a doozie too 21:11:53 if "editor's draft" has implications other than "we're working on it" then isn't that an issue with the term "editor's draft"? 21:11:55 PROPOSED: Accept jf2 as an editor's draft with no commitment to rec track or even note track, but rather as a means to improving AS2. 21:12:01 -1 21:12:01 0 21:12:04 +1 21:12:08 +1 21:12:13 0 21:12:16 +0 21:12:16 +1 21:12:20 +0 21:12:21 +0 21:12:28 +1 21:12:45 I definitely, on the record, think that the JF2 work is awesome 21:12:47 and worthwhile, though 21:13:12 +0 21:13:22 though if JF2 becomes an editor's draft and acitvitypump doesn 21:13:24 t 21:13:25 heads up 21:13:28 tableflip coming ;) 21:13:33 RESOLVED: Accept jf2 as an editor's draft with no commitment to rec track or even note track, but rather as a means to improving AS2 21:13:34 ha ha 21:13:40 cwebber2: I prefer activitypump to become an ED 21:13:45 enjoy lunch 21:13:45 cwebber2: AS-IS EVENT 21:13:47 Topic: LUNCH!! 21:13:49 EVEN :) 21:13:49 :) 21:14:00 you can have high tea, ben_thatmustbeme 21:14:27 time to take the girls to see santa actually 21:14:58 ben_thatmustbeme++ thanks for leading the jf2 discussion 21:15:01 ben_thatmustbeme has 123 karma 21:19:43 ben_thatmustbeme++ 21:19:47 ben_thatmustbeme has 124 karma 21:27:38 jasnell has joined #social 21:46:31 jasnell has joined #social 21:47:35 melvster has joined #social 21:52:32 I know it was said in jest but comments like 'evan said he'd vote for whatever gets us to lunch fastest' are not the best advert for people following this conversation from outside the F2F 21:53:07 melvster has left #social 21:53:56 edhelas has joined #social 21:54:10 kevinmarks has joined #social 21:57:32 ben_thatmustbeme: are you coming back for remote participation? 21:57:42 we may re-use the projection screen for demos etc. 21:57:55 he has to take his babies to visit santa eh said 21:58:24 ok 21:58:29 anyone else from the doc? 21:59:28 tsyesika: do you want to reconnect to talky? 21:59:59 we can keep people on talky and just not project them too. they'll just be a tiny face over at this end of the table. 22:00:48 scribenick: wilkie 22:01:21 eprodrom: we have 3 agenda items: micropub, activity pump, amy's doc 22:01:26 q+ re agenda 22:01:39 eprodrom: baring objections, I'd like to put amy's doc first to drive discussion of others 22:01:51 tantek: rob is on the queue regarding agenda 22:01:53 ack azaroth 22:01:53 azaroth, you wanted to discuss agenda 22:01:55 trackbot, status 22:02:17 azaroth: kevin put on agenda for tomorrow for annotations. I'm not going to be here tomorrow, so if we could do that today that would be appreciated 22:02:18 Zakim, who is present? 22:02:18 I don't understand your question, tantek. 22:02:21 eprodrom: I don't have a problem with that 22:02:23 Zakim, who is here? 22:02:23 Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, 22:02:26 ... wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo 22:02:26 On IRC I see kevinmarks, jasnell, bblfish, snarfed, kevinmarks3, azaroth, bengo, eprodrom, RRSAgent, Arnaud, tantek, ben_thatmustbeme, bret, bigbluehat, tommorris_, cwebber_remote, 22:02:26 ... ElijahLynn, dwhly, tessierashpool_, bitbear, cwebber2, shepazu, tsyesika, rhiaro, oshepherd, wilkie, raucao, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rrika, Zakim, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer 22:02:29 eprodrom: first I will make the change to put Amy earlier 22:02:49 eprodrom: tantek: if you could move annotations to after api 22:02:54 eprodrom: last question is about dinner 22:03:13 eprodrom: is anyone not coming to dinner. and if not can we get a head count to make reservations 22:03:30 tantek: I did get dinner catered here 22:03:48 tantek: I'm happy to take people on a tour if they would like 22:04:03 o/ 22:04:03 q? 22:04:08 eprodrom: ok, if you can update the agenda about dinner that'd be great. thank you to tantek for hosting 22:04:23 tantek: next thing I saw activity pump had aaron? I'm going to change that to chris. 22:04:29 aaronpk: yeah, that's because I added it 22:04:29 trackbot, draft minutes 22:04:29 Sorry, Arnaud, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to for help. 22:04:50 tantek: I have amy, liason with annotations, micropub and activitypump 22:04:53 dwhly has joined #social 22:05:18 zakim, draft minutes 22:05:18 I don't understand 'draft minutes', Arnaud 22:05:21 eprodrom: only other question is about rene's question, but it is late there and we could move this to tomorrow 22:05:33 eprodrom: I want to make sure things are handled and it gets on the agenda at some point 22:05:39 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 22:05:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html Arnaud 22:05:42 agenda updated https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Agenda 22:05:45 eprodrom: it might be courteous to our european participants to move it to tomorrow morning 22:05:49 talky is back up tsyesika ben_thatmustbeme 22:06:16 present+ Rob_Sanderson 22:06:34 eprodrom: can we add a morning agenda item for rene's question on extensions (for as2) 22:06:44 eprodrom: is that fair? to handle it tomorrow morning 22:06:53 hopefully the audio is better on the talky this time 22:06:55 tantek: I'll put that before federation protocol. earlier is better for europe 22:07:03 eprodrom: any other agenda modification? 22:07:08 who is on the talky? 22:07:13 I am 22:07:21 eprodrom: we have about 4 hours in order to get through social api and annotation. 22:07:35 tantek: I'm only talk y 22:07:35 eprodrom: we could do an hour a piece. is there anything that may take longer? 22:07:37 *talky 22:08:04 +1 to further AS2 issues if time allows 22:08:06 eprodrom: if we reach the end of our agenda, should we try to address as2 issues or any better ways to spend our time? 22:08:09 (if we get there) 22:08:13 sandro: let's see when we get there 22:08:15 eprodrom: yes 22:08:23 eprodrom: if that's it, amy, take the floor 22:08:53 https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi 22:09:04 rhiaro: I'm not going through the whole document because it is required reading and I've already gone over it prior and not much has changed 22:09:13 sandro: talky.io / socialwg 22:09:18 annos: https://via.hypothes.is/https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi 22:09:35 sandro: don't type the full url out, don't want it indexed by search 22:09:44 errr or something :P 22:10:02 Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86974&oldid=86971 22:10:03 Tantekelik made 4 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86978&oldid=86974 22:10:06 shepazu: talky.io / socialwg 22:10:16 sorry tab completion failure 22:10:18 Topic: Amy's Social API document 22:10:22 rhiaro: rather than a spec, this is a document that tries to point at the different ways of doing things 22:10:42 rhiaro: I've broken it down based on the social requirements we did a while ago 22:10:47 rrsagent, this meeting spans midnight 22:10:58 rhiaro: I shuffled it around in the last couple of weeks 22:11:32 rhiaro: the top you'll see three links to other specs. it will have a small summary of each. 22:11:53 rhiaro: what would be useful is filing issues or what we find important for each concept 22:12:00 hypothesis was clearly designed by someone with very good eyesight 22:12:23 rhiaro: I like multiple specifications that connect together instead of a huge spec, I know some would disagree 22:12:24 q? 22:12:28 q+ 22:13:02 rhiaro: what I am saying this is useful for filing issues against it to use to discuss the various areas to refine those sections 22:13:10 q+ to ask what do you need to publish this as a FPWD? 22:13:12 q+ 22:13:12 rhiaro: if anybody has feedback or questions or confusions... 22:13:17 ack cwebber2 22:13:18 ack cwqebber 22:13:22 ack cwebber 22:13:31 +1 on the document 22:13:34 cwebber2: the document is awesome and I've already given you feedback 22:13:58 cwebber2: amy also already did something converting activitypump stuff into this 22:14:01 rhiaro: it is not linked yet 22:14:02 on http://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi in particular 22:14:08 cwebber2: I already gave feedback 22:14:31 cwebber2: it is most interesting to me to hold off on separating the specs for now. I have a hard time reading through all of them. 22:15:00 cwebber2: [amy] already wants to have each section be independentally implementable 22:15:04 +1 to cwebber2 re not splitting up prematurely 22:15:17 q? 22:15:25 rhiaro: yeah, this includes federation and social api and it is a badly named document 22:15:35 rhiaro: maybe "Social Protocols" 22:15:58 ack tantek 22:15:58 tantek, you wanted to ask what do you need to publish this as a FPWD? 22:16:05 bengo: I read the charter as it is a javascripty thing 22:16:22 eprodrom: no, we've settled to be a REST-ful api 22:16:43 cwebber2: (to amy) it is just activitypump that has the conversion? 22:16:44 or "Social Data Distribution Protocols" 22:16:54 rhiaro: no. I have all of them. they are linked yet. 22:17:08 eprodrom: I just acked tantek 22:17:30 tantek: I like the document and Amy's approach to converge the various concepts. 22:17:51 tantek: we had a ton of API candidates at our meetings in the past and had a huge discussion to widdle them down 22:18:07 tantek: I want a draft sooner rather than later to show value and progress toward many aspects of our charter 22:18:30 tantek: amy, what do you need from us to make this a first working draft 22:18:37 rhiaro: what I need is to understand what this document is for 22:18:37 q+ 22:19:04 q+ 22:19:07 if we're renaming, possibly "Social API Comparisons" ? 