16:02:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:02:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/06/06-social-irc
16:02:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:02:40 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:02:40 <Lloyd_Fassett> >> Evan: We'll start, Tantek is on the way
16:02:42 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:02:42 <Zakim> ok, trackbot
16:02:43 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:02:43 <trackbot> Date: 06 June 2016
16:02:55 <eprodrom> scribe: Lloyd_Fassett
16:02:59 <eprodrom> chair: eprodrom
16:03:49 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-31-minutes
16:04:13 <eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes for 2016-05-31
16:04:48 <eprodrom> +1
16:04:51 <rhiaro> +1
16:04:55 <cwebber2> ~1
16:04:55 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: 7 resolutions in the last minutes
16:04:56 <cwebber2> ugh
16:04:57 <cwebber2> +1
16:04:58 <aaronpk> +1
16:05:00 <sandro> +1
16:05:10 <paul> +1
16:05:13 <taehwan> +1
16:05:22 <eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes for 2016-05-31
16:06:33 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: next important thing is to build the agenda for the next 16 hours of F2F.
16:06:52 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Review documentation
16:06:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom:Implementations
16:07:11 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom:Are there preferences on time for thosse?
16:07:36 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: ...sounds like not...editing wiki
16:07:45 <Lloyd_Fassett> with schedule details
16:10:27 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: maybe we should do a strategic review 9:30 - 10..or once Tantek arrives..strategy for next 6 months.  Then 30 minutes for future development of IG.
16:11:31 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-06#June_6
16:13:32 <aaronpk> can you hear okay?
16:13:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> yes, fine
16:15:00 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: <scheduling and updating tomorrow's schedule>
16:16:14 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: As chair I approve the agenda..I don't think we need a vote..we'll see what Tantek thinks when he arrives
16:16:31 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We don't have pubsubhubbub on the list.
16:16:43 <Lloyd_Fassett> Rhiaro: or a subscription service
16:17:09 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: we'll put that on tomorrow afternoon with a question mark...it seems to come up a lot without a lot of action
16:17:14 <aaronpk> trackbot, this meeting spans midnight
16:17:14 <trackbot> Sorry, aaronpk, I don't understand 'trackbot, this meeting spans midnight'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
16:17:46 <aaronpk> RRSAgent, this meeting spans midnight
16:18:10 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: where we get into PSHB is IP issues with Google...they were going to put the IP under public license but their isn't documentation that they've done so...conversation seems to get into a grey area around IP.
16:18:41 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: that leaves us about 3 hrs of buffer tomorrow afternoon
16:18:56 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: anymore agenda building or agenda issues?
16:19:40 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: I have 9:20 lets talk about our strategy for the next 6 months.  I can start with a STate of the State on WG
16:20:01 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: As of now we have 4 specs on track for recomendation
16:20:45 <Lloyd_Fassett> Snadro: formally we're keepoing Social WEb protocos on Rec Track
16:21:30 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: One has made the transition to recommendation (Webmention)...one that we are moving AS2 is being moved to Recommendation
16:21:41 <aaronpk> s/Snadro/Sandro
16:21:54 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Question for Sandro, we have 7 months left on our charter, is it reasonable to get it done?
16:22:04 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: if we stay on target, yes.
16:22:21 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: If we throw something over at last second...
16:22:41 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: I'm not sure, management is getting more strict.
16:22:52 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: The clock is ticking, good
16:22:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> according to the process doc (from memory) anything not a REC when the group closes, becomes a note
16:23:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: It seems like we have the documents with the most momentum have made it.  There is some issue if we should keep supporting all 4, or select 1 or 2 or 3.  I think it's unlikely
16:24:17 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We don't have a lot of resource contention
16:24:32 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: We have a F2F in SEpt
16:24:59 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: this is important. It's in Lisbon. Who will be there?  I will go if we meet there.
16:25:20 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: 22 - 23 Sept
16:25:21 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2016/09/TPAC/
16:25:33 <sandro> (but go for the 21st if you're going)
16:25:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: It would be useful for our group to have a presence there and promote documents to CR status.
16:26:13 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We should be at CR for all the documents in this meeting
16:26:35 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: might be an issue is AS2 doesn't include all the vocabulary terms.
16:26:48 <Lloyd_Fassett> Aaronpk: How much of a document can change after CR?
16:27:11 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: editoriral...anything that changes an implementation is not ok.
