17:16:01 RRSAgent has joined #social 17:16:01 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-irc 17:16:03 RRSAgent, make logs public 17:16:05 Zakim, this will be SOCL 17:16:05 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 17:16:06 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 17:16:06 Date: 02 December 2015 17:16:09 present+ 17:16:11 present+ 17:16:12 present+ 17:16:12 present+ 17:16:12 present~ 17:16:13 present+ rhiaro 17:16:14 present+ 17:16:18 present+ 17:16:18 present+ cwebber2 17:16:22 present+ jasnell 17:16:28 scribenick: cwebber2 17:16:44 tantek: the first thing is that cwebber2 had an item to propose 17:16:53 evanp has joined #social 17:17:01 tantek: the other first thing is to discuss the as2 features from rene but he's not online 17:17:13 jasnell: he did document it in a github issue 17:17:22 sandro: let's give him a few hours 17:17:24 tantek: I agree 17:17:32 tantek: there were a few things added to the agenda 17:17:35 e_s_p has joined #social 17:17:43 tantek: integration user stories. Is that you bengo ? 17:17:46 bengo: yes 17:17:53 tantek: how much time do you need? 10 minutes? 17:18:05 Arnaud has joined #social 17:18:10 bengo: yes 17:18:37 tantek: and cwebber2 how much time do you need for the activipy demo 17:18:42 cwebber2: 10-15 minutes 17:18:59 tantek: I propose we do those first to give time for rene to show up 17:19:13 bengo: so there's a sorting user stories wiki page 17:19:24 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Integration_:_Adding_comments_to_bespoke_software 17:19:40 10 minutes for this item 17:19:51 bengo: this one is close to what we're doing at our company, we give people javascript snippets that people put on their site, templatized 17:20:02 Bgoering made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87029&oldid=87028 17:20:03 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87030&oldid=87029 17:20:04 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87031&oldid=87030 17:20:09 bengo: want to ask how this would work. lots of discovery stuff is about delegating servies 17:20:29 bengo: frequent problem at big companies is the person who installed a cms no longer works there 17:20:47 bengo: so webfinger (?) type things are useful in that you don't need to muck with the headers, etc 17:21:23 bengo: so service discovery is something I've talked about a lot, rather than just point to an activitypump endpoint, they want a traditional comment setup type thing 17:21:31 present+ tsyesika 17:21:32 ... how do you do that with this 17:21:46 sandro: is the comment box normally an iframe 17:21:50 bengo: in our case no, most cases yes 17:21:57 eprodrom_ has joined #social 17:22:05 present+ 17:22:05 q+ 17:22:09 bengo: in our case it's mostly because customers like to use css to arbitrarily change things even though that makes our lives hard 17:22:14 present+ eprodrom 17:22:21 sandro: so do users have accounts on your or their system 17:22:26 bengo: it's pluggable 17:22:44 bengo: when a user does something that needs to plug in, it gets a token, and ..? 17:22:55 ack eprodrom 17:23:02 ... a lot of our things our these things but have been done internally as a proprietary way 17:23:22 eprodrom: it's an interesting use case because many things do stuff like reviews, likes on a page., etc 17:23:28 eprodrom_: there's a few ways it could work 17:23:49 eprodrom_: on pumpio if you want to do something on a remote site, you log into their server via your server, via outh 17:23:58 eprodrom_: so their server acts like a client to your server 17:24:14 eprodrom_: it's a complicated mechanism, there are other ways it could work. There are some other patterns you may want to implement. 17:24:24 eprodrom_: I don't know if you collect posts around the web but you could do that too 17:24:35 eprodrom_: I think that's actually an interesting case for the api 17:24:58 eprodrom_: my gut feeling is that it requires things like a global firehose that everybody aims their public posts towards 17:25:06 ... and whoever wants to can drink from that firehose 17:25:09 q+ to bring up comment services via webmention 17:25:13 ... but I think it' an interesting issue 17:25:23 ... might be worth sketching out as a little api type protocol situation 17:25:27 q? 17:25:43 ack aaronpk 17:25:43 aaronpk, you wanted to bring up comment services via webmention 17:25:48 bengo: I think there's enough of existing specs where we could boot something up and see if indiewebbers and (?) want to do it 17:25:53 http://webmention.herokuapp.com 17:25:59 aaronpk: there are som eexisting examples with webmention, like ^ 17:26:11 bengo has joined #social 17:26:16 ... if you set your webmention endpoint to that, it pulls in the comments to put them on the page 17:26:27 ... kind of like disqus, it shows the comments there 17:26:39 ... we have the mechanism to show the comment form and stuff 17:26:52 ... the nice thing it lets the author choose where their comments are bieng collected 17:27:02 azaroth has joined #social 17:27:07 ... as opposed to "use twitter and tweet on the hashtag and we'll pull it out" 17:27:11 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/18/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-strengthening-syrian-refugee-screening/ 17:27:19 tantek: are you able to show examples of people using this bengo? 17:27:26 bengo: yes *posts above link* 17:27:37 all the comments on http://www.kevinmarks.com/ are pulled in via that herokuapp 17:27:48 bengo: in that case if you sign in on the page it does an arbitrary auth thing 17:28:06 tantek: ok any other input you want to the working group? 17:28:09 bengo: I think I got it 17:28:09 q? 17:28:30 scribenick: rhiaro 17:28:37 TOPIC: Activipy demo 17:28:52 rhiaro++ 17:28:55 rhiaro has 189 karma 17:29:14 *technical setup* 17:29:37 *postponed until magical arrival of vga cable* 17:30:02 Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87033&oldid=87031 17:30:16 scribenick: cwebber2 17:30:44 any word from Rene? 17:31:08 q+ 17:31:09 tantek: ok, then let's jump right into federation protocol, which is our next agenda item 17:31:16 TOPIC: federation protocol 17:31:47 ack eprodrom 17:31:47 eprodrom: I'd like to talk for a couple minutes for what our plan is for tackling federation protocol 17:31:55 eprodrom: esp when we have a lot to do as in terms of syntax and api 17:32:00 q+ 17:32:22 eprodrom: sorry to be blunt, but it's the optional item on our charter, but I think it's likely the last rather than the immediately last piece 17:32:29 tantek: ok for 5 minutes to discuss this beforehand? 17:32:33 aaronpk: ok 17:32:34 q? 17:32:39 tantek: ok 5 minutes on agenda prioritization 17:32:41 ack cw 17:32:57 rhiaro, can you scribe? 17:33:19 q+ 17:33:23 scribenick: rhiaro 17:33:34 Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of micropub depending on what comes out of aaron's brainstorming. If it turns out we can do those things in one fell swoop, it would be kind of nice and nice to not force ourselces to not work on them if is actually most efficient for us to address them together 17:33:40 q? 17:33:43 q? 17:33:43 scribenick: cwebber2 17:33:46 ack aaronpk 17:33:47 q+ 17:34:04 aaronpk: my take on it is why a social api is useful it's not too useful without federation 17:34:08 s/Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of micropub depending on what comes out of aaron's brainstorming. If it turns out we can do those things in one fell swoop, it would be kind of nice and nice to not force ourselces to not work on them if is actually most efficient for us to address them together/cwebber2: Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of 17:34:08 micropub depending on what comes out of aaron's brainstorming. If it turns out we can do those things in one fell swoop, it would be kind of nice and nice to not force ourselces to not work on them if is actually most efficient for us to address them together 17:34:14 aaronpk: I agree there's value in it, but I think it's not a very good goal to stop there 17:34:34 aaronpk: for me a lot of the goal of this group is to do federation 17:34:46 q? 17:34:52 ack eprodrom 17:34:53 aaronpk: and I don't want a repeat of oauth where nothing interops because there was no attempt to do it 17:35:19 finally catching up on all the logs, i had an app that did server to server micropub for syndication to twitter, the negotiation of access keys was the most annoying part really, but once that was done, it worked fine 17:35:21 eprodrom: so I think that by far the great majority of social programming is done as client/server apis, there are very few very small client/server apis comparativley 17:36:00 q? 17:36:03 eprodrom: while most of us come from that federated social web world, while that might feel like the most important goal, I feel like the federation thing is the treat for us is all cool and fun, but I think giving the dessert first is a bad idea 17:36:16 eprodrom: we do things like we tangle up the social api and federation 17:36:18 q? 17:36:21 q+ 17:36:26 eprodrom: but I think attacking federation at this point is not the best use of our resources 17:36:33 eprodrom: I'm happy to go at it but it feels like a big stretch 17:36:37 ack sandro 17:36:43 eprodrom: and I'd like to talk about what process we have to do it 17:36:53 sandro: who's the market for the API without federation? 17:37:07 eprodrom: so who would use it? take for example a new social network, which those launch all the time 17:37:16 eprodrom: secret, instagram, periscope, etc 17:37:26 q+ 17:37:26 eprodrom: having a standard api that's close to hand might be what's used 17:37:33 eprodrom: that might be a market is what they're doing 17:37:40 sandro: and the benefit is it's less work to adopt their own 17:37:45 sandro: ? 17:37:52 q+ 17:38:00 bengo has joined #social 17:38:05 sandro: I guess you're suggesting it's not cost effective to switch to the standard 17:38:07 q? 17:38:13 sandro: and the new folks don't know they want it 17:38:27 eprodrom: yes, and I think it's easier to do incremental adoption 17:38:31 q+ 17:38:48 sandro: in the needs document, federation is 1, 2, and 5 17:38:57 q? 17:39:01 eprodrom: yeah, I think also managing profile stuff 17:39:03 ack aaronpk 17:39:16 aaronpk: follow-up question evan, the value is to design the api 17:39:23 eprodrom: it's not me saying this, it's the charter 17:39:43 aaronpk: my follow up question is you also see as part of that the value is someone's building an amazing iphone app that does video editing in a new way 17:39:53 aaronpk: is the value that they can already do a web api they can point to? 17:40:03 Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87035&oldid=87033 17:40:08 aaronpk: and someone wants to build something but not use the mobile app... ? 17:40:18 aaronpk: there does seem some value in having federation standardized 17:40:26 present+ 17:40:32 aaronpk: you're able to swap out what servers you're using 17:40:43 q? 17:40:43 eprodrom: that's exactly it, you can use off the shelf libraries and etc 17:40:47 I am now 17:40:50 eprodrom: both on client and server side 17:41:00 muted and video off 17:41:02 eprodrom: I think there's a number of ways you could do something that doesn't have federation at its core 17:41:09 eprodrom: for companies, individuals, everyone 17:41:14 as the train is in noisy level crossing mode 17:41:38 eprodrom: I think ultimately form a procedure standpoint, we have 3 deliverables, are not at CR for any of them, we have one that's optional, and we have worries about what to do about all of them is useful 17:41:46 q? 17:41:51 ack cwebber2 17:41:56 ack cwebber 17:41:58 q+ 17:41:59 bengo has joined #social 17:42:02 eprodrom: I'd like to hear we start federation protocol because XYZ not be cause we think it's cool 17:42:06 scribenick: rhiaro 17:42:16 if we want to do a micropub+webmention+webaction demo later, I have all the bits for that set up 17:42:40 kevinmarks - if you want to do that, could you add to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_technical_items ? 17:42:43 cwebber2: I think a couple of things. 1) most of the companies that ar eputting out things like this probably don't want to use an off the shelf mobile app anyway, because they want to control their brand in some way. Although it is true that when media goblin implemented the pump api we were able to use existing clients and it just worked 17:43:01 q/ 17:43:04 q? 17:43:10 ... that is pretty cool, but one concern is that it would take a lot of work to try to decouple the client to server stuff in AP 17:43:11 hi wseltzer see you in 40 mins or so 17:43:25 ... I also worry that in terms of motivation to stay active in this group, it's going to be hard to stay motivated if federation is not on the horizon 17:43:33 ... My interest drops dramatically. That's the whole reason I'm int he group. 17:43:55 q? 17:43:59 ack bengo 17:43:59 ... If federation looks like it's not a likely target it's going to reduce the amount I'm enthused to stay involved. I want to keep it on the horizon. It's a high priority / life goal for m to advance that 17:44:03 scribenick: cwebber2 17:44:35 bengo: aside from social api benefits of the next api benefits etc, I think it's useful for reusable readers/writers etc, but also because web components that real enterprise buyers will have motivation to use 17:44:43 q? 17:44:50 q+ 17:44:57 bengo: those same benefits could come from a standardized api, might not benefit from federation 17:45:19 bengo: my other question is evan, are you just not eager to talk about it for 4 hours right now? 17:45:39 eprodrom: I'm more concerned over months and years than the next several hours 17:45:59 eprodrom: we are at 5 drafts that we're working on, and we're going to start a new process for federation protocol 17:46:00 etc 17:46:06 ack sandro 17:46:18 sandro: I think we concluded that the user stories covered both 17:46:26 eprodrom: I think we said it's topology agnostic 17:46:37 sandro: right, so that means we can just say applies across servers 17:46:41 eprodrom: that sounds like a good thing to do 17:46:51 tantek: so that's basically a requirement for a user story 17:47:08 q? 17:47:10 eprodrom: so federation is server to server level, so I assume it has more to do with server protocol than about user interaction 17:47:18 eprodrom: so we already have what we need? 17:47:48 tantek: as part of our charter, webmention was part of our protocol, same as we accepted as2 as a draft, so proceeding a similar track as as2 17:47:58 tantek: there's no sense of exclusivity for sure 17:48:03 q? 17:48:07 ack eprodrom 17:48:10 q+ 17:48:11 tantek: but I understand there's a concern about the amount of time on it 17:48:23 eprodrom: so I'd just like to hear what our plan is from the next few months 17:48:31 eprodrom: are we choosing webmention immediately? 17:48:37 tantek: I didn't hear that, 17:48:45 eprodrom: so we're going to look at alternative systems? 17:48:55 eprodrom: I propose we talk about how we're going to do this 17:49:02 eprodrom: I suggest you add that 17:49:10 tantek: that sounds more process oriented than tech oriented 17:49:14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_admin_items 17:49:18 It would be interesting to resolve finalizing reader/writer Social API stories above federation, which could just be standardizing processing rules for that API 17:49:21 sandro: that's what we're talking about now? 17:49:29 tantek: no this was 5 minutes to express concerns 17:49:36 eprodrom: will add to proposed admin items 17:49:48 tantek: based on concern over how much time, let me ask aaron how much time we need 17:49:51 e.g. decouple delivery/notification rules of ActivityPump from describing POST /outbox and expected semantics/errors 17:49:57 tantek: how much time do you actually want? 17:50:02 Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87036&oldid=86942 17:50:03 Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87037&oldid=87035 17:50:05 aaronpk: I have a couple issues I want feedback on 17:50:05 q? 17:50:15 aaronpk: I also want to clarify process stuff about webmention spec 17:50:29 tantek: how much total time do you want 17:50:33 aaronpk: I imagine an hour is fine 17:50:46 tantek: any objection to slotting an hour time? 17:50:50 sandro: that's fine 17:51:01 tantek: let's timebox yours to an hour. is that okay eprodrom ? 