16:56:54 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:56:54 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-social-irc
16:56:56 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:56:56 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:56:58 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:56:58 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:56:59 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:56:59 <trackbot> Date: 05 April 2016
16:57:01 <annbass> present+
16:57:11 <Arnaud> agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-04-05
16:57:13 <Arnaud> chair: Arnaud
16:57:24 <Arnaud> regrets: tantek, evanpro, jasnell
16:57:40 <annbass> present+
16:58:29 <aaronpk> present+
16:58:47 <Arnaud> present+
16:58:55 <cwebber2> present+
16:58:58 <Karli> present+
16:59:07 <wilkie> present+
17:00:26 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
17:01:40 <shevski> present+
17:01:46 <cwebber2> added regrets on tsyesika's behalf
17:02:14 <bengo> present+
17:03:26 <shevski> sandro: you here?
17:04:02 <rhiaro> present+
17:05:33 <annbass_> annbass_ has joined #social
17:05:45 <annbass_> scribenick, annbass_
17:06:00 <wilkie> scribe: annbass_
17:06:47 <bengo> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-03-29-minutes
17:06:52 <Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 2016-03-29
17:07:04 <annbass_> approval of minutes from 3/9
17:07:13 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve Minutes of 2016-03-29
17:07:17 <annbass_> no objections
17:07:27 <sandro> present+
17:07:38 <annbass_> review of drafts ..
17:07:50 <sandro> sorry, shevski, got delayed
17:08:01 <annbass_> ActivityStreams .. both jasnell and evanp sent regrets (the editors)
17:08:19 <annbass_> there are issues that need to be resolved
17:08:35 <annbass_> arnaud talked w jasnell yesterday, to understand status of issues
17:08:36 <Arnaud> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
17:08:43 <annbass_> 11 open issues
17:08:59 <annbass_> several are just questions or editorial, not blocking issues
17:09:13 <annbass_> those won't be a big deal
17:09:31 <annbass_> three labelled "CR", owned by Evan
17:10:02 <Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-04-05]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98036&oldid=98035
17:10:02 <annbass_> for those, Evan just needs to update draft according to those 3 issues
17:10:21 <annbass_> not really technical, have to do with exit criteria
17:10:42 <annbass_> after those, 3-4 issues to deal with
17:11:42 <annbass_> #289 ... group resolved at F2F, jasnell had a previous objection, but wasn't at meeting .. he now says he'll back off
17:11:48 <bengo> cool
17:12:17 <bengo> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/289
17:12:32 <bengo> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/300
17:12:33 <shevski> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/300
17:12:40 <annbass_> #300 ... scope versus context
17:12:51 <bengo> kk
17:13:52 <annbass_> they are different, but maybe that's not clear
17:14:44 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #social
17:14:45 <cwebber2> q+
17:15:17 <cwebber2> q-
17:15:18 <jaywink> jaywink has joined #social
17:15:44 <wilkie> I can scribe then
17:15:51 <annbass> annbass has joined #social
17:15:59 <cwebber2> I'll leave my comment on ticket
17:16:03 <annbass> scribenick: annbass
17:16:10 <cwebber2> q+
17:16:13 <annbass> proposal: rename "scope" to "audience"
17:16:19 <cwebber2> :)
17:16:20 <Arnaud> ack cwebber2
17:16:28 <Arnaud>  ack cwebber
17:17:14 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/#audienceTargeting
17:17:42 <annbass> cwebber:  "audience" seems confusing .. in that, the AS vocabulary may overlap and be slightly diff
17:17:55 <annbass> .. not a blocker, but we should consider
17:18:25 <annbass> bengo: I had similar reaction, but worried it might be late in game to raise it
17:18:48 <annbass> ann: if it's not clear to several people; might be worth resolving
17:19:15 <annbass> bengo: probly not worth resolving .. none of our engineers have been confused or have balked
17:19:25 <shevski> they weren't confused by 'scope' ?
17:19:25 <annbass> arnaud: alternative would be clarify the spec
17:19:47 <annbass> bengo: maybe add some cross-links
17:20:03 <cwebber2> seems good
17:20:07 <annbass> ... I'll propose that in github discussion
17:20:32 <annbass> arnaud: we should check with dmitriz, since he raised the issue
17:20:39 <annbass> ... anything else on #300?
17:20:50 <annbass> ... if not, we'll move on
17:20:51 <dmitriz> I'd definitely prefer to see it renamed to audience
17:20:58 <cwebber2> I can represent this
17:21:00 <dmitriz> but clarifying and cross-linking is always good.
17:21:01 <annbass> .. next 2 are perhaps more controversial
17:21:09 <Arnaud> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/301
17:21:11 <annbass> #301
17:21:50 <annbass> cwebber2: context: earlier we removed all "un___" words (eg undo, unfollow, ...)
17:22:18 <annbass> ... then tyesika and I realized some complexity ..