22:19:12 rhiaro: when I started, I thought each section would have a spec you would just implement, but now we have various specs to pick between 22:19:18 rhiaro: what should I do 22:19:34 q+ to ask if we're going to mix-and-match or pick-one-and-refine 22:19:44 tantek: the point is there is something here worth broader discussion and to at least show that the WG has converged onto 3 different approaches (even if it is not just one) 22:20:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86979&oldid=86978 22:20:02 q? 22:20:02 tantek: it will say "hey, we made progress" and that's worth publishing and why I'm driving this discussion 22:20:06 ack bengo 22:20:12 rrsagent, pointer? 22:20:12 See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-irc#T22-20-12 22:20:23 bengo: I think it is useful right now as a survey of relevant protocols 22:20:53 we do have the agree on user-stories 22:20:54 bengo: and looking at the use cases, this document can show how those use cases can be done and which use cases cannot be done 22:21:03 wseltzer: do you want the av feed? 22:21:16 q? 22:21:21 ack cwebber 22:21:40 rhiaro, consider linking to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories perhaps in a requirements section ? 22:22:08 cwebber2: I think what is most useful, considering the feedback I and others have given, is that you can break down all these different schmes and how they overlap 22:22:12 tantek: links to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements which in turn links to user stories 22:22:24 I think user stories deserve a direct link 22:22:39 PR/issue? :) 22:22:49 cwebber2: so, hopefully people can help you determine the pattern and how to merge them all, if possible, to one coherent document 22:22:52 though maybe not, not a FPWD blocker 22:23:04 q? 22:23:14 ack sandro 22:23:14 sandro, you wanted to ask if we're going to mix-and-match or pick-one-and-refine 22:23:17 rhiaro, good point, this is probably good enough: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements#Requirements_by_story (excellent work btw) 22:23:19 cwebber2: so, it maps the space and highlights convergence. so hopefully the various spec groups help you with that feedback toward that goal. 22:23:49 sandro: are we going to mix and match or pick one and refine? 22:23:57 rhiaro: excellent question 22:24:27 sandro: looking at the doc, there is a different tone in the description section where there are various different ways to do pub/sub yet very similar ways to do 'delete' 22:24:51 sandro: so maybe we have some simple explanation about delete but you can't do that for subscriptions 22:25:25 rhiaro: it is useful to note the indieweb set of specs which are already broken down. and they use pubsubhubbub, but we can't link to it?? 22:25:44 eprodrom: there were patent issues with google about PuSH. another issue is that it doesn't private distribution. 22:25:52 aaronpk: but nothing does. so we could extend it to do that. 22:26:06 q? 22:26:12 eprodrom: right. many ways to do it. we could say 'this is aaronpk's feed to tantek and only those two can use it' etc 22:26:21 eprodrom: and the PuSH implementation can decide and be implemented to do that 22:26:24 q+ re: PuSH "status" 22:26:46 q? 22:26:48 rhiaro: would it be useful to pull out how activitypump does it and not have it dependent on anything else in activitypump etc 22:26:50 I'm all +1 for splitting up activitypump into smaller specs 22:27:15 sandro: when I read the activitypump spec yesterday I thought 'this is such a nice coherent whole' and the indieweb spec is also nice and coherent. 22:27:25 q+ to reply to sandro 22:27:31 q? 22:27:32 q+ 22:27:39 sandro: mixing them together... I dunno... it seems easier to just flip a coin and then take the things the other doesn't and just ask 'how do we improve it' 22:27:51 ack tantek 22:27:51 tantek, you wanted to discuss PuSH "status" 22:27:53 sandro: I don't want to make a frankenstein 22:27:57 tantek: right, me too 22:27:58 q+ to suggest a feature matrix as input to way forwards? 22:28:34 tantek: wrt PuSH: harry asked if we could link it and he got blocked trying to get the editor at Google's lawyers to allow it 22:29:06 tantek: I and a few others were contacted quite angrily by Julian, the PuSH group at w3c, which we apparently have 22:29:17 sandro: harry didn't know 22:29:20 tantek: we assume no malice there, right 22:29:51 tantek: so, we should contact Julian as a chair and ask about the status of PuSH and cc wendy and see if we can get to a point where we can at least reference it 22:30:03 https://www.w3.org/community/pubsub/ 22:30:04 tantek: or maybe bring it into the WG if it comes to that 22:30:18 eprodrom: sounds great. I'm making that action. 22:30:19 q? 22:30:36 eprodrom: it is a good option for us to follow. there are some good things about PuSH that makes sense to pursue. 22:30:57 eprodrom: it may also be reasonable of us to consider other options, like implementing just the web hook part of PuSH. 22:31:18 ACTION eprodrom contact Julian as a chair and ask about the status of PuSH and cc wendy and see if we can get to a point where we can at least reference it or possibly incorporate into this WG. 22:31:18 Created ACTION-80 - Contact julian as a chair and ask about the status of push and cc wendy and see if we can get to a point where we can at least reference it or possibly incorporate into this wg. [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-08]. 22:31:18 sandro: :) 22:31:28 wilkie++ thanks! :) 22:31:31 wilkie has 23 karma 22:31:38 q? 22:31:42 well, not just for big publishers, fro small publishers that might get takeoff 22:31:43 ack aaronpk 22:31:43 aaronpk, you wanted to reply to sandro 22:31:45 eprodrom: I want to make sure if we are fighting for PuSH that it is really the best tool for the job 22:32:00 aaronpk: I want to follow up sandro's comment about flipping a coin. 22:32:01 wilkie: thanks 22:32:09 q+ 22:32:34 aaronpk: I agree activitypump is a coherent spec that does everything it needs to do and you look at indieweb and they are a bunch of smaller specs that are equivalent 22:33:15 aaronpk: instead of choosing one and changing it as needed, we can look at the functionality of each spec: how does activitypump describe X, how does indieweb describe X 22:33:30 activitypump seems to combine reading and mentioning? 22:33:30 q? 22:33:55 aaronpk: and like PuSH, maybe it isn't the best option, but maybe we can see it as a good web-hook pattern and just use that 22:34:06 agreed, no need to flip a coin 22:34:06 kevinmarks: mentioning is one type of thing you can deliver 22:34:12 q+ to reply to aaron about functionality of specs 22:34:15 aaronpk: my point is that we shouldn't start with either spec and work from there; look at functionality. 22:34:16 q? 22:34:28 is the inbox endpoint in activitypump the same for mentions and posts your subscribed to? 22:34:44 rhiaro: that document already has a summary comparison as I understand each spec 22:34:58 rhiaro: the next step would be to weigh up pros and cons, is that what you mean? 22:35:00 aaronpk: yeah 22:35:08 rhiaro: yeah, that's what I need help and feedback for. 22:35:14 sandro: I thought that was what we would do 22:35:19 q? 22:35:42 tantek: I object. this document is about convergence and lists of pros-and-cons may bring up more disagreement 22:35:46 q? 22:35:54 tantek: I think descriptions are better that pros-and-cons 22:36:08 cwebber2: pros and cons could bring contention as opposed to unity 22:36:21 q? 22:36:22 q+ to propose rephrasing as a proposal with knobs 22:36:32 rhiaro: in terms of moving each section forward, I don't know how to progress 22:36:42 q+ 22:36:45 q+ azaroth2 to suggest gh issues, re moving sections forward :) 22:36:54 rhiaro: I have written out in each section a description and you can go to an expanded form of that 22:37:10 azaroth2 clever queue-hacking there 22:37:21 sandro: so maybe start with delete and do as I suggested. just describe delete and where they diverge, just list that as an issue and list the divergance 22:37:30 disagree with sandro re: separating out separate specs at this point, I think the cohesive Social API Overview is useful as is 22:37:44 ack cwebber 22:37:46 sandro: and then looking at PuSH, yes, maybe we can all agree that the commonality is 'web-hook' and figure it out from there 22:38:13 cwebber2: in response to sandro's comment about frankenstein: we don't want a frankenstein but rather a frankenstein's lab 22:38:40 cwebber2: what I would want to do is to actually make Amy's restructured version of things to eventually be the official doc 22:38:49 cwebber2: [of activitypump] 22:38:52 working_together++ 22:38:55 working_together has 1 karma 22:39:07 cwebber2: if we can get to that point in all of these documents, we are that close to convergence 22:39:14 cwebber2: and if we can't get there, we learned a lot 22:39:24 cwebber2: and we will know regardless in the future where to go 22:39:38 q? 22:39:53 rhiaro: if you had 3 different specs, they wouldn't always overlap, but you could use parts of them and combined get all behavior 22:40:02 Wseltzer made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86980&oldid=86979 22:40:16 cwebber2: [to aaronpk] is this something you would be interested in? 22:40:29 aaronpk: you mean the structure amy proposed? 22:41:02 cwebber2: yes. and there may be disagreements but we can have the goal of unifying them. 22:41:32 q? 22:41:34 rhiaro: if you look at the indieweb restructuring you'll see it is short because I've just linked to existing specs 22:41:44 ack azaroth 22:41:44 azaroth, you wanted to suggest a feature matrix as input to way forwards? 