17:51:03 eprodrom: sounds great 17:51:12 btw, given that I have a 3.5 hour drive home, I'd like to try to get on the road home a bit early today, if at all possible, I'd like to see if we could handle the remaining AS2 issues a bit earlier in the agenda 17:51:28 q? 17:51:31 ack sand 17:51:35 sandro: let's do demo after break (vga cable had arrived) 17:51:45 TOPIC: discuss Webmention to take it to First Public Working Draft 17:52:01 aaronpk: a lot of people read over webmention doc, lots of issues filed, lots of good discussion 17:52:09 aaronpk: trying to work before this meeting 17:52:24 aaronpk: before we do that, I wanted to clarify the place the spec lives etc 17:52:26 when is break? I added a demo suggestion to the items 17:52:33 aaronpk: after last call I made for issues only 17:52:52 kevinmarks, we'll take a break at 10:50 17:52:53 I added a countdown for 12/2 10:50am (#5772) 17:53:03 OK, I'll be there by then 17:53:10 aaronpk: my proposal is to move from w3c issues to my personal account on github, so it follows same protocol as activitystreams (under jame's account) so there's no confusion over who's the admin of ther epo 17:53:11 repo 17:53:31 q? 17:53:52 q? 17:53:52 aaronpk: I'll have to do the work of moving the actual spec contents to respec format, I'm planning on doing that on github because that's an easy way to manage source code, so that's then the source of the document using the normal workflow, and if I have trouble I can ask james 17:53:54 if you want to schedule a few minutes for a webmention micropub demo 17:53:57 sandro: so if you move the repo 17:54:02 aaronpk: all the issues will stay 17:54:15 aaronpk: I don't want to fragment the convo too much 17:54:32 aaronpk: that also means the indiewebcamp wiki, which is where the spec is canonical right now, will have to figure out how to deal with that 17:54:51 aaronpk: if we write that in the github html source, have to figure out how to move to the indieweb (?) 17:55:21 aaronpk: I think that's outside the scope of this group though, I mostly wanted to make sure the described worklow makes sense 17:55:27 aaronpk: since AS2 does that too 17:55:33 aaronpk: happy to make chairs admin on the repo 17:55:48 tantek: I'm not hearing objections to use same workflow as AS2 17:55:54 q? 17:56:03 tantek: I think we can accept it if no concerns 17:56:15 jasnell: no concerns, I think having it with full chair access helps 17:56:25 jasnell: that's something you might want to consider, with full rights 17:56:36 jasnell: having someone else there with same permission level helps balance that it's not just you 17:56:40 jasnell: that's my recommendation 17:56:51 tantek: that cover yer spec process issues/ 17:56:52 ? 17:56:56 aaronpk: yes it does 17:57:02 aaronpk: let's get onto the guts of it then 17:57:45 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/5 17:58:10 aaronpk: this has always been a vague par to fthe spec, verifying that source links back to the target 17:58:16 aaronpk: in the land of html, it's easy to do that 17:58:35 aaronpk: but if we're talking about other types of source docukments, need to see if it needs to be spelled out more explicitly 17:58:42 aaronpk: that doc links to another doc 17:58:48 q? 17:58:50 aaronpk: if that's clear by content type, then it doesn't need to be 17:58:55 sandro: I think it's not well spelled out 17:59:13 sandro: my instinct is there's motivation to spell it out but as I commented 17:59:32 sandro: if there's a way to do webmentions, a blog system that does webmentions, to know if it's conformatnt to the spec, have to define what is a link that does webmention? 17:59:52 sandro: if I have a piece of software with a webmention endpoint, then we should agree on what counts as passing verification 18:00:05 aaronpk: right, first step of processing webmention is to see what's in it 18:00:08 Kmarks2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87038&oldid=87037 18:00:09 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87039&oldid=87038 18:00:13 sandro: first exmaple is relative URIs 18:00:31 sandro: eg, "is this string in there, the url doesn't appear there, but it's absolutely specified" 18:00:44 q+ 18:00:52 aaronpk: ok so we don't need to discuss the actual contents right now, but worht specifying...? 18:01:02 tantek: is it reasonable to say you raise issues as helpful...? 18:01:18 sandro: you get my point it's not just about verificaiton, but aloso when do you send the webmention 18:01:20 aaronpk: ok 18:01:23 aaronpk: yeah 18:01:28 aaronpk: 17 is a similar one 18:01:28 q? 18:01:37 ack bengo 18:01:46 bengo: webmention does seem useful as a way of doing an "FYI" standard 18:01:59 bengo: I kind of agree that it's possible to recommend specifying algorithms 18:02:11 bengo: webmention as FYI in a timely manner, that's separate from specifics 18:02:13 is the verification part going to be normative? 18:02:16 or suggested 18:02:26 bengo: there seems like a way to separate FYI from each content type 18:02:27 tilgovi has joined #social 18:02:44 sandro: for instance in json-ld to find out if there's links or not you have to do full expansion 18:02:54 tantek: similar for html parsing algorithm you have to do media type parsing 18:03:11 sandro: I don't know the right answer but conceptually here's webmention on this matrix, and here's webmention for each other possible mediat ype 18:03:20 s/mediat ype/media type/ 18:03:42 tantek: perhaps the general approach that sandro / bengo 's mentioning is apply webmention FYI, but if per media type processing to do, write an example for each media type 18:03:49 q? 18:03:59 tantek: then add after that and say, for other media types, handle their processing model for each term 18:04:09 tantek: as bengo said for each media type it's worth processsing 18:04:18 sandro: maybe spec says it can apply to each terms 18:04:25 sandro: but conformance is weird maybe 18:04:34 sandro: so it's a sender/receiver for different types 18:04:39 what do we mean by 'each media type' - would we process a QR code? 18:04:45 bengo: but even ?? ships 18:04:56 bengo: if it's already should, it's specific about each type 18:05:03 q? 18:05:07 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/18 18:05:13 aaronpk: that brings me to something related, which is 18 from wilkie 18:05:31 aaronpk: I think gist of this is that is there a way the spec can limit the amount of work receiver has to do 18:05:35 wilkie: yep 18:05:50 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sporny-http-proofs-01 18:05:58 aaronpk: because anyone having to verify document, can link a document, which could even be a 1gb document... 18:06:19 wilkie: I'm looking for some bullet points saying "this could happen, here's how to avoid some obvious/easy ways to get hut" 18:06:29 sandro: for example, never bother to fetch more than a megabyte 18:06:48 aaronpk: so this seems not part of the algorithm, but 18:07:01 tantek: it's a MUST vs SHOULD 18:07:13 sandro: alternatively you could say it's only defined for the first megabyte 18:07:29 sandro: another technical solution is you could say include range 18:07:39 someone: *trollish laughter* 18:07:52 aaronpk: I'll try to find some way to avoid falling into a pit of processing 18:08:00 tantek: maybe send two megabytes and see what happens 18:08:12 sandro: many redirects is another thing 18:08:30 wilkie: if anyone wants to give permission to have their webmention endpoint to be possibly broken 18:08:41 q? 18:08:55 sandro: so another way to put it, do I have the legal authority to post whatever I want to an endpoint? 18:09:18 tantek: for a lot of these things you can see if there's prior art in pingback or etc 18:09:28 tantek: it's very mature 18:09:33 sandro: it's also discarded 18:09:37 tantek: unmaintained 18:10:02 sandro: who should review webmention? particularly, what ietf groups might get upset, so we can approach in the appropriate way 18:10:13 sandro: the kind of people who will say "this is crazy, you can't do this" 18:10:17 present+ 18:10:38 totally confused myself on start time 18:10:40 sandro: they look at pingback and say nobody should do this, we'd like them to have them say "oh this is (good?)" 18:10:44 q? 18:10:52 aaronpk: (??) was left out of pingback 18:11:04 sandro: jasnell you have some experience with the http working group right? 18:11:20 sandro: if we could have them not hate it that'd be nice 18:11:27 s/??/what to display after you receive a pingback/ 18:11:27 q+ 18:11:31 jasnell: we could float it, experience has been mixed 18:11:35 ack wseltzer 18:11:50 wseltzer: if it's something you want brought to ietf discussion that's the right place to raise an issue for people to review 18:12:04 tantek: maybe consider that for draft advancement 18:12:05 s/ietf discussion/ietf apps-area discussion/ 18:12:48 jasnell: the apps working group might... hm.... might be a more appropriate venue. But I think it could rabbithole very quickly... 18:12:58 jasnell: nneither is ideal, but of the two, apps might be it 18:13:04 sandro: we could find liason types 18:13:12 jasnell: I'm very familiar with both groups so I can do that.... 18:13:26 tantek: is there an appropriate maturity schedule needed to do that review? 18:13:44 tantek: need is before CR? I'm sensing there's an opinoin that having review soner could be helpful? 18:13:56 sandro: related thing is, how this is framed/scoped as... is it for everything on the web? 18:14:12 sandro: it's grown out of the social use cases, but you could mention things that grew out of social or not social 18:14:17 q+ 18:14:24 sandro: do we want to say we don't care about some of those others? i don't know the righ answer 18:14:41 sandro: it's simple/elegant enough it might be able to, but we might see it hits other issues.... 18:14:54 jasnell: that's a common problem for apps group, scope bloat 18:15:07 tantek: sounds like you're asking for a scope section 18:15:18 sandro: I'm... not sure scope section will help. 18:15:24 q? 18:15:28 ack wseltzer 18:15:42 q? 18:15:43 sandro: quesiton back here is does anyone have interest in selling it more broadly? or are we too concerned about feedback? 18:15:43 q+ 18:15:52 q+ to comment on security review 18:16:01 aaronpk: within the realm of social web stuff, I don't know if it's appropriate for other uses stuff 18:16:14 sandro: one relatively harmless way to do it might be to have a w3c staff technical ...? 18:16:26 sandro: any group can say we'd love w3c staff to look at it but 18:16:34 sandro: could be kinda interesting 18:16:44 tantek: best before or after first working draft? 18:16:47 sandro: probalby after 18:16:59 q? 18:17:00 sandro: I don't think there's much risk 18:17:03 ack wseltzer 18:17:03 wseltzer, you wanted to comment on security review 18:17:30 wseltzer: another productive avenue of review could be in security, and how will this actually worked when deployed at scale across a variety of malicious mentioners and mentioneees 18:17:33 q+ 18:17:41 wseltzer: what could one feed to someone else's verifier to have it blow up etc? 18:18:03 wseltzer: we have ?? that w3c can invite at any time to review 18:18:14 bengo: just thought, should it respec the robots.txt for ...? 18:18:20 s/??/Privacy IG and Security IG/ 18:18:27 s/w3c/WG/ 18:18:36 kevinmarks has joined #social 18:18:46 aaronpk: whether to respect robots.txt ... 18:18:49 q- 18:18:56 sandro: robots.txt is about crawling 18:19:00 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/9 18:19:00 No-one is on reception, can someone let me in? 18:19:02 aaronpk: this one is issue #9 18:19:18 Never mind 18:19:34 aaronpk: issue #9 is about talking about parmeter name, source, target, and fact that they aren't actually URIs 18:19:52 aaronpk: I don't... things seem to be working just fine as strings 18:20:01 aaronpk: is there some way to get around this the way the json-ld workaround to wokr 18:20:13 bengo: I got the author to agree later to language they would do 18:20:23 melvin would resolve "we can convert this to semantics" 18:20:32 sandro: we should pick a namespace 18:20:39 bengo: not actually the protocol that needs to change 18:20:44 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/9#issuecomment-159961360 18:21:13 aaronpk: if not pingback what's the proper name 18:21:18 tantek: namespace for what? 18:21:24 aaronpk: term, source, targget 18:21:44 s/term,/for the terms/ 18:21:45 kevinmarks_ has joined #social 18:22:07 sandro: they're link relations from webmention... 18:22:20 aaronpk: so string source is not a fully qualified uri 18:22:32 rhiaro: same as AS2, default namespace 18:22:41 sandro: I don't think it really matters, but it doesn't hurt to give a default namespace 18:22:54 tantek: I recommend you follow up with jasnell 18:22:54 w3.org/ns/... 18:23:06 presumably we don't actually need to send that namespace correct? 18:23:10 bengo: needs a version 18:23:11 or rather the context? 18:23:15 tantek: now you're borderline trolling 18:23:16 ben_thatmustbeme: right 18:23:16 right, ben_thatmustbeme 18:23:22 just for receivers if they want to add it upon receipt 18:23:24 s/version/version ;) 18:23:25 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/13 18:23:27 webmention seems to represent a link, how about using terms from as:Link ? 18:23:30 aaronpk: let's talk about issue 13 18:23:32 s/trolling/trolling ;) 18:23:50 fwiw, I've actually been playing around with an experimental draft for processing form data into json-ld 18:23:54 aaronpk: right now every implementation afaik assumes only one webmention endpoint 18:23:58 aaronpk: and only pings that one 18:24:04 mine doesn't 18:24:11 aaronpk: maybe correct anser is use first one you bump into 18:24:16 tantek: but there's implementation agreement? 18:24:27 kevinmarks: mine doesn't do that, it pings all 18:24:39 kevinmarks: did it in response to tantek's comment 18:24:51 aaronpk: but when you discover a webmention endpoint do you discover one 18:25:04 kevinmarks: no it does as many as it can 18:25:18 kevinmarks: an experiment, but useful use case is when transitioning from one endpoint to another 18:25:28 azaroth has joined #social 18:25:28 tantek: do you feel strongly about that enuf to make that a should 18:25:42 kevinmarks: you may want to ping more than one 18:25:50 are we bothering with queue? 18:25:51 ... the one I gbuilt stores entirely in ??? 18:26:17 aaronpk: my inclination is if you see value in multiple webmention pings, you can't acutlaly guarantee sending it to all of them, so you're better off sending to one 18:26:19 q+ 18:26:21 nevermind, aaronpk basically said what i was going to 18:26:23 q? 18:26:33 q- 18:26:38 aaronpk: the most reliable way is to have single webmention endpoint 18:26:46 aaronpk: that's the only way to guarantee they all get the webmention 18:27:04 kevinmarks: the other thing is to potentially handle webmentions for ones who haven't installed it yet 18:27:25 kevinmarks: it's slightly off, but you could imagine a webmention sender automatically pings webmention services in case they have it there 18:27:41 aaronpk: kind of like pinging archive.org(?) 18:28:08 kevinmarks: potential utility in queueing, but not sure it's core enough to try to get everyone else to do it too 18:28:19 q? 18:28:22 aaronpk: another risk that having senders send multiples, you might potentially send thousands 18:28:28 aaronpk: kind of tempted to limit to just one first 18:28:32 aaronpk: good things to document 18:28:52 kevinmarks: if we do adopt the well-known approach to finding it, we do have the posssibility of doing ...(?) 18:29:07 kevinmarks: we may want to discuss about related things 18:29:15 tantek: there's order already for discovery 18:29:28 tantek: sounds like you're close to proposed resolution 18:29:30 aaronpk: I think so 18:30:00 aaronpk: so, you MUST ping first on you find, then document reasons for not require multiple 18:30:08 tantek: implementation guidance? 18:30:09 aaronpk: yes 18:30:27 sandro: I hadn't thought of well-known, I'd like to have it at end, but it woudl be nice to never have to do discovery again 18:30:37 tantek: the stableness of well known is well known 18:30:41 snarfed has joined #social 18:30:44 tantek: google kept breaking it 18:30:51 sandro: they weren't updating their well known? 18:30:54 tantek: correct 18:31:10 tantek: so if the large corporation handling large centralized place, yeah they oculdn't 18:31:16 tantek: if google can't get it right, then 18:31:35 kevinmarks: not everyone there knew about well known 18:31:39 tantek: that's a data point 18:32:02 q? 18:32:04 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/4 18:32:27 aaronpk: so this is an interesitng one, it basically shows whether webmention payload should be allowed to have other content types 18:32:32 it's basically url source and target 18:32:45 aaronpk: it kind of looks like a minimal activity, where there's an id and an object 18:32:52 aaronpk: what if you want to send activity as a paylod 18:33:01 aaronpk: now it looks like federation protocol sending activities around 18:33:09 aaronpk: interesting idea, quickly growing out of scope 18:33:29 aaronpk: quickly growing into its own protocol with its own security concerns and etc 18:33:58 aaronpk: it's potentially an even biger rabbithole 18:34:01 bigger 18:34:18 kevinmarks: that makes sense 18:34:22 aaronpk: easy one 18:34:34 https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/1 18:34:40 aaronpk: last one: issue #1 about property parameter 18:35:07 aaronpk: don't bother reading whole thread... several months ago ?? gave source and target 18:35:23 aaronpk: basically switched to rel, where to find the link 18:35:40 aaronpk: if in-reply-to on page, what do you parse to get key in-reply-to(??) 18:35:58 aaronpk: if my webmention payload contains rel="in-reply-to" you don't need to look at all links on pag 18:35:59 ee 18:36:01 page 18:36:02 augh 18:36:25 aaronpk: thing that got me to really understand what this is about is to include rel parameter page may mean multiple things 18:36:34 aaronpk: one is in-reply-to and one is ??