16:27:33 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: It's a catch 22..we'd only drop vocab if they weren't being implemented...
16:27:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> that was going to be my next question, marking at risk
16:28:06 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We used an At Risk flag before to signify things that might come out after CR
16:28:23 <Lloyd_Fassett> <Tantek arrived>
16:28:50 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tanktek: I thought that was only for the first CR?
16:28:54 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: possibly
16:30:12 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: if you wnat to make non-normative changes that are not At Risk...if there are specific features as the editor, would you want to wait, or go to PR?  It's a judgement call.  If you get one implementation that's one thing, if you get two.
16:30:41 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/#revised-cr
16:30:48 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
16:30:52 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Sounds like it's a likely situation for AS@ that we will have a large part of vocab not implemented, then we'd have to have another CR, which we should be prepared for.
16:31:00 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: you still need 4 weeks.
16:31:13 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tanktek: you can communicate that as your intent.
16:31:37 <tantek> s/Tanktek/Tantek
16:31:54 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: We have said that we want to see each of the vocab terms to have 2 implementations that show meaningful understanding
16:32:14 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: we came to this because we're discussing if we should meet at TPAC
16:33:01 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tanktek: we can turn documents into Notes too, which is useful if we don't get rechartered or another group brings it up.
16:33:25 <tantek> s/Tanktek/Tantek
16:33:59 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: I believe the energy and resources of this group are at best to publish the 6 documents.  I don't think we have resources to take on new tasks.
16:35:46 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: as background, each of the documents had work in them before coming to the group...as an outside Open Source project or other...if someone has a new idea the chances of success are greater if it's incubated informally before being brought to the group.
16:36:34 <Lloyd_Fassett> Paul: (contributions I missed on clarity around the process)
16:36:55 <Lloyd_Fassett> Paul after CR can we add new features
16:37:05 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: we would need a new CR
16:38:10 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: I've seen implentations with existing interop go back to CR.  We can debate it.  I"m just giving you the background
16:38:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: Micropub and Activity Pub are what we are looking at for tomorrow
16:39:44 <Lloyd_Fassett> Cwebber2: I don't think that's possible.  Both Jessica and I have had life changing things....can we really go to CR without implentations of Acitivty Pub?  I think we need implemtation
16:40:02 <Lloyd_Fassett> Rhiaro: I implented it last week and had question.
16:40:04 <tantek> rhiaro++ for helping implement ActivityPub and surface implementation issues
16:40:07 <Loqi> rhiaro has 206 karma
16:40:23 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Will it be ready for CR before Sept?  Maybe?
16:41:37 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: We have a partial implementation for Wordpress.  I count that because it's outputting the feed.
16:42:07 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: conceptually it's in good shape, editorially it's lagging.
16:43:33 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: Since we're going forward with no At Risk features in AS2 are we going ahead with it?  This is a good signal to implementors, we telling them that they need to implement things they really want as warning and incentive they know they need to ship.
16:43:34 <ben_thatmustbeme> broadcasting that implementors NEED to implement features they want, sounds good
16:43:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> Andro: as an implementator I'd like to see that as a note that calls out what's being watched,
16:44:09 <eprodrom> http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams-core/#exit-criteria
16:44:26 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: I would take that as a signal to really implement an item.  This is a suggestion to Evan, not a request
16:45:11 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: In terms of exit criteria, the note says you have to have a meaningful implementation
16:45:42 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: As I read it an implentor would not feel the urgency.
16:46:33 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: It's common in W3C to have a spec last for years in CR.
16:47:53 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: now every Charter renewal goes to Advisory because they saw groups not making progress...wanted to force WG's to show progress.  We are showing progress, but we need to show interest from membership companies.  We haven't been successful with that to date.
16:48:17 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We should be public with deadlines.
16:48:37 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: something like the end of the summer
16:49:25 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: AFter we go to CR, that takes 2 weeks, 4 weeks in CR, 2 weeks to go to PR.  We need to decide to go to CR 12 weeks before our charter ends.
16:49:35 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Expecting optimal behavior
16:49:53 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: We publish in January
16:51:24 <tantek> present+
16:51:36 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: to summarize, last chance, with an *, is at the F2F in Lisbon to go to CR.  Much better option is to go to CR before that.
16:52:45 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: My expectation is that there will not be significant social work after CR until implementations come back.  It doesn't feel like there's anything in chute for January 1.