22:41:45 q? 22:41:57 azaroth: a feature matrix as a summary would be valuable 22:42:41 q? 22:42:53 rhiaro: most of the specs do most of the things so it would be a fairly full grid. you may file an issue 22:42:56 ack azaroth2 22:42:56 azaroth2, you wanted to suggest gh issues, re moving sections forward :) 22:43:00 q- 22:43:13 azaroth: as far as gh issues, are those ok? 22:43:15 rhiaro: yeah 22:43:22 ack eprodrom 22:43:32 eprodrom: at the risk of causing conflict 22:43:36 *room laughs* 22:44:04 eprodrom: would it be good to list out differences among candidates we have to determine which are fundamental and which are unimportant 22:44:04 q- 22:44:05 eprodrom, maybe as issues rather than in the spec? 22:44:34 sandro: we did that in a way. as we said we would suggest weaknesses in our proposals and strengths in others 22:44:36 q+ 22:44:42 The whiteboard from Paris: http://aaronparecki.com/uploads/whiteboard-20150505-161540.jpg 22:44:46 eprodrom, I think perhaps azaroth's proposal of a feature matrix overview would help with that? 22:44:51 What is the canonical 'restructured' doc? 22:44:53 eprodrom: I thought we could more easily reach consensus if we determined this 22:45:05 q- 22:45:06 q? 22:45:08 eprodrom: I agree that a feature matrix would be good there 22:45:13 ack sandro 22:45:13 sandro, you wanted to propose rephrasing as a proposal with knobs 22:45:32 sandro: there is an alternative to what azaroth proposed 22:45:55 sandro: if we could, and not much work, to have a spec with knobs than a bunch of interlinking specifications 22:46:29 q+ to propose name change from "The Social API" to "Social APIs Comparison and Overviews" and publishing as a FPWD 22:46:34 that paris whiteboard is very good, nice process 22:46:45 q+ 22:47:00 cwebber2: we could have just one specification. it is one thing to say "Amy, great specification" and another to say this is something I will definitely do. 22:47:20 sandro: so you can see the various forms 22:47:21 q- (sorry) 22:47:27 cwebber2: you want tabs? like JSON-LD, etc? 22:48:00 sandro: so you could see a knob for activitypump, indieweb etc and have it show you directly how they work 22:48:43 sandro: to pick one, row files. what would be nice is basically a feature matrix: here are the fields that matter to each 22:48:46 q? 22:48:55 rhiaro: that makes for some things but not all things 22:49:10 ack tantek 22:49:10 tantek, you wanted to propose name change from "The Social API" to "Social APIs Comparison and Overviews" and publishing as a FPWD 22:49:13 q+ to talk about how feature matrixes are not normative and usually APIs are 22:49:34 tantek: I deliberately labeled my queue item to be angsty 22:49:41 rhiaro: I already renamed it 22:49:49 tantek: ok 22:50:08 tantek: I'm hearing some proposals for good additions to the document such as azaroth's feature matrix 22:50:16 tantek: and eprodrom did too 22:50:25 eprodrom: yeah, differences between the proposals 22:50:26 FYI: Updated pending AS2 editor's draft based on today's conversations and resolutions at the F2F: http://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/next-round/activitystreams-core/index.html 22:50:31 http://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/next-round/activitystreams-vocabulary/index.html 22:50:45 this isn't yet pushed as the current editor's draft 22:50:46 tantek: ok. I say give in a week for amy to consider these additions 22:50:51 cwebber2: I cannot do that within a week 22:51:08 tantek: ok. the question is whether or not there are any FPWD blockers? 22:51:20 rhiaro: also, I read the definition of FPWD is that it doesn't need consensus 22:51:25 q+ 22:52:02 q? 22:52:14 eprodrom: since this is a process document about determining among a few API recommendations, is it an internal document? or what do we expect to publish it? 22:52:23 tantek: broader feedback and a show of progress 22:52:38 tantek: today we have shown 0 public progress on social API and I want to change that with this document 22:52:41 q? 22:53:10 bengo: the way the charter is worded, this document doesn't fulfill it but it pushes us there 22:53:28 bengo: this sounds like a usecase document, which is also in the specification 22:53:31 sandro: I don't understand 22:53:38 bengo: because the title says social API 22:53:42 sandro: she changed the title 22:53:46 bengo: ah 22:53:54 sandro: now it says social api and federation protocol 22:54:17 bengo: yeah, it seems it says what you can do for various use cases 22:54:31 q? 22:54:36 ack bengo 22:54:36 bengo, you wanted to talk about how feature matrixes are not normative and usually APIs are 22:54:49 sandro: yeah, and what I would want is to make issues out of any divergence and fix them. tantek would still publish as is? 22:54:52 tantek: yeah 22:54:57 azaroth: I'm watching it, going to try to spread our agenda-building time out over the three 22:55:04 azaroth: (but thanks) 22:55:08 Shane_ has joined #social 22:55:20 eprodrom: +1 22:55:44 azaroth: so I'm going to get us to sometime around 15:03 or 15:05 22:55:47 tantek: I don't think these are FPWD blockers 22:55:49 ack eprodrom 22:56:38 as long as they're flashing like a diner sign 22:56:56 well there you go 22:57:00 eprodrom: I want to check to see if we have made progress on the convergence of the social api. is it a single spec? is it two or more specs? 22:57:13 eprodrom: is one or more of them a candidate recommendation? or too early to decide? 22:57:18 tantek: I think it is too early to decide that 22:57:50 sandro: I guess the question is when do we decide? do we want to have a recommendation by the end of the WG (around a year from now)? 22:58:09 sandro: maybe we don't have a recommendation and we do enough work to get the group extended 22:58:22 q+ 22:58:44 tantek: by trying to force a methodology is flawed and not something that is going to work 22:59:05 tantek: I think a different approach is to allow multiple documents publicly iterate and try to converge than prepick 22:59:10 rhiaro: that is what has happened since Paris 22:59:20 tantek: yes. and this implicit method is working. 22:59:33 tantek: the waterfall pick-first approach has failed. let's admit that and move on. 22:59:43 revisit (very real) charter timeline constraints in January? 22:59:50 eprodrom: I'm good with that. I just want us to be able to visualize an end-point that's good for us. 23:00:07 q+ for potential definitions of success 23:00:23 eprodrom: if we think we will not be able to publish anything right now, I would like to have my free-time back and not spend a lot of time on it 23:00:36 sandro: that's if we don't get to Rec or even notes? 23:00:52 eprodrom: even notes. I'd be happy with publishing a few notes and some explanation why we didn't get to Rec. I would love a Rec. 23:01:05 q? 23:01:07 eprodrom: if we learn a lot and we all become better people, that's great too, but maybe not worth the time and effort. 23:01:37 q+ to state I'm much more of an optimist than eprodrom ;) and believe we will not only publish a draft, but multiple working drafts, iterating on them, converging more and more. 23:01:44 sandro: the lowest bar there is we end up publishing an activitypump Note and a set of indieweb specs also as Notes and we can totally do that within a year 23:02:02 sandro: given that is our lowest thing and that's so clear, we aren't wasting our time? 23:02:07 social data syntax convergence was prereq to other parts and there are still outstanding issues 23:02:11 eprodrom: that seems like reasonable goals. 23:02:26 bengo - and I think that "convergence prereq" was in many ways counterproductive 23:02:32 sandro: if we fail on all other counts, we will have those notes at least 23:02:42 fair 23:02:45 eprodrom: if we are converging well and amy is happy being the point person, that's good 23:02:55 sandro: what is amy's thing about 23:03:09 tantek: writing a useful summary and providing a place for feedback 23:03:37 q? 23:03:38 q? 23:03:42 ack cwebber 23:03:52 cwebber2: my feeling on this WG has been rollercoaster-y and I'm at the top 23:04:06 cwebber2: a couple of months ago I was all 'this group sucks etc etc' 23:04:21 snarfed has joined #social 23:04:34 q? 23:04:41 cwebber2: the pressure to get ready for this meeting has been really useful 23:05:03 cwebber2: I think I want to see what happened between last [f2f] meeting and this meeting again 23:05:16 cwebber2: all of this push to make progress on specs but also implementation push 23:05:35 q? 23:05:43 cwebber2: in two months I'll probably feel awful again, but hopefully I'll feel great 23:05:48 wrt feature matrix, just saw this again https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr#social-web-use-cases-and-requirements (good start) 23:05:54 tantek: that'll be the goal for the chairs then, to make cwebber2 happy 23:06:03 ack rhiaro 23:06:03 rhiaro, you wanted to discuss potential definitions of success 23:06:07 eprodrom: we are a little over the time, so last comments 23:06:14 Zakim, close the queue 23:06:14 ok, eprodrom, the speaker queue is closed 23:06:33 rhiaro: wrt eprodrom about definitions of success and I had three options 23:06:43 rhiaro: 1. we produce one spec that does all the things. 23:06:49 bengo - oh wow, I forgot about that page! it hasn't been updated in quite a while. tho I also would like to see a feature matrix more at the level amy's spec breaks things out 23:07:05 rhiaro: 2. we produce 5 specs that overall do all the things but do not all need to be implemented on a whole 23:07:10 rhiaro: 3. I don't remember 23:07:19 ack tantek 23:07:19 tantek, you wanted to state I'm much more of an optimist than eprodrom ;) and believe we will not only publish a draft, but multiple working drafts, iterating on them, converging 23:07:22 ... more and more. 23:07:49 I'm really liking the idea of using aspects and FATE points for running a meeting 23:07:55 tantek: like sandro said, the lowest possible situation is not at all terrible 23:08:18 tantek: I think we should publish all the specs so we can all improve and find convergence 23:08:29 tantek: and maybe all of the specs will be great and work, so who knows 23:08:30 aaronpk I agree and think that's the next step. e.g. "This is how webmention fits into Responses use case 1" 23:08:44 tantek: I would like rhiaro's document to get to FPWD by next tele-con 23:09:10 And tag with FPWD in the issue title? 