-of 18:36:42 aaronpk: one means reply one means like 18:36:46 like-of 18:37:00 aaronpk: if you want to send two webmentions to that you could 18:37:11 aaronpk: if you tell me where to look in the page I can look and then stop 18:37:16 sandro: in practice how do you do that 18:37:40 aaronpk: stop as in most peoples' code when they look beyond "what does this mean" they have "is it a bla, or a blah" 18:37:44 I implemented this in http://mention-tech.appspot.com 18:37:50 rhiaro: if it's json you can just look 18:37:54 and it was very confusing 18:38:00 aaronpk: right in microformats world you can look 18:38:16 aaronpk: look for one key you're looking at 18:38:29 q? 18:38:35 kevinmarks: I implemented this and to see what it's like 18:38:42 rhiaro: the idea is you send whatever you want 18:38:57 q+ to discuss my concerns with it 18:39:02 rhiaro: you send what's in the document. if they receive what you understand then it's up the target anyway 18:39:17 rhiaro: if it's rdfa you send rdfa prop, of microformats you send a microformats propoperty 18:39:27 q? 18:39:34 azaroth: seems like slipper slope towards oauth 18:39:42 aaronpk: couldn't you use a fragment on url as subject? 18:39:54 sandro: this seems like the perfect kind of at risk thing 18:39:59 rhiaro: that was my lsat point 18:40:09 aaronpk: I think if it goes in the spec it may be a suggestion 18:40:19 aaronpk: they MAY prioritize that 18:40:27 aaronpk: with assumption most implementations won't include 18:40:36 sandro: with assumption we might take it out of the spec later 18:40:40 q? 18:40:42 aaronpk: that seems like a good path forward 18:40:51 ack ben_thatmustbeme 18:40:51 ben_thatmustbeme, you wanted to discuss my concerns with it 18:41:12 ben_thatmustbeme: ok, so my concerns are that 1) especially with like-of it becomes possibly not even on that page 18:41:26 verification is already not required 18:41:27 ben_thatmustbeme: so if they see like coming in and that's all they care about well 18:41:38 ben_thatmustbeme: then it becomes why not send comments as well 18:41:47 ben_thatmustbeme: it sends info about it instead of the actual stuff 18:41:56 q? 18:41:56 tantek: do you have a counter-proposal? 18:42:07 ben_thatmustbeme: I queued up before marking at risk 18:42:13 ben_thatmustbeme: someone could send you the wrong type 18:42:24 rhiaro: you always run the risk without validation 18:42:34 It all already says 'you cant trust the ping', you SHOULD verify it 18:42:44 q? 18:42:51 like me - I record it without valdiating it 18:42:51 rhiaro: someone can still process incoming webmention as a REPLY 18:42:59 rhiaro: they could still violate the spec 18:43:05 aaronpk: seems like good reasons on both sides 18:43:07 q+ to ask would this make more sense as a separate extension proposal, like Vouch? 18:43:15 aaronpk: looking for feedback from implementers might be right way forward 18:43:18 q- 18:43:40 aaronpk: as an extension what does it look like? a type hinting extension? 18:43:51 I feel like in the context of the Social API that you would want to parse the entire page anyway. to pull out ALL comments and ALL likes that refer to you (with the same url) and represent them. 18:43:56 kevinmarks: yes and property is not a good description (??) 18:44:07 kevinmarks: for me that makes more of an extension 18:44:20 cwebber2: wilkie: you mean federation api right? :) 18:44:32 q+ to note we have at least one Webmention extension already, Vouch, with multiple interoperable implementations, seems like other additions should also start documented as extensions. 18:44:46 rhiaro: one suggestion in that thread is for those who don't care about semantic content you just send it ...? 18:45:02 rhiaro: I think it would be useful to get more feedback from different perspectives 18:45:04 q+ re extensions and #9 18:45:11 other issue with one proposed advantage of it is that it allows you to dismiss types you don't support, but thats just as premature as accepting likes without verifying them 18:45:13 tantek: I'm queed to talk about htat which is that we have more extensions already 18:45:17 http://indiewebcamp.com/Vouch 18:45:20 wilkie agree 18:45:20 tantek: that's Vouch 18:45:26 cwebber2: webmention would be the federation on top of the social syntax for servers that aren't known/trusted/discovered 18:45:30 tantek: it already has multiple implementions 18:45:47 tantek: for those who see value in it, they have the burden of writing it up first 18:45:55 q+ to ask who runs the registry for webmention extension field names 18:45:57 tantek: rather than burdening you with trying to interpret their wishes 18:46:09 tantek: if that's something the community wants to do in core well.... 18:46:34 tantek: I want to resist the default tendency to mark everything at risk, I was criticized for that, and I think it was a legit criticisms 18:46:53 tantek: also a good way to get person proposing to think more formally 18:46:54 jasnell has joined #social 18:47:00 +1 to tantek 18:47:06 tantek: rather than getting you to distribute the work 18:47:12 rhiaro: it is written up, where does it go then 18:47:14 It is already written up at csarven.ca/webmention 18:47:15 tantek: in a separate spec 18:47:24 rhiaro: so published where? 18:47:26 q? 18:47:35 tantek: wherever person wants 18:47:38 rhiaro: it's already up 18:47:40 it's currently written up at http://csarven.ca/webmention 18:47:50 tantek: give it a name, say its extension 18:47:59 rhiaro: I just dropeped a link 18:48:06 i wouldn't call that at all spec like. It generally explains it 18:48:10 tantek: doesn't look like a spec,, make a separate spec 18:48:15 tantek: not just a bunch of thoughts 18:48:26 jasnell_ has joined #social 18:48:36 but what do you do with it if its not found? what do you do if it is given, also that page talks about making target optional 18:48:43 tantek: I think jasnell_ is resistant to add stuff to as2 core, that's not a bad pracrtice 18:48:51 tantek: call for review 18:49:00 indeed, link to extensions in the spec +1 18:49:01 q? 18:49:02 kevinmarks, we'll take a break 18:49:03 Countdown set by tantek on 12/2/15 at 9:52am 18:49:03 bengo: add a registyr? 18:49:10 tantek: specs are registries by default 18:49:11 q? 18:49:13 ack tsyesika 18:49:15 ack tantek 18:49:15 tantek, you wanted to note we have at least one Webmention extension already, Vouch, with multiple interoperable implementations, seems like other additions should also start 18:49:18 ... documented as extensions. 18:49:24 sandro: if you're going to have extensions, what's the extension mechanism 18:49:35 ack sandro 18:49:35 sandro, you wanted to ask who runs the registry for webmention extension field names 18:49:46 sandro: it might be the IWC wiki, because htat seems to be the answer. I don't like it, but that's how it is 18:49:53 sandro: I don't understand why there's an extension mechanism in there 18:50:03 tantek: ther'es no formal webmention, you can just do it 18:50:16 sandro: but there's no way to detect who's implementing extensions 18:50:27 q+ 18:50:30 sandro: so if two people come along and use vouch with conflicting terms, there's no way to do it 18:50:31 q- 18:50:42 azaroth: I believe that's issue 9 which we won't tlak about 18:50:44 ack azaroth 18:50:44 azaroth, you wanted to discuss extensions and #9 18:50:44 talk 18:51:01 sandro: converting to URIs is one way to solve this, having a registry is another 18:51:13 bengo: one way to do it is what does this support 18:51:30 sandro: we could add those to the link 18:51:36 bengo: configuration endpoint 18:51:44 accounts.qa-ext.livefyre.com/.well-known/openid-configuration 18:51:51 https://accounts.qa-ext.livefyre.com/.well-known/openid-configuration 18:51:53 tantek: we've had fewer than one extension per year, so I don't see any benefit for an abastract solution 18:52:07 tantek: so far everyone knows about every extension 18:52:19 azaroth: so if everyone that we know 18:52:21 q? 18:52:30 tantek: if million people implement webmention I'll be impressed 18:52:31 one possible approach is to have the discovery mechanism to allow a site to declare a prefix for a particular base URI mapping... for instance, "xyz-" = "http://xyz.example#", then a parameter named "xyz-foo" would expand to "http://xyz.example#foo" 18:53:01 i think a registry of "extensions fields" and links to extension in IWC wiki would make a lot of sense 18:53:07 aaronpk: effectively for now, the spec becomes registry of extensions, around CR we can revisit 18:53:28 aaronpk: I saved that one for last because I knew it would be tricky 18:53:49 aaronpk: talk about it on the next calll 18:53:56 sandro: goal is for working draft? 18:54:19 tantek: do we want to say we have a certain a mount of time? 18:54:24 sandro: let's wait 18:54:37 aaronpk: I can get it by... I'm not james so I can't probably do it during the rest of the day 18:54:46 aaronpk: I'll try to have it done by next telecon 18:54:53 aaronpk: I probably won't have it done by next telecon 18:55:10 tantek: let's agenda to update and discuss at next telecon 18:55:46 ACTION: aaronpk publish new editor's draft of webmention before next telcon 18:55:46 Created ACTION-81 - Publish new editor's draft of webmention before next telcon [on Aaron Parecki - due 2015-12-09]. 18:55:57 q? 18:56:47 melvster has joined #social 18:57:10 any word from rene? 18:57:26 reconvene at 11:05 18:57:27 I added a countdown for 12/2 11:05am (#5773) 18:57:42 I sent Rene an email; let's see if it produces anything. 18:58:10 thanks eprodrom 19:00:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87040&oldid=87039 19:00:08 melvster has left #social 19:00:15 if I webmention people from the logs, what happens? 19:00:59 tessierashpool_ has joined #social 19:01:10 ElijahLynn has joined #social 19:03:33 kevinmarks_ has joined #social 19:04:02 reconvene 19:04:03 Countdown set by tantek on 12/2/15 at 10:57am 19:05:54 scribenick: rhiaro 19:06:09 TOPIC: Activipy demo 19:07:12 for demos could we turn talky to projector? 19:07:32 ActiviPy demo, showing a combination of ActivityStreams, Linked Data (through json-ld) and Microformats (through JF2) support - Chris Webber 19:07:33 ben_thatmustbeme: is that better? 19:07:34 thank you whoever that was :) 19:07:35 cwebber2: Activipy started off as a validator, then a generalised library for doing AS2 stuff 19:07:40 yes 19:07:43 :) 19:07:45 azaroth++ 19:07:48 ... But expands out into a linked data representation, but as of this morning alos handles microformats (jf2) 19:07:48 azaroth has 10 karma 19:08:03 ... Readthedocs.org/activipy contains a full tutorial and documentation 19:08:08 ... But I'll show you 19:08:22 ... It has all the vocabularly loaded into it, including descriptions, making good use of our free software license 19:08:25 ... So self documenting 19:08:43 ... import library, call vocab.Person and it shows the description 19:08:55 ... Can set values of properties for AS2 classes 19:09:19 ... Can get json-ld version, but doesn't do expansion until it needs to 19:09:29 ... Provides different ways of representing an activity 19:09:39 ... Can feed in JSON itself, or use a more pythonic constructor 19:09:51 ... In this one I'm creating a note, with a URI, setting all the properties 19:10:11 ... It's composed of several python objects 19:10:18 ... eg. has a person object 19:10:24 ... so can expand out 19:10:30 ... and can access individual properties 19:10:41 ... and can acess object to get python representation 19:10:51 ... all immutable, so change a value spits back a new version of the object 19:10:54 ... so very efficient 19:11:18 ... what's neat about this is... I can get types, and it gives you, but no json-ld expansion 19:11:30 ... But the moment I do types_expanded, it does json-ld expansion 19:11:39 ... Moving off the idea that theoretically it's just json until you need extensions 19:11:43 ... So it already knows all the vocabulary 19:11:53 ... Has all the objects, properties, short ids 19:12:01 ... So what can you do with an environment? 19:12:08 ... You want to do something with the stuff, and you might want to expand the vocabulary 19:12:21 ... So what i did this morning is an environment for jf2 19:12:49 *live demo woes* 19:13:06 ... the environment knows about all the classes available to it 19:13:29 ... So I create a very specific jf2 object and set properties 19:13:57 ... Can switch between python object and json 19:14:09 ... and I can get a linked data representation of the jf2 19:14:20 ... All I did was declaritively describe the vocabulary 19:14:24 ... use the context taht ben wrote up 19:14:28 ... and now it's composable with AS2 19:14:40 this is very neat 19:14:43 ... You can mix and match with AS2 now, and other linked data 19:14:46 ... But that's not all! 19:15:05 ... One of the motivators was writing a validator that could extend to new vocabularies 19:15:21 ... Python object inheritance model didn't work in the first place, because AS2 can have multiple types for objects 19:16:02 melvster has joined #social 19:16:02 ... We want to be able to do method dispatch. If you're assuming a python or java style inheritance model, methods get attached 19:16:13 ... But we still might want eg. all collections to have certain methods available to them 19:16:24 ... So Activipy includes a method dispatch system based on environments 19:17:09 ... Uses the dumbest key value store possible. Serializes to key-value stor saved on disk. dbm 19:17:36 ... Say you're doing an application that's streaming a bunch of objects and you know how you want to save them, maybe do functions on them, and save to database 19:18:18 ... Now I've got a note that's an AS object, and we want to serialize it to our database 19:18:24 ... this note has its own environment 19:18:44 jaywink has joined #social 19:18:48 ... the environment is the dbm environment 19:18:59 ... can now do method dispatch on it, with save 19:19:07 ... So now I've saved it to the database 19:19:17 ... now I can pull it out by id, which is URL of the note 19:19:32 ... You can have different applications that share vocabluary, and hook up different methods depending on the application 19:19:41 ... Really flexible, can fit changing vocab of application 19:19:54 ... So you can do it with AS2 based stuff, embed jf2 inside the same thing, alongside as2, and expand to linked data 19:19:56 ... Pretty cool! 19:20:02 ... The jf2 support was literally checked in this morning 19:20:07 ... All I had to do was add that vocabulary 19:20:17 ... Looks almost like the other one 19:20:24 ... You can compose it together with AS2 19:20:29 ... The worlds are brought together 19:20:31 *applause* 19:20:43 ... It's on pypy 19:20:48 ... can install and use today 19:20:57 ... 0.2 release - jf2 will be in next release 19:21:06 ... It can pull in jf2 json that's json-ld encoded 19:21:20 ... assuming that ben roberts' thing actually matches jf2 document, which isn't verified, it'll do the same thing 19:21:26 ... Basically just json-ld with an implied context 19:21:37 ... This is the implied context, that ben put together. Had to make one change 19:21:45 ... as2 context fix, then just worked 19:21:51 tantek: code knows about implied context? 19:21:53 cwebber2: that's right 19:21:58 ... in environment 19:22:06 ... context uri is ben's uri, implied context being jf2 context uri 19:22:14 https://github.com/w3c-social/activipy/blob/master/activipy/jf2-context.jsonld 19:22:17 ... Previously had it hard coded to be AS2, two line change to give it any implied context 19:22:25 ... So you can pass it 19:22:29 ... 2 commits this morning 19:22:40 sandro: the architecturally correct thing to do is media types have implied context 19:22:49 ... operating system maps file extensions to media types 19:22:55 ... so it should be able to read file extensions to get implied context 19:23:01 tantek: if it has an explicit context it just works? 19:23:04 cwebber2: right 19:23:16 ... either you have something set up so it goes to fetch it, or it alraedy knows about it 19:23:25 ... I have it set up so it already has it, so never has to fetch from the web 19:23:33 ... if you you pass it a url you already know about, it can use that 19:23:37 q? 19:23:41 tantek: Any questions for chris? 19:25:06 10 min. demo of existing webmention+micropub federation using woodwind, known and other indie sites. Also webaction example Kevin Marks 19:25:20 TOPIC: kevin demos webmention and micropub federation 19:25:28 kevinmarks: This is woodwind, which is kylewm's feed reader 19:25:39 ... I've subscribed to a bunch of sites and it gives me their posts 19:26:01 ... If I click on a post, this little thing pops up which is a box, with three buttons - post, repost, like 19:26:12 tantek: this is in your reader? 