17:22:42 <annbass> ... if you had a "create" then you'd have to wrap the "undo" around the "create"
17:23:06 <annbass> ... problem is that you might have to dig too far back into history to find the "create"
17:23:57 <annbass> ... actually .. it's not "create", bcuz undoing a create is a "delete"
17:24:25 <annbass> ... maybe undoing a "follow" is better example
17:24:32 <annbass> ... not sure how to represent in AS
17:25:02 <annbass> ... challenge is to figure out how we do things in ActivityPub
17:25:14 <annbass> ... AS allows you to specify multiple types
17:26:32 <cwebber2> the challenge is you have to dig up the original activity to wrap it with undo
17:26:34 <annbass> (annbass asks cwebber to amplify in minutes)
17:26:49 <cwebber2> unless you could wrap [undo, like]
17:26:51 <cwebber2> etc
17:26:53 <annbass> arnaud: jasnell wants a concrete proposal on this
17:27:06 <annbass> ... sounds like cwebber has a proposal .. could you add that to github?
17:27:36 <annbass> cwebber: yes, but how to handle?  should we close this one and add a new one? or ... ??
17:28:47 <annbass> bengo: sounds like an undo on an activity that I can't find .. I'd be ok to receive a 404 or message that it can't be processed for some reason
17:28:57 <annbass> cwebber: are people OK with combining types?
17:29:14 <annbass> bengo: I'd be curious what jasnell thinks
17:29:47 <annbass> cwebber: yes .. I'll put something in github
17:29:56 <annbass> arnaud: sounds like a good plan
17:30:09 <annbass> ... any other comments on #301?
17:30:13 <bengo> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/292
17:30:14 <annbass> ... next: #292
17:30:45 <annbass> ... cwebber, can you describe this? you were in the discussion
17:31:04 <annbass> ... jasnell told me, he doesn't think there is a problem on this
17:31:41 <annbass> ... AS vocabulary already supports everything needed.. if it's something else, he'd want a concrete proposal
17:32:13 <annbass> cwebber: I'm still confused; did he clarify how he thinks everything is already supported?
17:32:59 <annbass> bengo: I'm not really up-to-date, but I tend to agree with Jasnell's last point (in github discussion)
17:33:49 <annbass> <lost cwebber's question .. and bengo's answer .. discussing a detailed example of a tombstone>
17:34:36 <annbass> <if this needs to be captured, someone else should help>
17:35:21 <annbass> cwebber: when I fetch an object, how do I get <time it was done>?
17:35:48 <annbass> bengo:  to me, if something is deleted, why does it still show up
17:36:15 <annbass> cwebber: I'm not asking that; I want to know when the thing was deleted
17:36:37 <annbass> ... I don't think this should hold things up, but not clear
17:36:57 <annbass> bengo: duality between metadata in JSON vs metadata in HTTP
17:37:16 <KevinMarks> replicating a tombstone over a post is safer than relying on it to be deleted
17:38:04 <annbass> <discussion about doing with 410 or via extension or ... >
17:38:29 <annbass> arnaud: in thread, jasnell is sugg you get a 404
17:38:45 <dmitriz> dmitriz has left #social
17:38:49 <annbass> cwebber: trying to read quickly ..
17:38:59 <annbass> .. he also doesn't specify the time thing
17:39:26 <annbass> arnaud: he does 2 things: deletes object, but also adds "updated, with time stamp"
17:39:41 <annbass> cwebber: if you're pulling things from a collection of activities, that makes sense
17:39:46 <annbass> ... yes, works for me
17:40:09 <annbass> ... I didn't understand how the timestamp works for foreign object (?)
17:40:14 <annbass> .. I'm fine to close it
17:40:30 <wilkie> that seems ok
17:40:37 <annbass> arnaud: conclusion: cwebber accepts jasnell's proposal
17:40:57 <annbass> ... ok, sounds like we can close #292
17:41:06 <annbass> ... quite close to being done with this
17:41:14 <annbass> ... leave AS for today
17:41:31 <annbass> ... moving on.. hoping for test suite update, but Evan not here
17:42:11 <annbass> ... aaronpk -- a couple issues with WebMention, for which you want feedback
17:42:35 <annbass> aaronpk: we talked about them last week, but just didn't have time to resolve and mark 'closed'
17:42:43 <annbass> arnaud:  ok, sounds good
17:42:52 <annbass> ... any other topics to bring up?
17:43:01 <Arnaud> q?
17:43:09 <annbass> ... hearing nothing, we'll close the meeting
17:43:16 <annbass> ... OK, thanks ..
17:43:26 <annbass> bye
17:43:28 <shevski> thank you Arnaud & annbass :)
17:43:29 <wilkie> thanks
17:43:31 <wilkie> annbass++
17:43:32 <Loqi> annbass has 1 karma
17:43:38 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
17:43:38 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
17:43:38 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been annbass, aaronpk, Arnaud, cwebber, Karli, wilkie, shevski, bengo, rhiaro, sandro
17:43:46 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:43:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/04/05-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:43:47 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
17:43:47 <RRSAgent> I see no action items