23:09:11 tantek: so, I propose if you have a block/issue on rhiaro's document to raise it as a github issue 23:09:13 Will the document stay as 'socialapi' repo or also have name changed? 23:09:22 tantek: and if none, we can potentially publish as a FPWD next week 23:09:40 azaroth: how do we say 'this is a blocker for FPWD?' as opposed to another type of issue 23:09:57 tantek: just say 'FPWD-whatever' in the title 23:10:01 +1 to tantek 23:10:12 FPWD of "Social Protocols Comparison" 23:10:24 eprodrom: sounds good. wanna make it a proposal? 23:10:27 tantek: yes. that was my intent 23:10:29 tantek: if you're going to -1 next tuesday you'd better have filed an issue 23:11:02 PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Social Protocols Comparison visible by next telecon 12/8 23:11:16 on github 23:11:21 shepazu: later afternoon, 17-18 local 23:11:44 +1 23:11:47 +1 23:11:48 +1 23:11:49 +1 23:11:49 +1 23:11:50 +1 23:11:50 +1 23:11:51 +1 23:11:53 +1 23:11:54 +1 23:11:57 +1 23:12:09 RESOLVED: make any FPWD- issues on Social Protocols Comparison visible by next telecon 12/8 23:12:18 suggested shortname w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols 23:12:24 eprodrom: so we have slipped a bit so let's keep moving 23:12:30 +1 on sandro shortname 23:12:35 +1 on sandro's shortname 23:12:37 eprodrom: so maybe we take our 10 min break at 4pm? 23:12:51 eprodrom: next on the agenda is to discuss ED of micropub 23:12:58 If someoen wants to bikeshed about naming (in the nicest way possible) can yo uopen an issue and keep to one thread? 23:13:13 tantek: where is liason? 23:13:16 heh :) night rhiaro 23:13:22 eprodrom: oh is it? I thought it was last 23:13:27 eprodrom: let's stay in order as we have it 23:13:48 eprodrom: so, let's discuss Liason with Annotations WG. I think we have doug in IRC 23:13:59 Topic: Liasion with Annotations WG 23:14:01 Zakim, open the queue 23:14:01 ok, eprodrom, the speaker queue is open 23:14:11 I am pleased that that worked 23:14:36 kevinmarks: I asked if I could be IE on annotations and shepazu said no 23:14:47 kevinmarks: so I've been a bad liasion since I'm not a member of the group 23:14:56 tantek: that feels like a process error 23:15:09 shepazu: nope 23:15:37 shepazu: we didn't have any IE at first and wanted to ensure we were implementer-heavy and wanted to get the group going before letting in IE 23:15:46 didn't we have a resolution for kevinmarks to be the liason? 23:15:51 shepazu: IE are only specifically people doing duties in the WG, all are welcome to the mailing list 23:15:53 joint wg resolution? 23:16:17 shepazu: that's what we wanted our policy to be, and it is normal within the w3c 23:16:46 tantek: can you note then that kevinmarks is liaison and get this clarified 23:17:11 tantek: it was a joint-resolution at TPAC to have kevinmarks be liaison 23:17:27 so what now? 23:17:29 shepazu: I don't recall that resolution that there would be a specific liaison. I thought it was just to be resolved by the chairs. 23:17:33 tantek: no 23:17:42 shepazu: ah. it was not clear that he would be liaison. 23:18:06 minutes from the joint Social Web / Annotation WG meeting TPAC 2014? 23:18:07 azaroth: I recall the IE request and recall discussion around it and I remember the resolution was to not have IEs and not a strong reason 23:18:36 azaroth: and since there was no strong reason, it was rejected and this was just some clerical error and hopefully the two groups didn't suffer from this 23:19:00 azaroth: hopefully this has been mitigated somewhat now that we have IEs more officially supported in Annotations 23:19:10 azaroth: I think we would look more favorably now than months ago 23:19:22 tantek: ok. let's assume a mistake and move on. 23:19:41 tantek: do we still need a specific liaison? kevinmarks, you were nominated, are you ok with it now? 23:20:02 q? 23:20:03 kevinmarks: I will look at annotations and coordinate now with some of the other specs I'm working with 23:20:24 q+ 23:20:28 q? 23:20:30 azaroth: yeah. having a path forward to look at how annotations would look with webmentions etc would be good. 23:20:38 rhiaro: I'm also in the webmentions WG but not sure how much I can contribute 23:20:57 q? 23:21:01 ack bengo 23:21:31 q? 23:21:42 wilkie: fragmentions as well as webmentions 23:21:48 eprodrom: our queue is empty. do we have any more to discuss? 23:21:51 (I regret that name) 23:21:59 q+ 23:22:07 q? 23:22:20 shepazu: sorry, was this just discussion about a person who would be liaison or about the technology? 23:22:26 tantek: more admin process than tech. 23:22:31 If anyone can deliver an update on joint work... 23:22:43 ack jasnell 23:22:49 great - totally fine with informal liason especially with azaroth now participating directly in social web wg 23:22:55 kevinmarks: yeah, it was just to clarify because this wasn't together. if you want to discuss tech, do it. 23:23:22 jasnell: yeah, I would like to see if Annotations, as an implementor of as2, has any concerns 23:23:29 tantek: more so, any CR-blockers 23:23:30 q+ 23:23:34 q? 23:23:43 azaroth: as far as I know, we are quite happy with what AS2 is looking like 23:23:55 ack shepazu 23:24:01 azaroth: there are some overlapping and similarity but we think it can be managed 23:24:12 q? 23:24:18 shepazu: I think it would be useful for azaroth to discuss what happened at TPAC 23:24:43 activityvectors 23:24:48 shepazu: I think it would be useful to discuss the resolutions at TPAC 23:25:24 azaroth: there was a resolution that the work for AS2 would progress toward CR and the timeframe with the two groups is reasonable that we can use AS2 collections instead of a clone of them 23:25:41 azaroth: if there was a desire to have a separate collections spec, we can do that too 23:25:48 q? 23:25:55 tantek: is there a issue to pull collections out of core to a new spec? 23:26:09 jasnell: elf has requested this, but no real issue 23:26:36 tantek: then, I ask the WG if there is anyone that wants this that they should make an issue on github for that 23:26:54 jasnell: it has been discussed many times and we've always resolved that what we have is what we want 23:27:16 not me 23:27:17 eprodrom: I think tantek is proposing that it would be the same but a separate document that is linked separately 23:27:30 q? 23:27:31 tantek: to be clear, I'm not proposing this. just that people should bring that up. 23:27:44 eprodrom: do we have more to discuss about liaison to annotations? 23:28:01 eprodrom: if that is the case, then we I say we take a 10 minute break and come back to micropub discussion 23:28:19 eprodrom: ok. let's take a 10 minute break and come back at 3:45pm 23:28:21 I added a countdown for 12/1 3:45pm (#5770) 23:28:26 3:40pm 23:28:31 Oh, I didn't know that worked 23:28:36 me either haha 23:31:05 kevinmarks2 has joined #social 23:32:01 kevinmarks3 has joined #social 23:34:24 kevinmarks4 has joined #social 23:34:35 and come back at 3:40pm 23:34:35 Annotation side of the protocol issue: https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation/issues/118 23:34:36 I added a countdown for 12/1 3:40pm (#5771) 23:34:46 wilkie figured it out 23:38:35 agenda+ Group Photo! 23:38:42 Zakim, agenda? 23:38:42 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 23:38:43 1. WebEx update [from hhalpin] 23:38:43 2. Group Photo! [from tantek] 23:43:02 and come back 23:43:03 Countdown set by wilkie on 12/1/15 at 3:34pm 23:43:16 jasnell has joined #social 23:44:01 eprodrom: ok. let's take a 10 minute break and come back 23:44:02 Countdown set by wilkie on 12/1/15 at 3:28pm 23:44:16 Zakim, agenda 23:44:16 I don't understand 'agenda', tantek 23:44:20 jasnell has joined #social 23:44:21 Zakim, agenda? 23:44:21 I see 2 items remaining on the agenda: 23:44:22 1. WebEx update [from hhalpin] 23:44:22 2. Group Photo! [from tantek] 23:44:33 agenda- 1 23:45:02 scribenick: azaroth 23:45:25 eprodrom: Group photo. If we have everyone here till the end, can do it when we finish the agenda. Before dinner 23:45:42 i have a camera and tripod for group photo 23:46:12 agenda 2 done 23:46:15 Zakim, forget everything you know 23:46:15 I don't understand 'forget everything you know', aaronpk 23:46:21 ... good. Any other agenda items? 23:46:35 ... if not, aaronpk can you take the floor on next steps for micropub 23:46:51 scribenick: azaroth 23:47:07 aaronpk: Getting back to Micropub, we've been making progress and would like to continue developing it 23:47:23 ... push it forward as ED and with a goal of making it align with activity pump 23:47:29 http://micropub.net is the spec discussed 23:47:44 ... lots of hope for that. If you've been reading the draft, there's lots of things that are different from March 23:47:51 ... obviously still needs work 23:48:13 ... most fleshed out part is creating objects, other operations happy to keep getting feedback on, and changing. 23:48:24 ... would like to propose as ED to continue to work on in the WG 23:48:42 q+ 23:48:44 ... What else would people like to see? 23:48:45 q? 23:48:47 q? 23:48:50 eprodrom: Chris? 23:48:53 ack cwebber 23:49:19 q+ 23:49:21 cwebber2: I read it over. Two major things - one was that the MF encoded form says ... 23:49:33 aaronpk: A discrepancy got fixed between should and must 23:49:38 cwebber2: You fixed it :) 23:49:47 ... Now you've changed to must handle it which is great 23:50:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86981&oldid=86980 23:50:10 ... Main thought was, have you thought about server to server? 23:50:17 ... WebMention does it for a specific set of things 23:50:38 ... specifically about mentioning you and informing about that. It doesn't do stuff like posting baby photos 23:50:39 both Quill and Woodwind do server to server Micropub right? 