19:26:18 kevinmarks: this is kyle's website, not mine 19:26:27 ... If I put in a response, it sends a micropub post to my website 19:26:41 ... Post appears on my site 19:26:49 ... and sent a webmention to jeremy 19:27:11 ... my site should have sent a webmention in response to getting a micropub request 19:27:18 ... (it didn't, sending one manually) 19:29:17 ... Back in reader, sending reply to kyle 19:29:48 *live demo woes strike again* 19:30:36 ... Shows published on site, webmention appears on kyle's site 19:30:55 ... kyle's site shows reply thread/context 19:31:10 ... The other thing you can see in a few places 19:31:24 ... If I look in safari at this page, you can see reply, retweet, favorite on jeremy's site (adactio.com) 19:31:29 s/webintent/webaction 19:31:31 ... actually wrapped with web intent 19:31:39 ... so in chrome, with extension(?) his buttons are replaced with my buttons 19:31:39 s/web intent/web action 19:32:02 ... You can do it without a plugin 19:32:11 ... But then the like goes to my site, instead of twitter 19:32:18 ... directly from jeremy's site 19:32:44 http://known.kevinmarks.com 19:32:45 ... THe point of this demo which is not working as well as I would like, is to show that we have multiple implementations of webmention receiving and micropub 19:32:55 ... so it's possible to embed the posting ui on one site and have it post to another 19:32:57 q? 19:33:00 ... and have it federate back again 19:33:08 tantek: which is the part that's showing federation? so thats' on topic 19:33:33 kevinmarks: Depends on the definition of federation. My sense is that I'm reading something on one site, responding to it on another site, and having that information show up on the first site 19:33:46 ... I'mr eading in one place, responding inline, which pings mine ,which pings his, so reply shows up there 19:34:11 ... Mine doesn't show context, but there's a link back to what I'm replying to 19:34:15 https://kylewm.com/2015/12/he-s-been-talking-about-service-workers-a-bit-is 19:34:19 ... Webmention based commenting 19:34:27 ... Different peopl ehave different versions of how much context they display 19:34:33 q? 19:34:47 wilkie: how does it work? it gets a webmention... 19:35:11 kevinmarks: it gets a webmention. What it says here is... this is marked up with microformats in-reply-to classes 19:35:24 bengo: then kyle stores a copy of it 19:35:42 kevinmarks: *parses page into mf2 json* 19:35:50 ... So you can see what's going on, shows all the properties 19:36:05 ... So on his side he is parsing it, then storing the reply in a way that makes sense for him, to display 19:36:28 ... You can send a webmention for a larger entity and you want to do more thinking about how you're going to extract the content, but for short notes it works quite well 19:36:34 wilkie: wondered if there's anything written explaining that 19:36:44 kevinmarks: there's discussion on the indieweb wiki on how to make sense of replies 19:37:00 ... The general assumption is the easy thing is you can take the name 19:37:08 ... The common type of a content type post is a h-entry, which will ahve a name 19:37:32 rhiaro: how to parse/mark up is deliberatley not in the webmention spec 19:37:59 jf2 version http://stream.thatmustbe.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkylewm.com%2F2015%2F12%2Fhe-s-been-talking-about-service-workers-a-bit-is&op=mf2-jf2 19:38:01 :) 19:38:47 ben_thatmustbeme: btw where should I submit a patch to your jf2 context? 19:38:48 q? 19:38:50 bengo: rdfa or microformats explain how to parse/publish as options 19:38:53 it totally worked minus one short thing 19:39:14 kevinmarks: so another one, here's my reply saying yes I'm coming to this event, which has an rsvp yes on it 19:39:15 (or microdata) 19:39:31 cwebber2, in the next couple days i will be moving in to a more specific repo for the spec, but for now, https://github.com/dissolve/socialstream/issues 19:39:31 I suggested what I thought the process was: you get a webmention and pull down the source page and look for links to you (in-reply-to, like-of) and work backward to determine the context 19:39:55 I guess you can go backward until you find something you already know... to determine the conversation thread etc 19:39:57 ... So aaron parses my reply and can show that I'm attending 19:39:59 kevinmarks: shows federated RSVPs to an event 19:39:59 or more specifically https://github.com/dissolve/socialstream/blob/master/jf2.jsonld 19:40:19 ... The webmention part is - these two are linked in some way, try to make sense of them 19:40:25 ... the like, repost, etc we've built separately 19:40:39 ... Other rsvps on here are coming in from facebook via bridgy 19:40:51 q? 19:41:02 ... bridgy translates silo mentions into webmentions and sends you those 19:41:11 tantek: wrap up, thanks 19:41:17 kevinmarks++ 19:41:20 kevinmarks has 185 karma 19:41:27 cwebber2++ for last demo 19:41:29 cwebber2 has 60 karma 19:41:43 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/266 19:41:59 rhiaro++ for scribing 19:41:59 scribenick: eprodrom 19:42:01 rhiaro has 190 karma 19:42:05 cwebber2++ for scribing 19:42:07 cwebber2 has 61 karma 19:42:12 jasnell_: I'm happy to summarize rene's issues 19:42:19 AS2 Extension questions/issues from Rene 19:42:29 jasnell_: He's opened a number of issues with new terms to add to the vocabulary 19:42:54 jasnell_: based on the discussion on those proposals, Rene asked what is the principle between vocabulary and extensions 19:43:06 jasnell_: Rene wants to have a documentation of those guidelines 19:43:16 jasnell_: Conversation has been between Rene and myself 19:43:36 jasnell_: I have said we should be conservative in expanding the vocabulary 19:43:47 jasnell_: Default position is to reduce, not add new classes 19:43:52 +1 on pull things out and simplify rather than add things new 19:44:10 jasnell_: Hopefully when Rene reads the minutes he can correct if necessary 19:44:11 q+ 19:44:21 ack eprodrom 19:44:42 q+ 19:44:45 q- 19:44:49 (that :) ) 19:44:59 eprodrom: can we create a wiki page to document the current status ? 19:44:59 q+ 19:45:01 eprodrom: can we document scope for vocabulary? 19:45:05 :) 19:45:14 q+ 19:45:21 tantek: This would be appropriate to discuss in the draft 19:45:39 jasnell_: are we in agreement on that position? 19:45:42 q? 19:45:49 ack sandro 19:46:00 bengo: It sounds like our principle is don't add anything that doesn't meet that bar 19:46:09 bengo: but what is that bar? 19:46:15 jasnell_: I'd like to leave that open 19:46:23 sandro: Do we have a registry for extensions? 19:46:25 related: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261 19:46:51 sandro: if good extensions come up, we may add them to the next versions 19:47:05 jasnell_: I have a list of items removed from the spec already, which could go to an extension 19:47:23 jasnell_: What is the process for registering extensions 19:47:33 q+ re: dropped terms, changes from AS1? 19:47:34 jasnell_: If it is a workgroup-managed thing, can we discuss the process? 19:47:38 q+ 19:47:55 sandro: We can keep a list of extensions personally, or by the group 19:48:16 jasnell_: I have a list of other extensions 19:48:25 sandro: Do you own activitystrea.ms domain? 19:48:31 jasnell_: No, Chris Messina has it 19:48:37 ack bengo 19:48:38 jasnell_: but he will let us directly update it 19:48:54 bengo: A reasonable bar is approved user stories linked from the home page of the wiki 19:49:14 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Approved_user_stories 19:49:15 bengo: if any of those can't be described using the vocabulary, then that makes sense for an addition 19:49:24 q? 19:49:31 q+ to suggest the bar for inclusion is 2+ independent implementations 19:49:40 jasnell_: in the list of proposals we have for adding vocabulary, we have 3 that might be worth discussing 19:50:00 jasnell_: Evan suggested a Blog type 19:50:08 ack tantek 19:50:08 tantek, you wanted to discuss dropped terms, changes from AS1? 19:50:21 q+ to respond to sandro to suggest 2+ _promises of_ implementations at this stage 19:50:41 tantek: There's a section in the vocabulary about AS1 properties. Do you have any plans to include a section of changes, including dropped classes or properties? 19:50:54 jasnell_: Currently that table is not in the editor's draft to simplify 19:51:10 jasnell_: Considering creating a separate document to show differences, how to deal with differences 19:51:20 jasnell_: Still debating whether I'll have the time to write it 19:51:31 q? 19:51:40 ack eprodrom 19:51:45 scribenick: rhiaro 19:51:59 eprodrom: I wanted to talk about what sandro mentioned, having an extensions area that we may bring into the as2 vocabulary 19:52:12 ... although it seems like a nice mechanism, wouldn't the namespacing effort make that not backwards compatible? 19:52:24 ... if I had a geo store item that got widespread, it would not be identicaly to a store that ended up in our core 19:52:29 q? 19:52:39 sandro: I suggest we keep namespaces intact, which suggests that either we use their namespaces or we suggest people use a w3c namespace for their extensions 19:52:56 jasnell: as I understand it, we're not creating a extension namespace that people add terms to, but people add their extension with their own namespace 19:53:07 eprodrom: I don't see pipeline of get a popular extension and that moves on to be in core 19:53:17 ... That doesn't seem important to me, but don't want to extend that as a possibility if it is hard to do 19:53:32 q? 19:53:36 sandro: say in our doc if you think this extension is going to be popular and might be in future version, use a namespace that is going to b epersistant 19:53:43 scribenick: eprodrom 19:53:52 jasnell_: we can have the registry have its own content document 19:53:56 +1 to jasnell 19:53:59 s/content/context/ 19:54:09 jasnell_: if an extension becomes popular enough, the registry context can import it 19:54:24 jasnell_: There could be a curated list 19:54:38 jasnell_: It gives us an ability to promote popular extensions consistently 19:54:46 q? 19:54:52 sandro: if that's true, it should be a curated list by the WG or a CG 19:54:59 ack sandro 19:54:59 sandro, you wanted to suggest the bar for inclusion is 2+ independent implementations 19:55:26 sandro: if there are 2 implementations of a particular term, it should be included 19:55:31 ack azaroth 19:55:31 azaroth, you wanted to respond to sandro to suggest 2+ _promises of_ implementations at this stage 19:55:34 sandro: or maybe a larger N 19:55:50 azaroth: If we have promises of implementations, then that makes more sense 19:56:01 q- 19:56:17 sandro: if you're not going to write it, then that doesn't give us a lot of security that it's worth doing 19:56:24 tantek: I'd say deployed, not written 19:56:26 q? 19:56:54 bengo: What about stuff that was implemented in AS1? 19:57:04 tantek: implementation documentation for AS1 is poor 19:57:23 tantek: implementation links are poor, broken 19:57:41 jasnell_: except for in-reply-to, all other extensions of AS1 are out of AS2 19:57:45 q+ to distinguish publishing and parsing implementations 19:57:59 q? 19:58:09 jasnell_: most implementations of extensions of AS1 are not in AS2 19:58:43 jasnell_: The registry has an implied context, then implementation can use terms from the extensions 19:58:52 sandro: Doesn't that suggest changing the media type? 19:59:15 kevinmarks_: As part of your implementation test, you'd need publishers and parsers 19:59:28 sandro: I'd set the bar at 2 publishers and 2 consumers 20:00:14 jasnell_: That's the bar for adding. For terms already in the vocabulary, we are getting the minimal level of interop for most common cases. 20:00:27 azaroth_ has joined #social 20:00:42 jasnell_: Minimal stuff doesn't get pulled out if we're not going to use them 20:00:52 sandro: it'll get pulled out when we go to PR 20:00:54 q? 20:00:58 jasnell_: Every term in there is optional 20:01:09 melvster has left #social 20:01:10 ack kevinmarks 20:01:10 kevinmarks_, you wanted to distinguish publishing and parsing implementations 20:01:11 jasnell_: Implementers don't have to support them 20:01:30 kevinmarks_: If this is a bar for adding new things, then we should use the bar for deleting old things 20:01:50 jasnell_: we've already pulled things out like that 20:02:15 jasnell_: if we think some terms might be useful, we can reserve them, saying we might use them in the future 20:02:38 q? 20:02:45 azaroth_ has joined #social 20:02:57 q+ 20:03:01 q? 20:03:08 ack eprodrom 20:03:09 http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html 20:03:12 tommorris_ has joined #social 20:04:12 eprodrom: doesn't have the open farm game vocab ;) 20:04:20 I guess we'll need an extension for that :) 20:04:27 ACTION eprodrom compare AS2 vocabulary with pump.io's use of AS1 20:04:27 Created ACTION-82 - Compare as2 vocabulary with pump.io's use of as1 [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-09]. 20:04:29 (yeah it was an extension originally I know) 20:04:47 eprodrom: this document is useful http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html 20:04:52 sandro: This is useful 20:04:59 q+ to note at-risk vs pumpio 20:04:59 jasnell_: We could do this in the wiki 20:05:01 q? 20:05:04 ack tantek 20:05:04 tantek, you wanted to note at-risk vs pumpio 20:05:34 tantek: the first time we talked about what it would take to get AS2 to CR, I suggested we mark everything as at-risk 20:06:32 tantek: Now, I think we should take stuff to at-risk that's not in pump.io 20:06:57 bitbear has joined #social 20:07:07 sandro: we need to review this in CR 20:07:13 so would sending PR's to http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html be useful for eg bengo to do for his implementation 20:07:28 q? 20:08:35 kevinmarks_: can we get information from bengo on this? Can we send PRs? 20:08:52 sandro: How do we update this document? 20:09:13 azaroth has joined #social 20:09:27 bengo: We don't use a lot of different verbs 20:09:29 https://github.com/dret/W3C/tree/master/SocialWG is the repo 20:09:38 bengo: We do have an ongoing project to exercise more verbs 20:09:48 q? 20:10:41 tantek: There's a proposed agenda item for discussing federation protocol 20:10:47 tantek: 10-minute break 20:10:53 resume at 12:20 20:10:55 I added a countdown for 12/2 12:20pm (#5774) 20:10:59 bret has joined #social 20:11:05 eprodrom++ for minuting! 20:11:08 eprodrom has 27 karma 20:14:55 how does loqi know what timezone we are in 20:19:01 resume 20:19:02 Countdown set by eprodrom on 12/2/15 at 12:10pm 20:19:53 shh it's a secret 20:19:58 loqi knows all 20:20:44 does Loqi understand what is on the agenda? is Loqi scared? is Loqi trying to be useful? 20:25:04 Loqi is becoming self aware 20:25:10 SkyLoqi 20:25:58 scribenick: wseltzer 20:26:25 Discuss process for Federation Protocol. --Evan 20:26:36 eprodrom: processes we've previously followed, esp for Social API 20:26:45 ... review of non-standardized implementations 20:27:01 ... about 20 APIs, a number of formats 20:27:09 ... collected candidate specs and then reviewed 20:27:24 ... we're trying to run in parallel or converge candidate specs for Social API 20:27:32 ... similar for Social Syntax 20:27:34 q? 20:27:39 ... Is this also the process for Federation Protocol? 20:27:51 sandro: strawman proposal: don't distinguish between API and federation 20:28:18 ... over past few months; activitypump, solid are both; rhiaro's doc is both 20:28:32 s/rhiaro's doc/Social Protocols doc 20:28:39 ... not closing the door, but until we see a different proposal 20:28:41 q+ 20:28:50 eprodrom: saying we won't support unfederated social API? 20:29:02 q? 20:29:23 aaronpk: my understanding was that while developing specs, we won't treat them as separata things, but that doesn't mean the result is combined 20:29:33 eprodrom: so one doc? 20:29:43 sandro: we have 3 stacks, keep thinking about them together 20:30:14 ... Social Web Protocols doc -- perhaps reorg so API sections first, federation second 20:30:34 q+ 20:30:36 q- 20:30:43 tantek: I heard, we've done a whole process for API, re-use that for fderation 20:30:49 ack cwebber 20:30:58 cwebber2: most of the work on federation has already been considered, discussed in many conversations 20:31:06 cwebber++ for Star Trek reference 20:31:08 cwebber has 5 karma 20:31:12 eprodrom: we haven't looked into details of what's required for federation 20:31:21 ... you can't use webmention for subscribing to remote feed 20:31:29 s/required for federation/required for federation space 20:31:30 ... so we haven't fully considered federation 20:31:36 ... what does it mean to read a remote feed? 20:31:37 q? 20:31:42 q+ 20:32:04 ... thesse are reqts of what a federation protocol do, not nec reflected in usec ases for API 20:32:13 cwebber2: starting to break things into levels 20:32:16 q- 20:32:27 ... I think it's feasible to keep going that way 20:32:29 the webmention bug on known.kevinmarks.com is fixed now 20:32:34 ... rather than saying federation stuff is off the table 20:32:42 ... we're already making progress 20:32:48 q+ 20:32:52 tantek: I didn't hear eprodrom say federation is off the table 20:33:00 ... but exisiting rqts not yet reflected 20:33:15 cwebber2: can we say that moving forward with API, editors are encouraged to keep working with federation? 20:33:27 eprodrom: that we mix up the 2 deliverables we're supposed to produce? 20:33:46 ... We don't have rqts for federation protocol; we don't have significant analysis of what's out there 20:34:03 ... I'm not trying to stop federation 20:34:15 ... but asking for systematic analysis, not just byproduct of API wokr 20:34:22 q? 20:34:24 ... good protocol that people cna implement 20:34:30 ack sandro 20:34:52 sandro: Like you, I think federation is important; it would be interesting to analyze 20:35:05 stop trying to make federation happen 20:35:10 ... also think each of the 3 stacks has already come up with a solution they think works 20:35:21 dwhly has joined #social 20:35:28 q? 20:35:31 q+ to acknowledge Evan's concerns that we have not yet captured explicitly all the desired requirements for federation, and propose we come up with a way to collect those, rather than re-do all of our process steps that we did for Social API. 20:35:45 ... we're all talking about federation; could probably do it better, but that sounds like R&D 20:35:58 q? 20:36:19 eprodrom: we did analysis of API, syntaxes 20:36:25 aaronpk: have we used that? 20:36:29 tantek: for API we did 20:36:40 q? 20:36:48 ... AS we chose to move with because so much adoption already 20:36:50 ack ta 20:36:50 tantek, you wanted to acknowledge Evan's concerns that we have not yet captured explicitly all the desired requirements for federation, and propose we come up with a way to collect 20:36:52 ack tantek 20:36:53 ... those, rather than re-do all of our process steps that we did for Social API. 20:37:17 tantek: Existing federation solutions may not be solving all rqts Evan sees as necessary 20:37:35 Review of social syntaxes 20:37:37 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax/Patterns 20:37:45 ... We did lots of reserach for API 20:37:58 ... user stories, gathering, voting, etc. took lots of time 20:38:03 q+ 20:38:09 ... I wouldn't want to repeat all for federation 20:38:15 q+ 20:38:17 ... and yet we need method to address Evan's issues 20:38:40 ... hope we could find some middle ground; some user stories illustrating federation 20:38:40 q? 20:38:42 ack cwebber2 20:38:43 ack wilkie 20:38:48 ack cwebber 20:38:49 ack cw 20:39:05 http://i.imgur.com/9nOuB7F.jpg 20:39:29 cwebber2: user stories designed to be topologically neutral 20:39:41 sorry 20:39:41 ... Evan, what ground od we need to cover; how to use work already done? 20:39:48 eprodrom: List of requirements for federation: 20:39:55 feedback on replies, hmm, sounds like Salmentions 20:39:58 .... e.g. @@ remote access to replies 20:40:05 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87048&oldid=87040 20:40:06 Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87049&oldid=87048 20:40:10 q? 20:40:16 ack eprodrom 20:40:17 .... comment remotely, remote interaction with local site 20:40:25 ... which are in-scope, which out 20:40:36 cwebber2: I think everything you said is captiured in user stories 20:40:43 eprodrom: but not expressed as protocol requirements 20:40:47 q? 20:41:00 ... could we do minimal amount of work, eg. wiki approved in a telcon? 20:41:36 tantek: one possible way of turning rqts into something more concrete 20:41:52 ... do you think we could come up with user stories to illustrate federation? 20:42:16 ... assuming there are holes, what additional miminal user stories would we need to cover rqts? 20:42:22 q? 20:42:24 q+ 20:42:26 q+ 20:42:44 ... can you do the diff, and see what's missing from current user stories for federation? 20:42:51 ... add the misssing stories? 20:43:31 cwebber2: I think I mostly understand it, there are propbablyu some holes in the understanding 20:44:03 eprodrom: I'm thinking we take a number of federation protocols to the public/w3c, and say "this is a federation protocol", they'll ask "what does that mean" 20:44:19 ... we want to be able to say "here's what we considered; here's what we left out" 20:44:20 q? 20:44:26 sandro: first reax, use cases cover them all 20:44:28 ack sandro 20:44:36 ... each stack has a topology 20:44:53 ... yet solid and indieweb have basic one-user-one-site 20:45:10 eprodrom: solid is everything mediated through the client 20:45:15 melvster has joined #social 20:45:23 tantek: webmention demos going through proxies 20:45:41 q? 20:45:47 ack cwebber 20:46:14 cwebber2: strawman: take evan's concern that not everything has been addressed, and try to address 20:46:29 ... ideally through user stories, or supplemental requirement, by a deadline 20:46:33 Im not sure either statement is accurate: solid does not mandate one user one site, afaik, and the technology can be deployed on the server or the client, typically it's on the client to be user centric and offer more control, but that's not a must 20:46:35 ... discuss 20:46:46 ... only if not already exposed by existing user stories 20:47:02 eprodrom: current user stories are topologically neutral. 20:47:22 ... e.g. 2 players in a "following" scenario, harder in a federated situaiton 20:47:40 tantek: I think we're using "topoligcally netural" differently 20:48:06 we have done SWAT0 with both all indieweb players and with a facebook player https://snarfed.org/silo-swat0-on-facebook 20:48:10 cwebber2: we were saying, you should be able to take all these stories and assume users are on differnet servers, so must be federated 20:48:17 eprodrom: that igves different scope of work 20:48:26 tantek: provide lots of rqts for federation 20:48:43 q? 20:48:47 cwebber2: so show that all the user stories, including gap-fillers, are met 20:49:20 tantek: if someone tags and responds, that's SWAT0 20:49:32 ... following a person is approved user story 20:49:39 eprodrom: we need a remote follow 20:49:59 cwebber2: current user story covers, if you say diff servers 20:50:02 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Following_a_person 20:50:12 cwebber2: could formalize: you ahve to assume users are on different servers 20:50:25 ... and b) give opprotunity to plug the gap 20:50:38 ... [repeat] 20:50:54 ... a) for your spec to qualify as federation... 20:51:01 that one says "company social network" 20:51:03 eprodrom: does that mean we're soliciting new specs? 20:51:12 cwebber2: we're taking existing stacks 20:51:14 which is not topologically neutral 20:51:18 ... unless there's a really good case for new 20:51:51 eprodrom: will we be adding new parts? 20:51:53 approved user stories: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive 20:52:11 sandro: Protocols document has indieweb stack, etc 20:52:22 eprodrom: expanding from micropub to indieweb stack 20:52:35 cwebber2: are you happy with loose description of "indieweb stack" ? 20:52:47 tantek: I'd prefer to avoid that characterization 20:52:50 micropub was never a federation api, its social API isn't it? 20:53:01 eprodrom: https://github.com/rhiaro/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/blob/gh-pages/indiewebspecs.md 20:53:05 ben_thatmustbeme, yesterday cwebber asked if micropub could be used for federation 20:53:10 that's the context of that comment 20:53:12 ah 20:53:20 cwebber2: more inclusivity; but not actively searching new approach 20:53:23 "Federation with Microformats2" 20:53:26 okay, yead i read the logs on that 20:53:44 well, there's syndication in micropub 20:53:48 cwebber2: proposal b) if gaps, opportunity to propose things not covered by existing user stories 20:54:12 ... do those proposals get there? 20:54:20 eprodrom: why not take tiem to think it through? 20:54:49 ... having already implemented 2 federation stacks, it's not an easy process, doesn't just fall out of user stories, so worth thinking through 20:55:06 ... don;'t want to force on the group, but think hard about what uiser stories imply about server-server communication 20:55:13 ... and requriements: discovery, identity, 20:55:17 q+ 20:55:26 q? 20:55:42 ... if we pursue each of 2.5 stacks is the best way to go forward, let's, but think abou tit 20:55:48 cwebber2: what' smissing? 20:56:12 eprodrom: looking at other federation stacks that have been tried before, user stories, come up with requirements for federation protocol. 20:56:19 ... I think that's weeks, not months. 20:56:23 q+ 20:56:36 ack kevinmarks 20:56:46 http://indiewebcamp.com/swat0 20:56:50 q- 20:57:08 kevinmarks_: one possible approach is SWAT0 on indieweb, wehre we asked what do we need fore ach person in the graph 20:57:20 q? 20:57:21 ... mapping was informative 20:57:53 q+ re: Evan's doesn't just fall out of user stories, looking at other federation stacks that have been tried before 20:58:10 ... we found a few new pieces we needed to implement 20:58:12 q+ to turn conversation into real proposals 20:58:19 ... how would you expand story into sequence of steps. 20:58:23 q+ 20:58:39 tantek: eprodrom has built many of these systems 20:59:07 ... so I'm willing to believe that verything doesn't necessarily fall out of user stoires 20:59:25 ... wilkie has built a lot too 20:59:37 q+ 20:59:38 q? 20:59:42 ack tantek 20:59:42 tantek, you wanted to discuss Evan's doesn't just fall out of user stories, looking at other federation stacks that have been tried before 20:59:44 bengo: can you add more of that knowledge to the not-existing stories 21:00:14 tantek: I agree we're missing pieces 21:00:16 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Federation/Requirements&action=edit&redlink=1 21:00:35 tantek: but I don't think we need such thorough research as previously 21:00:42 ... open the door for a few weeks 21:00:51 q+ 21:01:14 ... ... additional user stories for federation holes is reasonable; good place to cite prior efforts 21:01:31 ... e.g. in the past, this story was implemented by PQR 21:01:43 ... implementations as background to user story 21:01:44 q? 21:01:48 eprodrom: I thin that makes sense 21:01:50 ack cwebber 21:01:50 cwebber, you wanted to turn conversation into real proposals 21:02:16 cwebber2: since I'm making three proposals, I should type them out 21:02:22 q? 21:02:31 ack eprodrom 21:02:33 q+ 21:02:53 eprodrom: I suggest that we ack that we're unlikely to solicit other federaation protocol proposals 21:03:06 ... besides activity pump, solid, indieweb cluster 21:03:10 indieweb components? 21:03:11 ... pulling in lots of things there 21:03:16 indiewebstuff 21:03:23 (aside: indieweb has tended to use Webmention + Salmention + PuSH for Federation use-cases) 21:03:27 not so much a stack as a jumble 21:03:33 ... we'll move forward with those, review other feed proposoals, review of user stories with critical eye ot federation 21:03:43 kevinmarks, or building blocks 21:03:43 ... we probably won't implement federated search 21:04:15 was that wseltzer's phone? 21:04:41 ... idea that federation is "doing whatever social does on the web" is a long reach 21:04:42 oh, n/m that was on talky i think 21:04:47 ... so describe what we ned to do 21:04:50 ... I'll take th lead 21:04:56 +1 eprodrom taking the lead on writing the list of which features are in bounds and which are out of bounds 21:05:01 ... remote subsscribe, remote feedback, access to profilees 21:05:12 ... and "this is what we're not trying to do" e.g. federated search 21:05:16 q? 21:05:22 ... so list, agree on telecon, and them move forward 21:05:27 ... reasonable next step? 21:05:34 as in tantek.com/2015/224/b1 21:05:38 ack sandro 21:05:38 tantek: would you be open to be acuretor? 21:05:41 eprodrom: yes 21:05:49 s/acuretor/curator 21:05:57 sandro: I can't think of a user story 21:06:25 ... each feature that's out of bounds needs a paragraph explaining why it's out of bounds 21:06:32 q? 21:06:38 ack cwebber 21:07:08 ack that we are unlikely to solicit other protocols / the bar is very high; as a side effort do review of other federation protocols, consider user stories with critical eye to federation, being critical of inbound new requests for expanding scope of the group (Evan will take lead / be "curator") 21:07:23 cwebber: ^ 21:07:36 ... 1. we are unlikely to solicit other protocols / the bar is very high 21:07:47 .... 2. as a side effort do 21:07:47 review of other federation protocols, consider user stories with critical eye to federation, being 21:07:51 critical of inbound new requests for expanding scope of the group (Evan will take lead 21:08:24 Arnaud1 has joined #social 21:08:25 tantek: those sound like guiding principles 21:08:49 sandro: is pubsubhubbub part of the stack? 21:08:55 shepazu_ has joined #social 21:09:01 cwebber2: if indieweb stack does so 21:09:02 azaroth_ has joined #social 21:09:08 tantek: table that discussion 21:09:18 tantek_ has joined #social 21:09:30 cwebber2: things we agreed at Boston meeting 21:09:47 scribenick: rhiaro 21:09:54 This page now exists and has some related work: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Federation/Requirements 21:10:03 Bgoering made 3 edits to [[Socialwg/Federation/Requirements]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87058&oldid=0 21:10:10 cwebber2: Can turn these principles into actual proposals? 21:10:19 tantek: thought I heard that from evan, with modified suggestsion from myself and sandro 21:10:23 eprodrom: I'll see if I can do a proposal 21:11:18 PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel develop requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts 21:11:33 tantek: you're volunteering for that right? 21:11:35 eprodrom: yes 21:11:39 social register machine 21:11:46 PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts 21:11:48 tantek: make that an open call fro requirements from the wg, and trust you to curate the input you receive 21:12:05 ... and from sandro, any non-requirements you document with a paragraph explaining why 21:12:07 sandro: with bodies 21:12:13 PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements 21:12:17 +1 21:12:28 tantek: how much time for call for reqs? 21:12:31 eprodrom: next month? 21:12:35 ... next 4 telecons? 21:12:37 +1 21:12:39 +1 21:12:43 +1 21:12:45 kevinmarks: will need more than a month 21:12:48 +1 21:12:49 eprodrom: not a great month to get work done 21:12:49 rrika has joined #social 21:12:51 +1 21:13:02 +1 21:13:12 +1 21:13:18 +1 21:13:31 RESOLVED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements 21:13:46 ACTION: eprodrom to Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements 21:13:46 Created ACTION-83 - Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (activitypump, solid, micropub/indieweb building blocks) and in parallel evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-09]. 21:14:05 *adjourn for lunch* 21:14:13 RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight 21:14:35 eprodrom has joined #social 21:16:26 jasnell has joined #social 21:17:00 azaroth has joined #social 21:17:32 @here, as I already have wget copies of all old socialWG minutes, would it be useful to put a page together for WG resolutions and what meetings they were in? 21:18:04 oh yes we were just talking about this 21:18:21 ben_thatmustbeme: that would be amazing 21:19:05 ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk: was it azaroth who said he has a script for this already? 21:19:07 azaroth has joined #social 21:20:41 azaroth_ has joined #social 21:20:46 azaroth_ has joined #social 21:21:47 melvster has joined #social 21:23:58 I'd like to clarify one point. Solid is not bound to the one user one site policy. It would be essentially incapable of widespread adoption if it were, because it would be impossible for social nets like facebook, google, twitter, icloud etc. to adopt. If that's a limitation (actual or perceived) it should be looked at. But im not sure it is. 21:26:06 melvster: that discussion was rapid and could have been minuted in more detail. Thanks for the clarification for the minutes! 21:26:21 And in practice Tim's profile is on w3.org with a bunch of other people, so in reality I think that's not the situation 21:26:46 melvster: I don't think anyone actually in the room thinks that, we know solid allows both multi user and single user 21:27:19 ok cool 21:30:02 Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Federation/Patterns]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87062&oldid=0 21:31:02 the other part is about Solid being client side technology ... I can see why it gives that impression because most of the demos are client side apps ... but the same JS could actually live anywhere ... e.g. on a server running node, on a different server running node, in a desktop say electron app, or anywhere else ... when you want performance you'll probably use a server, when you want user control you'll probably use the the client ... in short, Solid 21:31:03 is super flexible and probably covers the topologies of both of the other two stacks 21:31:10 huh, rhiaro, eprodrom, azaroth, it looks like there would be a lot of manual checking with that, but i'll throw a quick fetch of what i get in to the wiki, and we can work with it from there 21:31:31 just literally grepping all minutes for 'resolved:' (case insensative) 21:31:39 jasnell has joined #social 21:31:55 melvster: sure 21:32:26 ben_thatmustbeme: do you have a permalink associated with them that you can also add? 21:33:29 aaronpk: i'll have the link to the document, i don't have link to the specific lines 21:34:09 But there are things like, if I post a note, the server would take care of distributing that note to all of my followers 21:34:18 In SoLiD, that is up to the client 21:35:34 Sorry, rhiaro just corrected me, there is server-to-server communication using WebSockets 21:36:45 eprodrom: it's good that you raise that, it ties in to my previous point. When a user posts a note, it happens on the server. Now all that is specified (loosely) is that some javascript (or other language) will then act on that posting and then federate out to followers. In the case of systems with few followers you can 'get away' with that JS living on the client. In the case of larger user bases, it's probably going to mean the JS has to live very 21:36:45 close to, or on the server (or server farms). So there is architectural flexibility much like 3 tier MVC programming vs fat clients. Solid allows both. Hope that makes sense! 