23:50:43 ... Or not specifically mentioning you 23:50:52 and ownyourgram 23:51:03 ... Looks like it could do federation, which would advance the group 23:51:21 ... we would get a better understanding of where we are. Looks like most of S2S is already there 23:51:28 aaronpk: server to server has always confused me 23:51:32 the silo.pub federation stuff kyle has been discussing covers that too 23:51:44 ... no good lines for what a client is, chrome might talk to an application server that posts to a web server 23:52:02 ... most apps send data to their own server, which sends data to another server 23:52:18 ... which is acting as a client ... so now where's the server? 23:52:31 cwebber2: Specifically about sending client to a server to create on the server 23:52:51 ... Use android app to check latest things, but there's also updating the graph amongst other servers 23:52:59 ... webmention updates the graph of what servers know about 23:53:10 ... micropub could do the same thing with very little adjustment 23:53:12 q+ 23:53:14 rhiaro: like side effects? 23:53:22 q? 23:53:25 cwebber2: Even the non side effects part of describing what happened on the other server 23:53:28 aaronpk: Advantage? 23:53:36 cwebber2: could convey webmention over something like this 23:53:50 I've got a pretty good idea why webmention and micropub are distinct and separate (differen trust pre-requisites and user models). 23:53:50 ... one thing the doc doesn't speecify that IWC doesn't have an answer for 23:54:04 aaronpk: Is the combination of micro + webmention missing something? 23:54:10 cwebber2: Private notifications 23:54:25 aaronpk: Nothing in spec form yet, but some experiments with PuSH and WebMention 23:54:42 cwebber2: You can convey the same type of terms, like RSVP ... all the same things can be done? 23:54:47 ... via webMention 23:55:02 ... the same set of functionality can be done, or is about linking document based web? 23:55:06 aaronpk: I need to think about that :) 23:55:14 o/ 23:55:30 ... first reaction is that private experiments, the answer is yes, but not sure if it's the best way to do it 23:55:44 ... have also involved the server acting on behalf of the user and getting a Bearer token 23:55:48 ... to fetch private content 23:56:00 ... fits in reasonably, not necessarily the best way 23:56:25 cwebber2: asked for One thing you can't do. That kind of subscription model doesn't seem to fit in between the two specs now 23:56:41 kevinmarks: Abstraction between the two models is where we're colliding 23:56:50 ... webmention is purely this site links to you, it may mean something 23:56:56 ... and micropub which is post something to a site 23:57:00 ... activitypump combines the two 23:57:12 ... so webmention is an outbox post which relates to someone else 23:57:28 ... sense is that there's an intermediary that does it for you, but there's something else that handles it 23:57:42 1. Profiles 23:57:43 2. Reading 23:57:43 3. Subscribing 23:57:43 4. Mentioning 23:57:43 eprodrom: AS all the way through. Posting to a client server endpoint is the same as server to server 23:57:44 5. Publishing 23:57:46 q? 23:58:08 cwebber2: If we can get things to a certain point, it would help to get more overlap and convergence 23:58:16 eprodrom: to the queue ... being me ... :) 23:58:19 https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery 23:58:24 ... My question is about post-type-discovery 23:58:46 ... what extent is the work being synchronized, and what extent is that work influencing micropub, or already aligned? 23:58:57 q+ to note why webmention (federation) and micropub (API) are distinct and separate (different trust pre-requisites, user models, canonical data). 23:58:57 aaronpk: Haven't considered PTD -- one is for reading, the other writing 23:59:11 ... vocab is all vocab, so related to PTD 23:59:15 I don't understand the PTD question? 23:59:28 sandro: You can remove the type and infer it 23:59:40 eprodrom: Interested in keeping the vocab aligned, if it already is, great 23:59:51 aaronpk: Not creating its own vocab, it uses the microformats vocab 23:59:59 ... would tie into PTD 00:00:15 ... if you don't know anything about micropub and you get a request you could use PTD to decide what to do with the request, per Amy 00:00:20 ack kevinmarks 00:00:21 eprodrom: Good principle to follow 00:00:25 ack eprodrom 00:00:36 kevinmarks: Sense of separation here. We are using micropub to route things between systems 00:00:49 ... one example is ??? that uses instagram and micropub 00:00:53 q+ 00:00:55 s/???/ownyourgram 00:01:11 another example is silo.pub that maps from MF to various things 00:01:31 ... it wraps blog in an envelope to post to blogger, or finds the image to send to flickr 00:01:36 ... mostly individual things we've built 00:01:49 ... lots of targeted protocols that are moving together, whereas you have a bigger suite 00:01:56 ... partly where the mappings get odd 00:01:58 q? 00:02:19 Tantek: different kind of answer. What drove the different protocols. WebMention happened first. 00:02:22 ack tantek 00:02:22 tantek, you wanted to note why webmention (federation) and micropub (API) are distinct and separate (different trust pre-requisites, user models, canonical data). 00:02:31 azaroth: ownyourgram.com you sign into instagram and it posts your photos to your own site 00:02:32 ... different user model between federation and users. 00:02:58 ... Conceptually defend the distinction. Federation standpoint it's FYI. THe receiver is not required to do anything on any timescale 00:03:21 ... other than how you validate it. After that there's suggested things you can do. If it has X content, then it's a comment and you should copy it to your post as a reply 00:03:36 ... but the ultimate decision of action is on the receiever. It has its own agency 00:03:49 ... all the boundaries for federation are corssed 00:04:07 ... for an API scenario, both ends are under the control of the same user 00:04:18 ... so the user issues a command to create something, then the server MUST create it 00:04:36 ... it's a hard requirement, so very different from auth and user agency perspective, permissions, trust, number of actors etc. 00:04:39 q? 00:04:46 ... don't do auth for federation, you just send it 00:05:09 ... Maybe wrong with drawing the difference, but lots of differences? 00:05:13 sandro: Clear to me 00:05:26 tantek: User 1 vs user 2, rather than one user and thing 1 vs thing 2 00:05:36 cwebber2: Same technical design could do both 00:05:43 ... webmention is cool in that it's very minimal 00:05:51 tantek: a different contract 00:06:02 cwebber2: You could emulate in activity pump, nice that it doesn't require a lot of work 00:06:24 ... if I run my own pump io server, I know that I'm posting to my thing. The same design and serialization. 00:06:33 ... little distinction between what is a client and a server 00:06:56 q+ 00:06:59 ... don't always control the server. Might decide that you're a spammer even if you have an account, so might still filter 00:07:08 ... if I set up my own server, better not do that to myself 00:07:19 ... same concepts could be accomplished with same tech, more usable in the long run 00:07:37 ... even with lack of distinction, it's not as big a division as you might thing 00:07:38 think 00:07:40 eprodrom_ has joined #social 00:07:59 rhiaro: my micropub endpoint when it receives a post sends a webmention 00:08:15 ... webmention and mf completely separate so no requirement but that's how I hooked it up 00:08:20 ... with activity pump you must do it 00:08:27 cwebber2: The receiving server might reject it 00:08:58 bblfish has joined #social 00:09:00 bblfish_ has joined #social 00:09:02 ... what happens if you do mpub post to a third party? Do you have to "own" the micropub endpoint? 00:09:06 tantek: You have to be oauthed up 00:09:11 ... but not in webmention 00:09:17 ... which is essential for lightweight federation 00:09:24 try silo.pub with twitter 00:09:32 cwebber2: Right not saying it's not useful, but that it would also be useful if mpub also did federation 00:09:36 aaronpk: another difference 00:09:45 ... mpub as a way to create content, the content is part of the request 00:09:50 ... the bearer token is prearranged 00:09:59 ... webmention is only by reference, content is not in the request 00:10:04 ... don't say here's my photo etc 00:10:11 q+ 00:10:15 q- 00:10:15 ... that would be trackback, and garbage because it's unauthenticated 00:10:23 ... only way to send content is if it's authenticated 00:10:41 cwebber2: or go back and verify it, but then you might as well not send it 00:10:51 eprodrom: activity pump does two legged oauth 00:10:56 ... so server to server 00:11:04 aaronpk: for mpub there's no URL until the request is handled 00:11:27 ... if you used the same protocol for webmentions, you're delivering the contents of the post 00:11:33 ... but unless you authenticate there's no way to trust it 00:11:40 ... and they probably want to verify it anyway 00:11:44 ... so just send the url 00:11:49 ... so it's just what we have now :) 00:11:57 sandro: You might auth once every long period of time? 00:12:18 eprodrom: So because of pingback style of webmention, there's something here you might be interested in, it doesn't make sense to use the same interaction 00:12:29 ... if it was PuSH service, ala activity pump, it would make sense? 