21:37:55 bengo has joined #social 21:38:32 eprodrom: in practice, because solid is young, we've not dont much of this kind of stress testing, but we'd like to see more of it happen as the work progresses 21:39:03 and yes solid can communicate via websocket and/or HTTP 21:40:01 Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Federation/Patterns]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87063&oldid=87062 21:40:16 https://aaronparecki.com/notes/2014/09/10/1/webactions 21:41:00 it strikes me that IWC is more the one user one site policy, AP is more the one site many users ... solid is either 21:41:57 plenty of indieweb examples of multiple users per site in IWC, (*.withknown.com, *.wordpress.com, etc) 21:42:10 it's just that when they federate, they use the same protocol as they would if they were on different domains 21:42:12 i should probably replace 'site' with 'origin' 21:42:27 or in IWC case, 'homepage'? 21:42:57 but we could probably not expect facebook to adopt the *.facebook.com policy for every user 21:43:25 the IWC specs don't actually care about whether something is in a subfolder or not, a URL is a URL 21:43:54 any examples of that in the wild? 21:44:13 ie multiple users on the same origin? 21:44:49 you can find some of those here http://indiewebcamp.com/irc-people 21:45:57 aaronpk, eprodrom https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/resolutions 21:46:04 don't know where you want to link that 21:46:39 ben_thatmustbeme++ 21:46:42 ben_thatmustbeme has 125 karma 21:46:51 needs a lot of cleanup still 21:46:55 and i'm sure there are some missing 21:47:09 lol "with unanimous silence, we've approved it" 21:47:26 hmmm 'own your data is one of the principles of the IndieWeb and is an encouragement to always post content directly to your own domain' 21:47:32 ben_thatmustbeme: really nice! 21:48:24 ben_thatmustbeme: one thing is that URLs are being handled weirdly 21:48:46 The full is in there 21:48:50 Rather than just the URL 21:48:57 'Examples of what doesn't count: You post some notes on your own site, and some notes directly to Twitter' 21:49:17 eprodrom: yeah, i know thats just a quick dump, there is certainly cleanup to do 21:49:20 melvster, i'm not sure what point you are trying to make 21:49:23 and i've already found others 21:49:40 ben_thatmustbeme is there a github repo to which I can make pull requests of https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-Syntax-Brainstorming/wiki/jf2#context ? 21:49:41 ben_thatmustbeme: OK. Let me know when you're tired of re-dumping and I can edit by hand 21:49:59 Oh, am I still the scribe? 21:50:02 Benthatmustbeme made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/resolutions]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87065&oldid=0 21:50:03 melvster has left #social 21:52:08 I can edit by hand 21:52:09 ben_thatmustbeme: OK. Let me know when you're tired of re-dumping and I can edit manually 21:52:14 hand 21:52:17 zakim talk to the hand 21:52:19 Let's give everyone a big hand 21:52:21 ack wilkie 21:52:35 i raise my hand 21:52:35 lower hand 21:52:37 zakim, raise hand 21:52:38 I see wseltzer on the speaker queue 21:52:40 hand 21:52:43 lower hand 21:52:43 zakim, lower hand 21:52:45 I see no one on the speaker queue 21:52:48 we've got to hand it to the developers 21:52:54 upper hand 21:52:58 Zakim, high five 21:52:58 I don't understand 'high five', cwebber2 21:53:00 aw 21:53:24 Zakim, I'd like to offer you my hand to help you with your queue. 21:53:24 I don't understand you, tantek 21:53:51 !tell Zakim good morning 21:53:52 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next 21:54:02 !tell Zakim hand 21:54:03 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next 21:54:07 oh no 21:54:08 Zakim: aaronpk left you a message 16 seconds ago: good morning http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093231431 21:54:38 ack Zakim 21:54:47 Zakim: tantek left you a message 44 seconds ago: hand http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093242149 21:55:00 (everyone waits for Zakim to say something before we can continue the meeting) 21:55:07 in socialwg russia, zakim queues zakim 21:55:30 :) 21:55:32 zakim, hand to zakim 21:55:32 I don't understand 'hand to zakim', tantek 21:55:36 lower upper hand 21:55:45 zakim, drop hands 21:55:45 sorry, tantek, I can't do that anymore 21:56:05 zakim, respond also to HAL 21:56:05 I don't understand 'respond also to HAL', wseltzer 21:56:16 Zakim, open the pod bay doors 21:56:16 I don't understand 'open the pod bay doors', tantek 21:56:17 zakim, help 21:56:18 Please refer to http://www.w3.org/2001/12/zakim-irc-bot for more detailed help. 21:56:18 Some of the commands I know are: 21:56:18 xxx is yyy - establish yyy as the name of unknown party xxx 21:56:19 if yyy is 'me' or 'I', your nick is substituted 21:56:19 xxx may be yyy - establish yyy as possibly the name of unknown party xxx 21:56:19 I am xxx - establish your nick as the name of unknown party xxx 21:56:20 xxx holds yyy [, zzz ...] - establish xxx as a group name and yyy, etc. as participants within that group 21:56:20 xxx also holds yyy - add yyy to the list of participants in group xxx 21:56:20 who's here? - lists the participants on the phone 21:56:21 who's muted? - lists the participants who are muted 21:56:21 mute xxx - mutes party xxx (like pressing 61#) 21:56:21 unmute xxx - reverses the effect of "mute" and of 61# 21:56:22 is xxx here? - reports whether a party named like xxx is present 21:56:22 list conferences - reports the active conferences 21:56:22 this is xxx - associates this channel with conference xxx 21:56:23 excuse us - disconnects from the irc channel 21:56:23 I last learned something new on $Date: 2015/08/27 01:09:18 $ 21:56:59 zakim, who holds your hand 21:56:59 sorry, azaroth, I do not recognize a party named 'who' 21:57:11 zakim, azaroth holds your hand 21:57:11 sorry, azaroth, I do not recognize a party named 'azaroth' 21:57:14 :( 21:57:17 zakim hand 21:57:26 i/*adjourn for lunch* 21:57:27 zakim, what's the code? 21:57:27 I have been told this is 21:57:32 i/*adjourn for lunch*/Topic: LUNCH 21:57:41 https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gobengo/aef6d083290930e25025/raw/02bdf242d4d39000efdb4849db414bad85ec3463/indieweb-social.json 21:57:41 zakim, what is? 21:57:41 I don't understand your question, tantek. 21:57:43 i? 21:58:08 forgot we actually have a bit of as2-ish like that 21:58:40 syncbot has joined #social 21:58:56 who is syncbot? 21:58:59 syncbot: hello! 21:58:59 Oh hi cwebber2! 21:59:02 syncbot: source 21:59:02 I'm a little irc bot for 8sync! Patches welcome / happy hacking! 21:59:02 My source: https://notabug.org/cwebber/syncbot 21:59:02 8sync's source: https://notabug.org/cwebber/8sync 21:59:20 Zakim why you no queue yourself? 21:59:33 !tell syncbot hello 21:59:35 Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next 22:00:02 Zakim y u no do queue yourself? 22:00:04 http://meme.loqi.me/4eXaYt73.jpg 22:01:29 And then we told them, RESOLVED: ... 22:01:31 http://meme.loqi.me/4eXuJ4NS.jpg 22:02:02 syncbot: botrival 22:02:05 nope 22:02:54 syncbot: botrival 22:02:54 *engages turing test with trackbot* 22:03:03 syncbot: tantek left you a message 3 minutes ago: hello http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093573562 22:03:03 *stupid puppy look* 22:03:22 syncbot: help 22:03:23 I can't help you... I can't even help myself! 22:03:45 syncbot, what is your function? 22:04:20 syncbot: d20 22:04:20 cwebber2: *rolls*... you get a 2! 22:04:57 loqi: botsnack 22:05:02 syncbot: dfate 22:05:02 *stupid puppy look* 22:05:08 syncbot: df 22:05:08 *stupid puppy look* 22:05:18 azaroth: roll-fate 22:05:22 oops 22:05:25 syncbot: roll-fate 22:05:25 cwebber2: Rolling at 0: [_] [+] [-] [+] -> 1! (average) 22:05:48 snarfed has joined #social 22:05:54 :) 22:06:00 syncbot: botsnack 22:06:00 *eyes treat suspiciously... then furiously devours it!* 22:06:38 syncbot: sorry, time to kick you out 22:06:38 *stupid puppy look* 22:06:41 [Lunch is over] 22:06:51 Topic: Agenda-bash, post-lunch 22:07:24 Arnaud1: jasnell wanted to talk activity streams, and he needs to leave 22:07:32 ... how much can we discuss without overriding agenda 22:07:43 tantek: I relinquish my time in favor of AS2 22:07:50 ... return with AOB if time 22:08:08 Arnaud1: more to talk about re API and federation protocol? 22:08:20 eprodrom, cleaned up more https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/resolutions 22:08:56 ... f2f meeting schedule 22:09:00 ... github workflow 22:09:28 ... so for the next hour, we can talk AS2 22:09:41 ... Anything else not on the agenda? 22:10:02 Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/resolutions]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87066&oldid=87065 22:10:26 ... hearing no additions, let's move forward 22:10:38 ... Good progress yesterday closing AS issues, let's continue 22:10:44 Topic: Activity Streams Issues 22:10:50 Arnaud1: James, over to you 22:11:04 i/Agenda-bash/scribenick: wseltzer 22:11:17 jasnell: most pressing issues: adding new things, or bringing back things that were removed 22:11:25 ... about 3 we should discuss individually 22:11:32 ... Propose we start with bulk issues 22:11:46 ... If objection, pull it out of the list for discussion 22:11:47 Specific types of Offer? - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/175 22:11:47 Account / accounts - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/235 22:11:47 Assign activity (bring back) - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/240 22:11:49 Confirm Activity (bring back) - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/256 22:11:51 CheckOut / CheckIn activities - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/242 22:11:53 Blob Types - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/223 22:12:01 jasnell: as posted to irc ^ 22:12:19 ... 175, author activity. eprodrom wondered if we need specific kinds of authors 22:12:31 s/author/offer/ 22:12:36 s/authors/offers/ 22:12:44 jasnell: I think we should drop offer 22:12:52 ... I'm recommending we close all these 22:13:01 jasnell: Account. none of our use cases call for it 22:13:23 ... Assign and Confirm previously removed from vocab for lack of broad interest 22:13:36 ... Checkout, Checkin. source-control use case 22:13:57 ... blob types, proposal was unclear, no justifying use-cases 22:14:08 ... PROPOSED: close the set due to lack of action/justification 22:14:10 +1 22:14:12 +1 22:14:13 +1 22:14:13 +1 22:14:16 +1 22:14:20 ... all can be done as extension if someone wants 22:14:52 jasnell: to eprodrom, do you ahve specific types of offers? 22:14:59 eprodrom: in the example, URN product-offer 22:15:20 ... examples should use core vocab if it exists, if not, are we covering schema of the verb 22:15:26 jasnell: we're only covering a bit of the idea 22:15:27 +1 22:15:35 ... in general offer should be marked at-risk 22:15:40 eprodrom: that sounds ok to me 22:15:55 +0 22:16:06 eprodrom: I'd rather put at-risk than define fully 22:16:12 +1 22:16:23 jasnell: hearing no objectins, mark the above set closed. 22:16:31 RESOLVED: mark the above set closed 22:16:57 RRSAgent, pointer? 22:16:57 See http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-irc#T22-16-57 22:17:10 RESOLVED: mark the above set closed: 175, 235, 240, 256, 242, and 223 22:17:23 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/208 22:17:31 jasnell: Also recommend closing 208 without action 22:17:45 ... proposal to revisit a fundamental design point in RDF 22:17:53 ... since RDF is optional, nothing to do, close 22:18:04 PROPOSED: close 208 22:18:06 +1 22:18:06 +1 22:18:07 +1 22:18:07 +1 to closing rather than starting again 22:18:08 +1 22:18:13 +1 22:18:23 +1 22:18:24 +1 22:18:32 +1 22:18:54 Arnaud: Challenge, when we close issues when the person who raised it is not present in the discussion 22:19:06 ... likely a bit of resentment at not being able to defend 22:19:14 jasnell: this issue has been on github for a while 22:19:25 Arnaud: At least I'd like the justification we agreed on to be recorded 22:19:37 ... can we agree on the reason to close? 22:19:39 also, we have a system for that, object at next meeting before approval of minutes 22:19:58 jasnell: as I said, the RDF modeling is optional, non-normative 22:20:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87067&oldid=87049 22:20:03 Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87068&oldid=87067 22:20:25 azaroth: it's a total recasting of the spec to say that things that are currently classes should be relationships 22:20:40 jasnell: it goes back and changes fundameental design 22:20:53 sandro: no justification given for reopening this previously settled issue 22:21:10 Arnaud: also, the issue lacks description of the rational for reopening 22:21:23 rhiaro: there's a bunch of dsicussion in github 22:21:40 ... sounds as though it's going back to AS1, which was presumably changed for a reason 22:21:58 Arnaud: there's a link in the issue to a wiki page 22:22:17 ... describing a model he thnks is better without xplaining the benefit 22:22:50 rhiaro: I think he's saying the benefit is types of properties we can reuse for direct relations 22:23:14 +1 to bengo 22:23:41 wiki page proposes "If we have Follow, we need isFollowing and isFollowedBy relation" 22:23:46 that's state, not atomic activities (like log objects) 22:23:56 that may or may not still be true or guaranteed to have not been reversed 22:24:08 jasnell: while it could be better in some use cases, that's not drawn out, unclear they're core use cases 22:24:10 state is harder than activity objects 22:24:10 make scope had 22:24:12 *hard 22:24:44 Arnaud: can we agree that we're not convinced possible benefits justify reengineering the data model at this point? 22:24:58 yep 22:25:16 RESOLVED: close issue 208 22:25:34 rhiaro: it could be reopened as an alternative 22:25:39 updating a stateful social graph from activity objects out of scope of this syntax 22:25:58 sandro: it could be a straightforward transform 22:26:06 jasnell: next set of proposals 22:26:14 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/268 22:26:16 (from RDF to RDF) 22:26:17 ... 268 is one I'd like to see happen 22:26:29 ... removing existing content object, flatten hierarchy, simplify vocab 22:26:37 eprodrom has joined #social 22:26:41 ... Content obj in vocab now is non-functional abstract 22:26:58 ... duration could move up a layer, eliimnate layer of abstraction, simplify 22:27:04 ... clarify use of dimensions 22:27:16 ... overall, think it's an improvement. 22:27:24 ... I have a current;y open pull request 22:27:32 q+ 22:27:35 PROPOSED: close the issue, dropping content objects 22:27:48 q=eprodrom 22:27:56 queue=eprodrom 22:27:57 ack eprodrom 22:28:18 eprodrom: to make sure I understand issue, content is intermediate abstract type 22:28:29 ... prperties used by it will be sent to object or used on clasees 22:28:40 +1 22:28:40 q+ to clarify properties -not- on the subclasss 22:28:41 ... since we dont' have range specified for CRUD verbs, no reason to maintain 22:28:47 jasnell: right 22:29:00 jasnell: only three properties. Height, width, duration 22:29:05 ... height and width move to link 22:29:11 ... dureation moves to object 22:29:11 ack azaroth 22:29:11 azaroth, you wanted to clarify properties -not- on the subclasss 22:29:18 +1 22:29:19 ... duration nt on link 22:29:22 s/nt/not/ 22:29:24 +1 22:29:31 +1 22:29:33 +1 22:29:35 +1 22:29:36 +1 22:29:37 +1 22:29:42 Arnaud: please vote 22:29:42 +1 22:29:54 0 22:30:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87069&oldid=87068 22:30:08 RESOLVED: close the issue, dropping content objects 22:30:17 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/157 22:30:19 jasnell: 157, opened by eprodrom 22:30:36 ... do we need a blog object type to repreesent that common use case 22:30:46 ... I'd like to propose either website or site 22:30:54 ... currently have a "page" type 22:31:01 ... site as same level of generality 22:31:01 q? 22:31:18 eprodrom: motivation was that first example in core was using extension type for blog 22:31:33 ... if it's such a good exmample, maybe it should be in vocab, or change example 22:31:40 Site is in our domain: https://github.com/gobengo/activity-mocks/blob/master/mocks/livefyre/site-post-collection.json#L3 22:31:44 ... I like change to use ordered collection, rather than blog, in example 22:31:45 (as1) 22:31:52 ... as that's the only place "blog" is referenced 22:32:04 Arnaud: which do you prefer? 22:32:33 eprodrom: jasnell's pull request replaces "blog" with "prdered collection". that makes sense to me 22:32:42 s/prdered/ordered/ 22:32:50 ... I prefer ordered collection. 22:33:10 PROPOSAL: close 157, replacing example with ordered collection 22:33:21 tantek: collection vs ordered collection? 22:33:28 +1 22:33:30 jasnell: blogs tend to be ordered by date 22:33:37 s/PROPOSAL/PROPOSED/ 22:33:45 +1 22:33:47 ... and it's just informative 22:33:49 +1 22:33:49 +1 22:33:50 +1 22:33:51 +1 22:33:51 +1 22:33:51 +1 22:33:59 Arnaud: everyone agrees? 