00:12:49 aaronpk: Interesting. Pretty sure most PUSH systems dont' send the contents in the broadcast 00:12:53 ... that would look more like micropub 00:13:12 ... if PuSH has too many limitations, then may it's just micropub and that's where it fits in 00:13:12 q? 00:13:19 ... not the same use case as micropub 00:13:42 cwebber2: suggesting that it's easy to drop into an existing blog which is hard with activity pump 00:13:49 q? 00:14:03 q+ to note some brainstorming attempts to do site-to-site micropub 00:14:03 aaronpk: extending to also handle distribution of content for subscribers is different from webmention 00:14:10 ack cwebber 00:14:44 cwebber2: spec is well written. Main concern is that it doesn't talk about specific silos 00:14:55 aaronpk: Also anchors it in time 00:15:06 tantek: +1 :) 00:15:07 q? 00:15:11 ack kevinmarks 00:15:18 s/it doesn't/it shouldn't/ 00:15:39 kevinmarks: presumption for sending stuff out is that it's replication 00:15:45 ... might be a way to couple the two together 00:15:47 q? 00:15:52 ack tantek 00:15:52 tantek, you wanted to note some brainstorming attempts to do site-to-site micropub 00:16:21 tantek: to argue against myself ... we have had some experiments and one production use of webmention like an api and webm for federation 00:16:35 ... sending a copy somewhere is like federation, for federation-hostile people 00:16:49 ... with webmention we have bridgy, that built a protocol for publishing on top of it 00:16:54 ... it acts like micropub in a way 00:17:07 ... if you send a particular mention to one place it'll publish content to another server 00:17:15 ... take this specific action that is triggered by a webmention 00:17:27 ... brainstorming on server to server, with distinct users 00:17:50 ... didnt' scale well. If you're one someone's website and they have a comment box, you want it to post to YOUR site not just their site 00:18:02 ... so it should act like a micropub client and then use webmention to get it back 00:18:06 eprodrom: I'm staying shut up but you should mention what pump.io does here ;) 00:18:19 ... if you auth in ... no you might not want to give out arbitrary permissions 00:18:31 ... so walked down the path a bit and it didn't seem like a good trust design 00:18:39 kevinmarks: have web actions via client side voodoo 00:18:42 tantek: without auth 00:18:53 kevinmarks: looks like it's going to one site, actually to others 00:19:13 q? 00:19:14 tantek: federation of all the little buttons on posts like like, reply, bookmark, etc. a way to have sites take actions to a different site 00:19:21 ... users configure their client to handle them 00:19:26 ... built a shim with web components 00:19:39 ... a protocol handler that makes it work 00:19:52 ... your site will take over the functionality of those buttons on the remote site 00:20:17 ... UI federation? not sure how we conceptually captured it 00:20:29 kevinmarks: The example of it working is woodwind 00:20:33 tantek: with micropub? 00:20:36 kevinmarks: with all of them 00:20:48 tantek: woodwind is a reader that you sign into with your own domain and it tracks what you're reading 00:20:50 woodwind is reader.kylewm.com 00:21:01 ... if your own site supports micropub you can sign in there and it posts to your site 00:21:11 ... if you don't, it can fall back to other options 00:21:15 q+ to ask about separation of request semantics and resource representation 00:21:17 q? 00:21:24 ack bengo 00:21:24 bengo, you wanted to ask about separation of request semantics and resource representation 00:22:19 bengo: Maybe controversial, but keeping the object representation separate from what to do with the object. Curious why edit this or post this or delete this is in the body, rather than the method? 00:22:20 q+ 00:22:22 to respond 00:22:37 aaronpk: Reason is to allow delegation of functionality, rpc-style. 00:22:54 ... where you might have a static website other than GET, but you can delegate to some other endpoint 00:23:00 ... but you can't delete that endpoint 00:23:12 ... the objects don't live under the micropub endpoint 00:23:15 ... thus the RPC style 00:24:02 ... Could say that the endpoint could delete based on a query string, but seems contrived for no particular reason 00:24:36 eprodrom: to answer that for other things... for activity pump... pump.io does do that. One way to follow someone is to post your id to their following list 00:24:41 ... you add yourself to their followers 00:24:46 ... or deleting an object directly 00:24:56 ... managing some of the life cycle of the social graph works that way. 00:25:10 ... Some things are harder to do like that. If I like something, posting to a list of likers might make sense 00:25:41 bengo: Unliking a thing seems either deleting a like resource, or posting an unlike, could try different ways until something works 00:25:45 ... but could be just one way 00:25:55 eprodrom: we would concentrate on the one way of using AS as written 00:26:06 ... always been a logging style format we repurpose as a command langage 00:26:25 ... how that happened. Interesting to reconsider purely from a REST mechanism without a command language 00:26:51 bengo: having it all in the message is useful for websockets based things too not inherently bad, might just hear that's not restful over and over again 00:27:13 eprodrom: expectation has been there'd be a stream of activities, natural to think in atompub style of posting an activity to the feed 00:27:17 q? 00:27:24 ack cwebber 00:27:42 cwebber2: couple of CRUD activities, but also others like join ... no HTTP verb 00:27:53 eprodrom: COuld have a members resource and posting an ID to it 00:28:24 cwebber2: I think this group resolved ... should we use all these verbs...everyone was using the AS verbs not HTTP methods 00:28:30 ... so do AS first 00:28:38 q? 00:28:39 tantek: I recall that as well. Don't want to have the argument again :) 00:29:01 eprodrom: wrap up with micropub? anthing to discuss in next 10 minutes? 00:29:11 cwebber2: ready to go to ED? 00:29:17 ... I think we should propose it? 00:29:41 PROPOSED: Move MicroPub to Editor's Draft status 00:29:43 +1 00:29:47 +1 00:29:52 +1 00:29:52 +1 00:30:05 +1 00:30:11 +1 00:30:18 +1 00:30:33 +0 00:30:55 +1 00:31:05 +0 00:31:16 jasnell, et al: Make it explicit regarding moving to WD in the status section 00:31:16 RESOLVED: Move MicroPub to Editor's Draft status 00:31:20 whoooooo 00:31:24 eprodrom: Resolved :) 00:31:40 ... have 90 minutes left, one more item on agenda 00:31:51 jasnell, what was your specific wording? 00:32:00 ... everyone in late afternoon doldrums. Dinner at 7. 00:32:10 ... hopefully group photo will not take half an hour 00:32:22 tantek: 7th floor with bay bridge 00:32:49 [temporarily adjourn] 00:33:51 jasnell has joined #social 00:36:53 azaroth has joined #social 00:37:40 kevinmarks2 has joined #social 00:47:46 jasnell has joined #social 00:49:14 bengo has joined #social 00:49:22 kevinmarks2 has joined #social 00:51:02 tantek has joined #social 00:52:21 azaroth has joined #social 00:54:56 tantek has joined #social 00:55:26 scribenick: aaronpk 00:55:34 TOPIC: ActivityPump 00:55:48 cwebber2: talking about bringing activitypump to editor's draft 00:56:05 ... i'm assuming everyone's familiar with it by now. sandro said before basically AP is ActivityStreams in API form 00:56:24 ... so, in that sense, if there's things peopel want to talk about specifically i'm happy to talk about them 00:56:32 ... i have a few things i'd love to go over while we have people her 00:56:40 ... but it might be more useful to have people who are not me say things 00:56:46 q+ to say it looked very good :D 00:56:49 q? 00:56:56 ... github is being used for issue tracking 00:57:02 sandro: can you paste the link to that? 00:57:04 ack azaroth 00:57:04 azaroth, you wanted to say it looked very good :D 00:57:07 eprodrom has joined #social 00:57:07 https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypump 00:57:11 q? 00:57:12 azaroth: looked really good to me 00:57:28 https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypump/issues 00:57:31 q+ 00:57:37 tantek: one request is to link to the issues from the document header 00:57:50 cwebber2: sure i'll make an issue for that right now 00:58:25 ... so there are issues on it right now but i don't know if any of these are blockers to take this to editor's draft and if there ar ei'm happy to talk about them 00:58:32 ... i think activitypump is probably unsurprising right now 00:58:42 q+ 00:58:43 ... the first question is is there anything specific someone wants to raise in person or should i start 00:58:49 ack bengo 00:59:19 bengo: i think it's generally pleasant to read. i filed a bunch of issues. i think that the general part that's hard to wrap my head around is how to initiate crud operations around activities 00:59:26 ... would be good to have more specific error responses defined 00:59:48 ... if i say update facebook.com what should happen? 401? or maybe I did actually change whatever that was and am trying to record it 01:00:00 ... i'm having a hard time rationalizing triggering activities and recording activities in the same outbox 01:00:08 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86982&oldid=86981 01:00:24 ... one way of resolving it is to have different endpoints for triggering activities vs recording them 01:00:57 eprodrom: we were talking about this during the break. maybe having CRUD processes happen through posting and updating the object itself and how that would work 01:01:06 q+ 01:01:18 ... you'd keep a collection of everything you publish, once you hav ea permalink for hte thing you can read/update/delete really easily 01:01:30 .. would you maintain one single feed/collection of everything you publish? would you keep different collections by type? 01:01:39 ... one collection of videos, of images, of text, or does it not matter? 01:01:40 q- 01:01:52 q+ to ask if the intent is to keep ActivityPump use of terms like "displayName" in sync with AS2 changes e.g. displayName->name ? 