22:34:11 RESOLVED: close 157 22:34:25 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/251 22:34:26 jasnell: 251, language property 22:34:40 ... background. JSON-LD has @language keyword 22:34:48 ... that can be used within context 22:35:00 ... to specify language of document 22:35:10 ... or at value, to set for value 22:35:35 ... according to W3C guidelines, every format should have way to specify language default for each item 22:35:45 ... the only way we can do that is JSON-LD 22:36:01 ... current spec says it's optional, since JSON-LD is optional 22:36:10 ... propsal from Rob is to add language property 22:36:22 ... challeng is that it's not compatible with JSON-LD 22:36:36 tantek: you can't just alias? 22:36:39 jasnell: no 22:37:19 sounds like a bug in JSON-LD if it can't handle JSON documents that have a "language" property explicitly 22:37:21 jasnell: @Context processing requires a processing model 22:37:53 sandro: or "use this boilerplate text, put your language here" 22:38:07 tantek: why doesn't it play well? 22:38:19 sandro: JSON-LD has its own way to do language tagging, and this isn't it 22:38:42 azaroth: JSON-LD, all the string values are now lang-type 22:39:07 q+ 22:39:07 ... thta doesn't mean you can use it with a web page 22:39:20 tilgovi has joined #social 22:39:46 jasnell: when I have a JSON-LD doc that @context Lang=EN, every string will be expanded to a language-tagged string 22:40:07 ... vs if we @@ the strings don't get tagged 22:40:33 ... to some of the JSON-LD folks, it's recognized as a limitation of JSON-LD 22:40:46 ... possibly to be addressed in new version, but not there yet 22:40:56 ... so we could go with limited profile of JSON-LD, boilerplate text 22:40:59 q+ to note that we could add a 'language' property for JSON processors, and then add extra processing step for JSON-LD consumers to pay attention to the 'language' property. 22:41:16 ... or we go with the language property, that was in the original version of AS2, that doesn't play well with JSON-LD 22:41:28 ack cwebber 22:41:29 ... JSON-LD implementers would have to do more work with language property 22:41:31 q+ 22:41:44 cwebber2: I understand @language doesnt' cover all the case we want 22:41:53 ... within the scope of things it does do 22:42:02 ... is it possible ot alias @language to Language 22:42:06 jasnell: no. 22:42:22 ... JSON-LD algorithms will ignore Language except in very specific places 22:42:43 cwebber2: same for @vocab, @base 22:42:45 jasnell: yes 22:42:54 ack tantek 22:42:54 tantek, you wanted to note that we could add a 'language' property for JSON processors, and then add extra processing step for JSON-LD consumers to pay attention to the 22:42:55 ... only ID and type can be aliased 22:42:58 ... 'language' property. 22:43:17 tantek: inclusion of lang in HTML at a document level is at least 1/2 a disaster 22:43:30 ... lang=en is meaningless in the wild because it 22:43:37 ... is in templates 22:43:54 ... if we need to specifry language, we should have a property 22:44:07 ... if that requires extra work for JSON-LD processors, we should specify the extra work 22:44:16 jasnell: the extra work is not necssarily trivial 22:44:16 q? 22:44:17 ack sandro 22:44:18 ack sandro 22:44:34 sandro: can you do @language in AS per-value? 22:45:06 jasnell: @@ 22:45:24 ... extension would ahve to define themselves 22:45:44 sandro: so issue is you read i18n guidelines as saying we need a whole-doc language tag? 22:45:59 ... my sense is it does more damage than help, so we shouldn't do it 22:46:07 jasnell: we could take current lang defaul tout 22:46:18 ... and dont add language property 22:46:26 JSON-LD Playground example of aliasing @language and @value: http://tinyurl.com/zrnxo27 22:46:32 ... explicitly don't provide default language in the format 22:46:38 cwebber2: I think that's better 22:46:41 tantek: I didsagree 22:46:59 s/didsagree/agree/ 22:47:04 sandro: proactively go to i18n group with this question 22:47:11 np 22:47:28 jasnell: there's one doc section with default language context. propose to remove that section 22:47:35 q? 22:47:36 ... and document the reasoning 22:47:57 tantek: anohter way to be proactive, is document, highlighting for specific i18n review 22:48:03 ... at CR time 22:48:10 Arnaud: what's our position in the meantime 22:48:23 jasnell: in the interime 22:48:32 ... remove the current text, close issue 251 22:48:38 PROPOSED: remove the current text, close issue 251 22:48:43 Arnaud: are you happy with that? 22:48:47 azaroth: yes 22:48:53 sandro: and get i18n review 22:48:59 jasnell: this has been messy for a while 22:49:06 ... so I'm happy to see movement 22:49:36 ACTION: Sandro to bring issue to i18n 22:49:37 Created ACTION-84 - Bring issue to i18n [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-12-09]. 22:49:45 +1 22:49:50 +1 22:49:50 +1 22:49:51 +1 22:49:52 +1 22:49:56 +1 22:49:59 note action-84, the "issue" is default language for whole document 22:50:00 +1 22:50:06 +1 22:50:15 Arnaud: seeing agreement 22:50:25 RESOLVED: remove the current text, close issue 251 22:51:01 scribenick: bengo 22:51:27 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/269 22:51:40 jasnell: one way we could deal with transience is expires 22:51:50 q+ to ask about value of property 22:51:56 jasnell: without necessarily needing processing model specified 22:51:58 q- 22:52:10 jasnell: value would be date and time at whcih it should be considered invalid. has come up a few times 22:52:18 jasnell: was'nt acted upon because no implementations needed it 22:52:28 q+ 22:52:32 jasnell: one way of dealing with this 22:52:41 q+ 22:52:42 azaroth: are there two implementations of this or promises to impl 22:52:43 jasnell no 22:52:47 ack eprodrom 22:53:13 eprodrom: this seems like a informative, nonpresriptive way 22:53:28 eprodrom: it's elegant way to handle 22:53:39 ack cwebber 22:53:39 q? 22:53:41 eprodrom: this makes the most sense. dont see better alternative 22:54:03 cwebber2: transiency came up. in pump.io you have to leave tombstone behind 22:54:10 cwebber2 that way other things can still reference it 22:54:24 cwebber2: how can you verify subcomponents of message if they go away 22:54:40 cwebber2: i had originally thoguht of dealing with this via source signatures, which are complex 22:54:52 cwebber2: Expires is interesting but in a federated context it could create its own complexities 22:55:03 q+ 22:55:20 cwebber2: if you make something and tell another system, but it's expired by then, the other system doesn't know if true or false 22:55:37 cwebber2 I'm not sure expires doesn't add more complexity unless thought through more. 22:55:44 +1 to extension and experimentation 22:55:45 cwebber2 use an extension it would be easier to take time to think through 22:55:49 q+ to note that transient *content* (part of a post) is a use-case seen more than just "whole posts", from IndieWeb research: https://indiewebcamp.com/expiring_content 22:55:56 cwebber2: Whether expires, signatures, something else. Leave this as an unsolved problem 22:56:15 sandro: on flip side, can't do as extension 22:56:19 Arnaud: yes you can 22:56:36 q+ 22:56:37 ack sandro 22:56:46 sandro: snapchat means expires and transiency is important enough to be Core 22:57:03 cwebber2: It's possible if activitypump processing rules require it 22:57:12 cwebber2: (even if extension) 22:57:31 cwebber2: might even be that we can't solve in this timeframe but do have to do in core eventually, but we should take our time 22:57:48 cwebber2: Each server in federation has a decision to make on expiry 22:58:10 q? 22:58:16 eprodrom: Please don't say signatures again (to cwebber2 ) 22:58:28 ack eprodrom 22:58:42 eprodrom: another form of transiency is very small or not that important of activities 22:58:50 eprodrom IMing, turned left, turned right, big data stuff 22:59:10 eprodrom expires coul dindicate "this isn't crucial" 22:59:10 cwebber2 ephemeral 22:59:15 q+ 22:59:23 Arnaud: Is anything like this in requirements? 22:59:27 Arnaud that would necessitate 'expires' 22:59:40 cwebber2 idk but I've wanted to bring this up since Boston 22:59:48 Arnaud ok just wanted to clarify 23:00:07 q- 23:00:10 jasnell: Worth noting this isn't first time 23:00:19 jasnell: last time we said to pump 23:00:24 q- 23:00:32 q+ 23:00:32 q+ for suggestion of ephemeral on create 23:00:38 jasnell: long standing discussion but only recently do prominent silos impl 23:00:39 ack tantek 23:00:39 tantek, you wanted to note that transient *content* (part of a post) is a use-case seen more than just "whole posts", from IndieWeb research: 23:00:41 ... https://indiewebcamp.com/expiring_content 23:01:14 tantek: even if federation can't validate transient things, may still be useful 23:01:26 tantek like parts of post could expire even if not full post 23:01:33 reminding myself: can only come from same origin 23:01:40 tantek: In favor of dropping it 23:01:45 ack sand 23:01:45 ack sandro 23:02:00 q+ 23:02:03 sandro: It's complicated, i get it. But so is rest of vocab. So what's the harm of putting it in 23:02:05 q+ 23:02:14 sandro: gives us a first best effort at it if we let 'expires' in 23:02:16 sandro whats the harm? 23:02:28 sandro: only harm is if it people interpret as more than it does 23:02:33 tantek: there is harm with every addition 23:02:45 ack cwebber 23:02:45 cwebber, you wanted to discuss suggestion of ephemeral on create 23:02:48 sandro it's hard to build a system wihtout this 23:03:07 cwebber2: There may be a way of doing this without time-based expiration. 23:03:29 cwebber2: In IMing and Game stuff, you don't need a log of it all anyway. The server can just relay and give a UUID 23:03:43 cwebber2: Could just have ephemeral flag instead of expiry date 23:03:57 q- 23:04:10 'DNT' 23:04:18 cwebber2 there wouldn't be a permanent url 23:04:25 cwebber2 only for same-origin 23:04:38 ack jasnell 23:04:40 jasnell we can do something like that already 23:05:10 jasnell we have other activities in core like Invite and Offer that have a lifecycle 23:05:20 ... there are alreayd use cases for this 23:05:28 w+ 23:05:30 q? 23:05:32 q+ 23:05:55 jasnell: Offer may be at risk, but this could still be useful for Invite 23:06:08 q+ 23:06:19 jasnell: Not arguing for. Just sayign we can 23:06:25 jasnell: but if we add, should mark at risk 23:06:31 q- 23:06:40 jasnell: Then in CR if it's not going to work out, we drop 23:06:50 Arnaud: that's reasonable way of moving forward. Draws attention from others 23:06:55 ack cwebber 23:07:10 cwebber2: At risk is good 23:07:14 ack sandro 23:07:29 sandro: I'm now more in favor of not having it 23:07:40 sandro: we need to solidify extensinos so it doesnt matter if in core 23:07:54 jasnell: Let's not decide to accept/reject yet. And see if there's a better solution 23:08:34 (consensus) 23:08:35 jasnell: we should consider a few more 23:09:01 jasnell: Is there anything else bad in spec to be forwards compatible? e.g. lists of lists 23:09:10 https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/271 23:09:32 sandro: if they upgrade JSON-LD they'll have to be back compat anyway 23:09:45 jasnell: all open proposals are closed 23:10:01 jasnell: oops one more abuot lifecycles 23:10:37 list all the things 23:10:38 sandro: we should make a community group that maintains a website that maintains all the terms/verbs/words 23:10:38 http://meme.loqi.me/4eXd_Q8B.jpg 23:10:50 sandro: Thing description status of that thing 23:10:55 Arnaud: how about wiki page? 23:11:12 jasnell: start as wiki, if difficult, then we can adjust and see if CG is necessary 23:11:33 sandro: CG needed (even if trivial) because it gets us a wiki 23:11:40 tantek: siloed wikis are W3 antipattern 23:11:45 sandro: but they can give out namespaces 23:11:56 sandro: and that helps with extensions using a w3 namespace 23:12:11 tantek: What's wrong with custom elements convention of hyphens 23:12:22 sandro: Because that doesn't help with collissions 23:12:32 cwebber2: And we want JSON-LD expansion to work 23:12:59 q+ 23:13:07 tantek: ostensibly cusom elements have solved this 23:13:13 q+ 23:13:18 sandro: no x-header (??) are the real solution 23:13:19 q- 23:13:29 sandro: x-headers are widely acked as mistake i HTTP 23:13:41 sandro: And in this case we have an easier solution than that 23:13:45 sandro: (w3 namespace for extensions) 23:13:46 ack wseltzer 23:13:56 wseltzer: prefixes are bad pattern 23:14:02 tantek: only for some things 23:14:02 q+ 23:14:13 wseltzer: because they require revision later once the old prefix is standardized 23:14:30 tantek: As a trivial counterexample, border-radius in CSS 23:14:47 ack cwebber 23:15:16 cwebber2: big db of past accrued activities would be really hard to re-name properties 23:15:34 +1 to cwebber2 23:15:34 cwebber2: We should avoid that if possible 23:15:44 cwebber2: CG is reaosnable solution 23:15:59 sandro: Hard for even more reasons 23:16:27 eprodrom: One big apps to is schema at read 23:16:31 eprodrom: and avoid db migrations 23:16:40 eprodrom: *what big apps do 23:16:58 sandro: so whats wrong with CG? 23:17:04 jasnell: just whether the process overhead is worth it 23:17:23 sandro: Process overhead vs extension overhead 23:17:34 Arnaud: Who's signing up to create CG? 23:17:37 q? 23:17:47 cwebber2: could just have wiki page of extensions with their own ns 23:18:02 ... not curated by official group but at least the activities are preserving their contents 23:18:11 s/create CG/do the reviews of proposed additions/ 23:18:42 jasnell: Other way of not having it be a WG thing is to make a github project managing this 23:18:52 jasnell: PRs/issues accepted 23:19:10 jasnell: this doesn't need w3 tamp 23:19:13 cwebber2: I'm cool with that 23:19:17 sandro: CG overhead is 10min 23:19:23 sandro: and github is compatible with that 23:19:40 jasnell: as long as overhead isn't too much and folks are willing to participate 23:19:45 sandro: same people as adminning a github repo 23:20:34 Arnaud: that's always the challenge. open wiki is open toa bbusers. Control requires personhours/effort 23:21:11 sandro: Should we let them use main namespace 23:21:11 bengo: no 23:21:13 AS2 Pro namespace, I'm telling you! 23:21:23 jasnell: that could cause problems for implementations that build that into their namespace 23:21:56 jasnell: something can be in namespace without bieng in jsonld context 23:22:10 sandro: namespace just means they use it as imaginary prefix 23:22:27 jasnell: idk... 23:22:58 sandro: Let's analyze options later 23:23:07 Arnaud: What should we do? 23:23:12 eprodrom: Is this last one? 23:23:30 Arnaud: We said yesterday we would give folks two weeks to bring up issues so we have to wait now anyway 23:23:48 sandro: A more conventional way to do this would be to ask editor when they would like next review to happen 23:24:02 sandro: then 1 week or so before next phase 23:24:10 tantek: publishing moratorium coming soon 23:24:34 tantek: soon enough that changes just made are of sufficient enough value that we ought to publish WD with jasnell changes by... friday 23:24:50 sandro: And then aim to go to CR by early Jan 23:24:58 [W3C publications moratorium 21 Dec-1 Jan] 23:25:10 tantek: yeah issue velocity has dropped but if it picks back up we wont go to CR 23:25:15 tantek: it's great there is renewed interest and activity 23:25:21 jasnell: seems reasonable 23:25:29 jasnell: remaining issues are mostly editorial 23:25:48 jasnell: I think we're done 23:26:12 PROPOSED: publish a new WD of AS2 drafts as of / by Friday. 23:26:14 +1 23:26:18 +1 23:26:19 +1 23:26:20 +1 23:26:23 +1 23:26:23 +1 23:26:28 +1 23:26:32 +1 23:26:46 +1 23:26:57 Arnaud: Let's shift gears 23:27:03 RESOLVED: publish a new WD of AS2 drafts as of / by Friday. 23:27:10 15m break 23:27:18 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:27:18 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html wseltzer 23:27:49 bye jessica 23:27:52 rrsagent, make logs public 23:28:00 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:28:00 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html wseltzer 23:28:07 eprodrom: next up, resolve more issues in api and federatio protocl. next F2F schedule 23:28:45 did we lose post type? 23:28:51 just made https://github.com/gobengo/as2-validate 23:28:55 reconvene at 3:45 23:29:33 kevinmarks: yes I reliquished my time and deferred to resolving AS2 Issues instead. 23:29:45 i|as I already have wget copies|Topic: LUNCH 23:29:48 rrsagent, draft minutes 23:29:48 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html wseltzer 23:42:35 bengo: cool! any idea how you expect it to differ from https://github.com/jasnell/activitystreams.validator , https://github.com/apparentlymart/activity-streams-tester , https://github.com/w3c-social/as2test , etc? 23:42:44 it depends on the former 23:42:49 and james told me to keep as separate 23:42:51 I just wanted a cli 23:42:57 ah ok 23:43:04 so i could 23:43:05 (curl "https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gobengo/aef6d083290930e25025/raw/02bdf242d4d39000efdb4849db414bad85ec3463/indieweb-social.json" | node index.js ) && echo "perfect" 23:43:12 ... it is not perfect 23:43:15 lol 23:43:43 sorry, not `node index`, `as2-validate` 23:43:50 which you can now `npm install -g as2-validate` 23:50:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87070&oldid=87069 23:53:00 scribenick: aaronpk 23:53:35 Topic: Open Issues for other drafts than AS2 23:53:46 eprodrom: let's talk about next f2f first then fill the rest of the time with issues 23:54:07 tantek: when I put that there it was an umbrella for peopel to put specific issues, but if nobody has a specific issue then that becomes a no-op 23:54:30 eprodrom: then what makes sense is to do the f2f planning, for people to take part of that time to identify issues they want to talk about, then we can have people propose them as they come up 23:54:46 rhiaro: we need to resolve something about github 23:54:57 eprodrom: okay yes 23:55:05 tantek: and i just added somethign about post-type-discovery 23:55:19 eprodrom: f2f, admin items, PTD, then extra issues 23:55:26 TOPIC: Next Face-to-Face meeting 23:55:34 sandro: MIT in the spring? 