01:01:54 ... the meechanism we use is also how opensocial does activities 01:01:59 q+ 01:02:16 ... most of the crud mechanism was handled by the rest of the opensocial api 01:02:36 ... it would be an interesting exercise, chris, if we were to think about that as our mechanism for crudding stuff that lives on the server 01:02:44 cwebber2: i'm not sure what... 01:03:05 eprodrom: having a collection/feed of "stuff evan published", evan's outbox of stuff he made, not activities, but text, videos, etc 01:03:26 ... and so the primary way you'd create things is to post to that feed and manage it that way instead of using activitystreams as a command language for crud 01:03:37 cwebber2: i think that sounds mostly fine, but only create should be replaced by that 01:03:57 ... kind of what james was saying, when you are distributing it to everyone else you still wrap it in a create, but for creating it initially yes 01:04:06 ... but for updating and deleting using the existing verbs 01:04:15 eprodrom: right now we have get put and delete on objects which should do ... 01:04:23 cwebber2: we talked about removing those http verbs an hour ago 01:04:33 ... i'm still referencing owen's thing from a long time ago 01:04:45 ... if the initial thing you're creating isn't wrapped in a create it simplifies things 01:04:47 B-) 01:04:52 ... we should test it in an implementation 01:04:57 sandro: doesn't delete have the same thing? 01:05:14 cwebber2: you use post for everything, but if you're creating something you just put the object somewhere 01:05:19 sandro: what about the other crud operations? 01:05:26 bblfish has joined #social 01:05:29 cwebber2: update and delete are pure side effect and then become a log 01:05:41 ... you're creating the object in your database that is the log, but you're only putting it there as the side effect 01:05:46 eprodrom: i don't like making it an exclusive thing 01:05:54 ... i don't like posting something to a feed that then changes in the feed 01:06:01 ... i expect if i post something i don't want it to change 01:06:17 ... even though i had posted the object it would then come back wrapped in a create 01:06:42 ... i'm saying i post an object to the feed and i see a bunch of activities, what happened to the object? oh its actually a property of one of the activities 01:07:06 ... i think if you post an object to a feed then it should come back in the feed 01:07:11 cwebber2: i understand in principle 01:07:18 ... it's also not the biggest detail in the world if we don't do this 01:07:23 q? 01:07:33 ... it doesn't change things fundamentally. i can live with whatever 01:07:59 ack eprodrom 01:08:44 cwebber2: amy you were saying if we moved activitystreams to a more content distribution then that would bring it closer to micropub 01:08:49 bengo - could you restate your concern? 01:09:03 sandro: this seems like a place where activitypump is a complete coin flip between using http verbs or not 01:09:04 Does GET /outbox mean 01:09:12 List the things I triggered to create their side effect? 01:09:17 Or List the things I've done (feed) 01:09:22 I don't think it can be both 01:09:29 s/thing/understand how 01:09:33 cwebber2: micropub is closer to what we're doing, where if create is not wrapped in a thing it just makes it 01:09:46 sandro: let me rephrase. it often seems like the entire industry is in love with restful apis. i don't know why personally. 01:09:53 tantek: because the term is ambuguous 01:10:06 sandro: specifically with HTTP PATCH to update and that is a thing that's really popular 01:10:15 ... evan you did that survey across a bunch of apis 01:10:27 ... i don't know why that's so popular, and i hesitate to go in a different direction 01:10:34 cwebber2: there ar e3 things being proposed here 01:10:47 ... activitystreams - everything is wrapped in an activity 01:10:51 ... REST - you use http verbs 01:11:17 ... the current indieweb style - closer to what owen suggested, don't wrap create in an activity 01:11:28 I can weigh in as to why command semantics outside of request body is useful (caching intermediaries like varnish can't easily understand semantics) 01:11:28 evanpro: i don't understand what the advantage is 01:11:46 cwebber2: i'm not sold on either of these but 01:12:09 ... two reasons. one is the ACL thing, when you post the initial thing you attach the ACL to the initial object 01:12:17 eprodrom: you can do that right now 01:12:54 q+ to state issues with over-literal REST CRUD 01:13:58 cwebber2: the second is trying to move towards a more content-centric version of things 01:14:06 eprodrom: which is what i was saying, have a feed of content things 01:14:23 cwebber2: ironically, if we end up doing what i suggested, the activity stream of what other people are reading is activity centric but the client-server thing is content centric 01:14:48 ... but now we have to move to a model where anything that doesn't have a side effect we wrap in a create 01:15:19 ... it's a shift in the complexity, but we have these separate things and wehave to make a decision 01:15:27 eprodrom: we don't have to make a decision right now, we can mark it as an issue 01:15:35 q? 01:15:58 q+ to request answer to my orig question "What happens if I POST /outbox update facebook.com"? 01:16:00 cwebber2: i'm adding a note to my previous todo that evan hates it and we should discuss 01:16:02 ack tantek 01:16:02 tantek, you wanted to ask if the intent is to keep ActivityPump use of terms like "displayName" in sync with AS2 changes e.g. displayName->name ? 01:16:13 q- 01:16:37 tantek: is your intent in AP to keep terminology in sync with activitystreams? so do the displayName -> name change? 01:16:44 cwebber2: yes because it's just the API version of activitystreams 01:16:50 q? 01:16:53 ack kevinmarks 01:16:53 kevinmarks, you wanted to state issues with over-literal REST CRUD 01:16:55 ... 'whatever man just go with the flow of activity streams' 01:17:15 kevinmarks: following sandro's point about rest and crud. the issue is that the crud assumption is you are the owner of the resource completely 01:17:59 ... when people go to the contacts app in their phone and see a bunch of emails they delete them and then wonder why gmail autocomplete doesn't work 01:18:22 tantek: there's an additional semantic that the http verbs didn't capture 01:18:37 cwebber2: we aren't planning on using http verbs anyway 01:19:04 q? 01:19:10 q+ 01:19:19 ack bengo 01:19:19 bengo, you wanted to request answer to my orig question "What happens if I POST /outbox update facebook.com"? 01:19:35 q+ to ask a trivial question about section 9 01:19:39 tantek: a key design feature of using POST for everything was that you can exercise the whole protocol via a simple HTML form 01:19:47 ... which is easier than figuring out procedural stuff 01:19:56 q? 01:20:29 bengo: i still think it's unclear, if we're triggering crud operations, what happens if i put an update activity where the object is facebook.com in my outbox? what should I expect? 01:20:45 cwebber2: so you're saying we should document responses when you do something screwy? 01:21:27 eprodrom: i think pump.io silently accepts as long as it's not an object in its own domain 01:21:52 bengo: does outbox mean always do this thing if you can? 01:22:03 q? 01:22:37 eprodrom: that's a tricky part of it, once things are outside the server's control to what extent does it accept things or say "you can't update facebook.com" or does it just accept it 01:23:29 sandro: your feed can say "you became president, you deleted facebook, etc" 01:23:37 bengo: i would recommend not accepting it if it's a command that didn't work 01:24:06 eprodrom: i think that makes the most sense, if this is a thing you're going to execute then try to execute and give back an answer. if it's something you don't understand because you can't do it, then assume the user is talking about something that happened somewhere else. 01:24:24 sandro: what about adding a flag that says who is expected to perform the action 01:24:53 azaroth_ has joined #social 01:24:54 bengo: now that i'm talking about it out loud that may not even be necessary. 01:25:00 cwebber2: i think we just need to document how side effects work more 01:25:09 To record your own activities, post to your /inbox 01:25:40 .. activitypump has strong opinions about what to do about side effects 01:26:01 q? 01:26:06 ack cwebber 01:26:19 q- 01:26:20 cwebber2: i have things i want to talk about with people in the room 01:26:27 ... i'm going to start with things least likely to explode 01:26:37 ack sandro 01:26:53 sandro: section 9 includes things about binary data but then talks about reply objects 01:26:59 cwebber2: that looks like it's mis structured 01:27:59 cwebber2: okay i don't think that any of these things are blockers on hitting editor's draft 01:28:09 .. but there are some things that are underspecified in activitystreams or other things 01:28:16 ... the first is activitypump, discovery and profile stuff 01:28:24 ... suggests something that i don't think anyone suggests implementers to do 01:28:58 ... in the paris meeting i threw in something stupid. 01:29:25 ... previously pump.io did webfinger-type things. it seems like with the agreement with follow-your-nose, then at the very least webfinger-like things will be handled in a follow-your-nose way 01:29:30 ... so what are we going to do 01:29:34 define inbox, outbox, feed as linkRelations 01:29:48 get html, link response header, webfinger support for free 01:30:05 eprodrom: that's a good question. one thing we could do is define ... how many endpoints do we have for a user? 4-5? 01:30:12 cwebber2: you can get the ednpoints for a user once you have their profile 01:30:25 rel=inbox ~ rel=webmention, rel=outbox ~ rel=micropub ... maybe?? 