23:55:39 q+ re: productivity at f2fs 23:55:40 eprodrom: MIT in mid-march would be 4 months 23:55:52 q+ 23:55:52 sandro: spring break is march 21-ish 23:55:55 q? 23:56:07 ... i'm traveling and stuff so after march 28th is better 23:56:19 q- 23:56:21 cwebber2: libre planet 2016 won't fit then (march 19-20) 23:56:31 ... best for me would be after the stripe open source retreat 23:56:43 ... ideally end of april or beginning of may 23:57:06 q? 23:57:39 libreplanet 19-20 March 23:57:39 q? 23:57:40 tantek: i wanted to make the observation that w'eve been tremendously productive at f2f, more than at telcons, which is more than irc/github, more than email 23:57:44 ack tantek 23:57:44 tantek, you wanted to discuss productivity at f2fs 23:57:58 ... i feel like the time cost of the f2f pays off in the productivity and group morale that comes out of these f2f 23:58:18 ... so i would advocate that we consider having 3 or 4 in 2016 23:58:31 ... it's our last year of our charter and we'll be furiously trying to get through a lot 23:58:56 sandro: does that suggest doing it earlier like february? 23:59:02 tantek: early march, then another one in june maybe 23:59:12 ... another data point is TPAC next year is mid september 23:59:17 ... in Lisbon 23:59:27 so the end of the stripe open source retreat is april 15 2016 23:59:32 right after would also work for me 23:59:35 ... i'm going to be going there already, anyone else? 23:59:50 ... september 19-23 00:00:03 [TPAC 2016: https://www.w3.org/blog/2015/09/tpac-2016-dates-and-location-announced/ ] 00:00:15 eprodrom: if we were going to do September TPAC, March MIT, could we do another in between? 00:00:28 aaronpk: Portland! 00:01:15 rhiaro: December would be like a party since we finished everything right? 00:01:37 eprodrom: most of us probably need around 8 weeks of planning time 00:01:42 ... can we pick a time now for March? 00:02:19 cwebber2: could we do it right before libre planet? 00:02:51 eprodrom: march wed-thu 16-17? 00:04:03 tantek: then have friday the 18th off 00:05:04 reserve 16-17 March 2016 F2F at MIT 00:06:06 tantek: if we like the idea of portland in june we can capture that as a general range and figure out details later 00:06:20 ... open source bridge is June 21-24 in Porltand 00:06:55 ... I don't be able to do the week before that 00:07:33 eprodrom: rough plan is March 16-17 at MIT and then late June in Portland, September in Lisbon, then December in San Francisco 00:07:57 ... next steps? 00:08:03 sandro: how about we set up the page and start having people RSVP 00:09:14 TOPIC: clarify Github workflow 00:09:44 sandro: my sense is we had a culture clash between open source workflow vs w3c culture 00:09:53 ... where someone makes a comment and we're obligated to formally address the comment 00:10:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87071&oldid=87070 00:10:08 ... we don't have to necessarily make them happy, but we have to do our best to make sure they're aware we handled it fairly 00:10:19 ... at a transition meeting we have to report how we handled those 00:10:24 ... each one should end with a sense of closure 00:10:46 ... so it's fine to close issues with a polite my sense is we reached a resolution here, if you don't agree, comment this way, 00:10:52 q+ 00:10:54 ... we need to not stomp on people on github 00:11:10 q? 00:11:39 eprodrom: we spoke yesterday about process a little about AS2, and we discussed editors have discretion to deal with issues, and if there is not a willingness to defer to the editor then we'd take it to a group proposal and resolution 00:11:48 sandro: so if that is communicated clearly to the commenter then that's fine 00:12:06 ... the edfitor should post "i feel like this issues is closed, if you don't agree, say so and i will escalate it to hte working group" 00:12:24 s/edfitor/editor 00:12:32 eprodrom: we don't need fto vote on every issue, we've had some small issues fixing spelling mistakes etc 00:12:58 sandro: i've had luck where if you ask the person are you satisfied with my handling of the issue that makes people happy 00:13:10 ... i'd be inclined to not mark it as closed 00:13:38 q+ 00:13:41 ... what i feel would be the best is ask people do you feel satisfied with how this was handled, and if so can you close it by this date 00:13:48 rhiaro: ask them toclose it by a certain date 00:14:00 q? 00:14:07 ... so i queued to say we probably all agree, but we should write it down so that we can refer people to this later 00:14:08 ack rhiaro 00:14:17 .. so that people who want to complain for the sake of complaing we can say you're wrong 00:14:19 ack kevinmarks_ 00:14:33 kevinmarks_: if we're going to discuss the process, it would be good to constrain each issue to a single issue 00:14:48 q+ to say Cooperating in creating new individual issues if multiple crop up in a single thread, and staying on topic. If a new thought occurs to you whilst writing a reply... you are empowered to stop typing, and open a new issue instead. 00:14:58 ... lets make sure to mention this in the process so we have a place to refer to that 00:15:19 sandro: one bit of advice we could say is if you think this might be a different issue, err on the side of more separate issues 00:15:21 q? 00:15:28 rhiaro: so i wrote this on the agenda 00:15:29 q? 00:15:32 ack rhiaro 00:15:32 rhiaro, you wanted to say Cooperating in creating new individual issues if multiple crop up in a single thread, and staying on topic. If a new thought occurs to you whilst writing 00:15:35 ... a reply... you are empowered to stop typing, and open a new issue instead. 00:15:38 q+ 00:16:22 q+ to request: put burden/responsibility on those posting multi-issues to split them out to separate issues if they think the additional issues are worth being discussed. 00:16:31 eprodrom: the only thing i disagree with is that i would like editors to be able to close minor issues 00:16:42 ... would you mind copying this to a wiki page? 00:17:18 ... throw that on a page and then we can have a quick proposal to accept that page 00:17:53 q? 00:17:53 q? 00:18:00 ack Arnaud 00:18:19 Arnaud: in my opinion it's the lack of proces that leads to this kind of thing, the idea that the ?? should be at risk by playing with access rights is really wrong 00:18:35 q? 00:18:41 sandro: i'd be inclined to leave the access control out of the proposal 00:19:04 tantek: there was an explicit request to clarify that 00:19:15 s/?? should be at risk/problem should be addressed/ 00:19:15 rhiaro: part of the problem was that who had the owner of the org was weird 00:20:24 q? 00:20:25 sandro: if you see a violation of these then email chairs 00:20:43 ack tantek 00:20:43 tantek, you wanted to request: put burden/responsibility on those posting multi-issues to split them out to separate issues if they think the additional issues are worth being 00:20:46 ... discussed. 00:21:26 tantek: when some of these multi-issue threads start happening, when the editor responds to the original issue, i'd like to make it explicitly clear that if there are tangential issues it's the burden/responsibility of the person who raised them to make them new issues 00:21:59 sandro: we talked also about labels in the titles like "blocking" 00:22:20 tantek: how about we not solve that until it's a problem 00:22:40 q+ to talk about charter deliverables vs work items labels e.g. overloaded "Social API" and lack of "Federation Protocol" repo 00:22:57 q? 00:23:07 ack bengo 00:23:07 bengo, you wanted to talk about charter deliverables vs work items labels e.g. overloaded "Social API" and lack of "Federation Protocol" repo 00:23:13 I added an item to the wiki as a possible thing to discuss, if we have extra time 00:24:10 bengo: I started an issue that got out of hand on webmention, but because some of the work items are related to the same thing but happening independently, it's tempting to jump in on a broader issue. especially as federation will start to be talked about, would it be beneficial to have topical repos separate from an individual spec so that there's a place for this converation 00:24:45 ... at the very least i feel like there may be benefit to having a repo for federation protocol separate from actiivtypump so that there's a separate place 00:24:50 sandro: how about the social web protocols document 00:25:16 cwebber2: we also have the mailing list and telcons 00:25:26 tantek: irc is a good place to start 00:25:50 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github 00:26:54 tantek: the issue ben is bringing up is that the github repos allow anyone on github to file an issue/comment, and if you're not a WG member or participant we say you cant' participate in the telcons and meetings, so there's a little asymmetry going on there. we should address what's the policy for if you're not a member of the WG 00:26:59 q+ 00:27:11 ... if you're not a member then you're not obligated to the processes 00:27:17 sandro: i think we treat that as public comments 00:27:39 there are communication venues we have that don't require you're a WG member 00:27:44 q- 00:27:50 rhiaro: how do we treat issues that are raised ont he public mailing list 00:27:59 q? 00:28:06 cwebber2: sometimes an editor wants to do things in a specific place and then someone says i raised it in this other venu and you didn't respond 00:28:14 ... i think we should cater to the editor's preferred communication medium 00:28:21 tantek: that's been accepted with a bunch of prior practice at w3c 00:28:32 .. the spec has a "here's where you go to discuss it" section 00:28:41 ... some peopel say github, some say email 00:28:47 ... and we promise to respond to comments here 00:28:57 ... if you send feedback elsewhere we don't guarantee a response 00:29:28 PROPOSED: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github as the github procedure for the Social WG 00:29:31 sandro: can we just please have it all on github instead of per document? 00:29:39 tantek: that seems to be the emerging trend 00:30:02 Rhiaro made 4 edits to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87077&oldid=0 00:30:03 Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87074&oldid=87071 00:30:04 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87075&oldid=87073 00:30:08 +1 00:30:21 +1 00:31:15 +1 00:31:17 sandro: on the first bullet i think editors should have the ability to close issues 00:31:55 +1 00:32:09 tantek: one of the antipatterns we saw was that an editor closed an issue because the original topic was adddressed and then someone else reopened it because an unrelated topic in the thread was not addressed, do we have enough language here to address that? 00:32:17 +1 00:32:21 +1 00:32:50 +1 00:33:07 +1 00:33:08 +1 00:33:28 +1 00:33:35 RESOLVED: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github as the github procedure for the Social WG 00:33:38 Arnaud: this is something the whole WG should be made aware of, so we should make a point of going over this on the next telcon or something to make sure everyone is aware 00:33:55 here is the specific version at the point of this resolution: https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/github&oldid=87079 00:34:09 sandro: i'll send an email right now 00:34:37 eprodrom: okay that leaves us with about 30 minutes 00:34:47 eprodrom_ has joined #social 00:34:56 ... how much bandwidth do we have for additional issues on other docs? 00:35:11 cwebber2: i also added a new item to the agenda 00:36:07 cwebber2: we'd like to add myself as a co-editor of activitypump 00:36:15 tantek: sounds good to me 00:36:26 RESOLVED: add cwebber as co-editor of activity pump 00:36:29 TOPIC: post type discovery 00:36:37 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery 00:36:40 tantek: i feel pretty good about the state of the algorithm, it's been pretty stable for a while 00:37:01 ... what i want to do is to make a call similar to the social web protocols document, if people know of any issues that would be a FPWD blocker, to file them by the next telcon 00:37:29 ... with the intent that I will try to address those issues so that we can take it to FPWD, perhaps even to take both the protocols documetn and this at the same time 00:37:49 ... i want to bring this up. it's come up several times as a piece that's useful for building things 00:37:53 sandro: i'm still confused about its role 00:38:10 rhiaro: it's useful to go for something where type is implied through properties (microformats) to something with specific types (activitystreams) 00:38:21 ... so it's obviously useful, but is it like WG useful or just useful? 00:38:55 tantek: James said it's useful even outside of microforamts, because the type property in AS is optional, so if you want to build a system that is dependent on type, you could use it to fill in that type 00:39:08 rhiaro: but AS doesn't have implied types 00:39:13 tantek: AS still has photos and such 00:39:36 q+ to discuss relation with webmention 00:39:53 rhiaro: okay i just thought there weren't enough semantically relevant properties 00:40:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87078&oldid=87077 00:40:03 Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87079&oldid=87078 00:40:16 q+ 00:40:43 tantek: type is optional, i don't know why, but it is. the purpose is to use this to determine type. 00:41:12 bengo: i think James said this sort of thing is useful, but the way it's written right now is too specific, i'l file an issue 00:41:19 rhiaro: maybe if we cangeneralize it that might help 00:41:28 tantek: feel free to open a vague issue and i'll see what i can do 00:41:42 q+ 00:41:46 q- 00:41:53 tantek: there are at least 2 implementations 00:41:58 https://github.com/kylewm/mf2util/commit/a8022f0f3d55f01092950e83b7469dfaa0fda736#diff-3c3ead965eeae244bb47a174c2ba277aR287 00:42:02 q- 00:42:07 ... kyle impleemnted it for his reader 00:42:09 q? 00:42:16 q? 00:42:19 ack aaronpk 00:42:19 aaronpk, you wanted to discuss relation with webmention 00:42:19 ... he used his implementation to present posts differently 00:42:29 scribenick: eprodrom 00:42:42 aaronpk: PTD is also useful for Webmention 00:42:57 aaronpk: I would like to reference it. When you receive a post, you can identify it. 00:43:05 tantek: potential future dependency 00:43:38 http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html#resolution03 00:44:10 http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html#resolution14 00:44:17 q? 00:45:04 scribenick: aaronpk 00:45:12 PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible by next telecon 12/8 00:45:35 +1 00:45:36 +1 00:45:42 +1 00:46:05 +1 00:46:18 +1 00:46:20 +1 00:46:21 0 00:46:24 -0 not comfortable with how it fits in, but not interested in raising an issue 00:46:57 +1 00:46:57 RESOLVED: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible by next telecon 12/8 00:47:10 eprodrom: i think that takes care of PTD 00:47:24 ... that wraps us up except for closing additional issues 00:47:43 sandro I filed https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery/issues/4 for you - I hope that captures your question. 00:47:49 ... i for one would rather spend the next 10 minutes using my brain or somehow trying to revive it so i'm not sure trying to dig into additional issues is the best use of the next 10 minutes 00:47:57 ... so i'd like to adjourn and see you in march 00:48:02 *applause* 00:48:09 trackbot, close meeting 00:48:09 Sorry, eprodrom, I don't understand 'trackbot, close meeting'. Please refer to for help. 00:48:18 trackbot, end meeting 00:48:18 Zakim, list attendees 00:48:18 As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, 00:48:21 ... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo 00:48:26 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 00:48:26 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html trackbot 00:48:27 RRSAgent, bye 00:48:27 I see 3 open action items saved in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-actions.rdf : 00:48:27 ACTION: aaronpk publish new editor's draft of webmention before next telcon [1] 00:48:27 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-irc#T18-55-46 00:48:27 ACTION: eprodrom to Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements [2] 00:48:27 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-irc#T21-13-46 00:48:27 ACTION: Sandro to bring issue to i18n [3] 00:48:27 recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-irc#T22-49-36