01:30:27 eprodrom: there are 4-5? followers, following, inbox, outbox? we could define link relations for all of those 01:30:41 profile == link rel me? 01:30:46 rhiaro, I'd suggest clustering them with a prefix, like ap-outbox ap-inbox etc. 01:30:52 ... you could use whatever discovery mechanism you wanted, links, rels on a elements, or webfinger, or http headers, or... 01:30:53 q+ to express concern :) 01:31:01 ... that might be an easy way to punt on this 01:31:05 whereas rel values normally express links to *user* semantics 01:31:11 like a user's inbox 01:31:15 azaroth_: that seems like a lot of link rels to register 01:31:24 like a URL a browser could load and display, not an API endpoint 01:31:47 cwebber2: another suggestion, do a follow your nose thing that takes you to a json document that describes your profile 01:32:00 ... what do peopel feel about that? 01:32:03 eprodrom: that seems fine 01:32:08 azaroth_: (thumbsup) 01:32:24 things have lots of endpoints already 01:32:25 +1 to linking to a profile, not linking to potentially many endpoints 01:32:29 cwebber2: i shouldn't say JSONLD, i should say activitystreams with implied context 01:32:58 tantek: it sounds like you have an issue defined. 01:33:05 cwebber2: okay i'll file an issue on this and cc evan 01:33:30 linking to many endpoints is common 01:33:34 q+ 01:33:38 eprodrom: okay i like that a lot better 01:33:41 try looking at any wordpress site 01:33:45 q? 01:33:46 q- 01:33:48 q+ 01:33:56 ack azaroth_ 01:33:56 azaroth_, you wanted to express concern :) 01:34:52 tantek: if you're going to define a suite of link rels, then prefix them with ap- or something so that you don't conflict 01:35:19 cwebber2: maybe ap-profile or something? 01:35:27 eprodrom: i'll also open an issue, i'm not sure discovery is part of the API document 01:35:41 ... for example if i was twitter and implementing activitypump, you wouldn't have to discover it 01:36:03 cwebber2: along with amy's idea of implementation levels could this be a thing that is an optional implementation level 01:36:04 q? 01:36:05 on a wordpress blog I see pingback, alternate, EditURI and https://api.w.org/ as rels 01:36:05 eprodrom: yeah that's fine 01:36:08 ack bengo 01:36:53 bengo: in the times where it says go to a uri and it returns a json document. but if you send it an accept header with HTML only then it shouldn't be required to return JSON. leave room in the spec for content negotiation. 01:37:19 q? 01:37:24 ack cwebber 01:37:27 cwebber2: authentication 01:37:58 q+ 01:37:58 ... this group has said it's not in scope, but by necessity is part of the specs. so far micropub and activitypump put OAuth 2 in the spec. 01:38:44 tantek: strictly speaking, the charter does not include specs for authorization and identity 01:38:47 eprodrom: yeah that makes sense 01:38:57 tantek: that's the restriction, but that doesn't mean we can't reference other specs 01:39:04 ... we're all encouraged to make that modular 01:39:06 +1 01:39:19 eprodrom: yeah i think that doesn't make sense to include a full dependency on any particular 01:39:23 Section X: Security Concerns. You should do authentication. 01:39:52 cwebber2: both actiivtypump and micropub, but not solid, say OAuth 2.0 bearer tokens and the specifics are not beyond that 01:40:06 q? 01:40:07 ... or do we want to say it's definitely OAuth 2 bearer tokens or should we say we recommend that and leave it open to replace it 01:40:32 tantek: maybe if it's an aspect in common between actiivtypump and micropub it's worth highlighting in the social web protocol document, and if there's enough critical mass that's a point forward 01:40:40 cwebber2: we adopted it mostly becasue the indieweb documented it 01:40:48 ... buti'm not sure this is the best way forward but it seems to be a solution 01:40:54 q+ to +1 not mandating a particular version of a particular auth system 01:41:11 sandro: the important thing is to say we need fthis sort of functionality and then one possible solution is OAuth 2 01:41:23 q+ to differentiate between authentication and authorization 01:41:37 eprodrom: OAuth 2 is not a simple thing 01:41:42 sandro: should we spell that all out? 01:41:44 eprodrom: NO 01:42:29 bengo: oauth is a framework. it has things like client credentials for client authentication. i'm implementing openid connect, and yeah it's complicated. 01:42:49 eprodrom: and if you're not using SSL with bearer tokens that's bad 01:42:54 cwebber2: so then what do we do? 01:42:59 ... how do we get interoperability? 01:43:14 melvster has joined #social 01:43:16 eprodrom: are we talking about client-server or server-server interop? server-server interop doesn't belong here 01:43:27 ... so client-server interop happens with documentation 01:43:37 cwebber2: so is this so complicated that it doesn't belong in these specs? 01:43:49 ... what is the group's policy on this then? 01:43:59 bengo: if you don't specify it, then there are other good things that will fill the gap 01:44:30 q? 01:44:37 q? 01:44:39 q+ 01:44:46 ... if you say 'it must use bearer tokens' then it doesn't really say much 01:44:58 eprodrom: another possibility is putting it in security considerations at the end and say authentication must be present 01:45:22 sandro: we can say we're intentionally not specifying that because it's a continually evolving space 01:45:34 tantek: we can say we're actively looking for implementer feedback 01:45:41 Arnaud: generally working groups stay away from this issue 01:45:52 ... unfortunately it hurts interop because you can't have interop without specifying this 01:46:05 eprodrom: at the risk of asking for crazy proliferation of specs, could it be a separate specification? 01:46:12 tantek: unlikely in this group because it would be outside the charter 01:46:36 cwebber2: i don't know what to write, anyone want to help? 01:46:42 eprodrom volunteers 01:46:51 FYI: AS2.0 Editor's Drafts updated to reflect today's resolutions and editorial comments discussed at the F2F (http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-core/, http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-vocabulary/ ) 01:47:00 jasnell++ amazing 01:47:03 jasnell has 36 karma 01:47:06 here is what the LDP WG did: http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/REC-ldp-20150226/#security 01:47:22 cwebber2: i have a feeling this will come up again when we look at interop between the specs 01:47:29 let it come up as an issue 01:47:39 q? 01:47:44 q- 01:47:55 Arnaud++ good text 01:47:56 q- 01:47:57 q+ 01:47:58 ... we're going to hit this again, and we can't pretend we won't have to talk about it again 01:47:58 Arnaud has 29 karma 01:48:01 q- 01:48:06 FYI: implementation for Node.js has been updated as well (npm install activitystrea.ms), as has the working copy of the JSON-LD context document at http://asjsonld.mybluemix.net 01:48:12 q? 01:48:16 jasnell++ 01:48:19 jasnell has 37 karma 01:48:29 ack tantek 01:49:05 tantek: i did just pull up our charter to double check, the word identity is not in our charter. the reference to "auth" is one of the inputs from the indieweb community is IndieAuth. 01:49:11 ... so it's an input but not part of the scope and goals 01:49:29 sandro: i remember it being specifically out of scope but can't find an explicit reference in the charter 01:50:15 sandro: i'm more confused about identity since it ties to profile 01:50:30 tantek: i woudl argue that that aspect of identity is in scope 01:51:16 q? 01:51:21 ... if it's not in the charter, you have to argue why it's relevant 01:51:46 Activity Pump inboxes apply equal well to my house or plant or Thing as to my personal profile 01:51:55 sandro: activitystreams has the notion of identity, actors have a URL 01:52:02 q? 01:52:05 activitysteams does not have identity anymore 01:52:06 tantek: profile URL or ID string is different from the notion of a profile with attributes 01:53:09 aaronpk: sadly, you cant have a social web without identity 01:53:14 jasnell: the activitystreams spec has the notion of actor which has an ID, it has the "person" object type, and it says that if you are going to describe specific properties of a person then you should use vcard. 01:53:21 we're having an identity crisis 01:53:30 :O 01:53:30 ... additionally there is profile object type which is a nebulously defined thing that describes something else 01:53:48 jasnell Profile isn't in here? http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#actor-types 01:53:57 q? 01:54:16 q? 01:54:20 ack cwebber? 01:54:23 fwiw http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#dfn-profile thanks jasnell 01:54:32 sandro: bottom line: we're going to leave identity/profiles fuzzy 01:54:55 cwebber2: what i was going to bring up was transient and private activities? 01:55:00 sandro: would it be okay to leave it out of the first version? 01:55:13 cwebber2: yeah the current version says you have to keep a link and for deleted things you have to keep a tombstone 01:55:26 ... i'm curious about people's thoughts, but not required for bringing to editor's draft 01:56:03 q+ to propose accepting ActivityPump as an editor's draft 01:56:10 q? 01:56:15 ack cwebber2 01:56:18 ack cwebber 01:56:19 q? 01:56:21 q+ 01:56:22 ack aaronpk 01:56:22 aaronpk, you wanted to propose accepting ActivityPump as an editor's draft 01:56:30 q- 01:56:39 q? 01:56:49 PROPOSED: accept ActivityPump as editor's draft 01:56:52 +1 01:56:56 +1 01:56:59 +1 01:57:00 +1 01:57:02 +1 01:57:03 +1 01:57:05 +1 01:57:06 +1 01:57:24 +1 01:57:25 +1 01:57:29 +1 01:57:34 sandro: with the intent of putting it on the rec track 01:57:55 RESOLVED: accept ActivityPump as editor's draft 01:58:02 :) 01:58:24 tantek: i'd like to thank aaron and chris for their hard work, it shows in these drafts 01:58:41 FIN 01:59:22 aaronpk++ 01:59:25 aaronpk has 14 karma 01:59:26 rhiaro++ 01:59:29 rhiaro has 188 karma 01:59:29 azaroth++ 01:59:30 wilkie++ 01:59:33 azaroth has 9 karma 01:59:34 wilkie has 24 karma 02:00:23 melvster has left #social 02:00:36 trackbot, end meeting 02:00:36 Zakim, list attendees 02:00:36 As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, 02:00:39 ... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo 02:00:44 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 02:00:45 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html trackbot