16:54:00 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: there has been an uptick in Webmention since it went to CR.  I imgine the same effect with AS2.  Optimistically I hope to see people come out of the wood work.  We should look for that and ride that wave.  RIght now I agree with Evan, but I hope we're altering it
16:54:51 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: We've built up instituional knowledge about the social web landscape. Is there something we can identify as reasonable and useful to recommend.
16:54:59 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: like Social Web Protocols
16:55:17 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tanktek: I want to see PSHB
16:55:44 <tantek> q+ to mention possible outcomes of dweb
16:55:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: with the necesary humility that we don't know what the world will look like in 2018
16:57:03 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: 2017 workshop at the earliest May?  W3C measures success by how many people show up...one could do a state of the Social Web...I don't know when there will be energy for that, but it's a thing someone could start to figure out.
16:58:45 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: do we want to aim for the path to get charter renewal, or plan for letting the group close and start a new group.  Something this group has achieved is a culture of moving multiple approaches forward where they a more than civil but synergystic.  I think that's a unique thing and I don't want to lose that.
16:59:05 <Lloyd_Fassett> cwebber: I strongly agree.  Would it be better to decide this at the next F2F?
16:59:40 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: it will be much clearer in 3 months.
17:00:38 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: At TPAC there's a time where we can popularize the work
17:01:43 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: like the last last Plenary.  If we do another one I expect a group.  We can tell them our charter expires in 3 months.  We can ask for support.  If we got enough AC support, that's all we need.
17:02:15 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: I heard Sapporo was contencious.  It heard it was about personalities.
17:02:17 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
17:02:44 <Lloyd_Fassett> cwebber2: Was it about different stack type of argument? We might be able to keep things pretty happy
17:02:51 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
17:03:12 <ben_thatmustbeme> i think the collaboration we are getting between the different communities is actually one of the really great reasons to keep the WG going
17:03:16 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: I agree we  were underresprented.  We got a lot of folks that were not involved with the WG but were strongly objecting.
17:03:59 <Lloyd_Fassett> Rhiaro: I remember the meeting going better than expected.  There was debate but I didn't see anyone was particularly agressive.
17:04:43 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: On a practical level on extending a Charting.  I think we'll lose Araund and James Snell.  They've said that.  It would be a different kind of chartering process.
17:07:33 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: usually you see the large industry players show up and you know you're in good shape.  We had Sam Goto
17:08:44 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: We've drifted..if we get documents to CR, I'm not sure we have a burning purpose for this group beyond that.  If we do have a purpose, we might want to identify that.  Webextensions? additional vocabularies?
17:10:19 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: If we want to extend we need a new charter with new work items,  We need that to be prepared in advance.  If it 's not clear by Sept.  We can't really justify a renewal, but if there is a list we should go for it. I think there will be a need sooner rather than later for Vouch.
17:11:05 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: What about a situation where Micropub has been going through implementations, changes, exciting, but we need more time?
17:12:00 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: We'd ask for a 3 months extension, not a Charter renewal.  It might go to AC, but it's less contentious.  The point is to let the group wrap something up.
17:14:50 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: the outcome ....let's talk about IG.
17:16:56 <aaronpk> http://www.decentralizedweb.net/
17:17:01 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tatek: one last thing about the prospect of change...the two days after this meeting is a Decentralized Web Summit, Tim is also attending, in addition to Vint Cerf.  I could see some critical mass coming out of that, though it's unpredictable.  The probably goes up with the profiles of the poeple attending.  I'll be there. Sandro will be there.  It's not W3C.  It's being hosted by the Internet Archive.
17:17:10 <eprodrom> http://www.decentralizedweb.net/
17:17:17 <Lloyd_Fassett> We moved this meeting so it wouldn't conflict.
17:17:26 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: I'll try to attend one day
17:17:41 <Lloyd_Fassett> cwebber2: I'd have to rebook flights...I'll have to see
17:18:12 <sandro> https://www.w3.org/2016/04/blockchain-workshop/
17:18:27 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: W3C is hosting a blockchain workshop at MIT
17:18:51 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Bitmessage...microblogging over the blockchain.
17:19:18 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Blockchain is very unwebby.
17:19:58 <Lloyd_Fassett> Tantek: who knows what can happen over the next two days.
17:20:20 <KevinMarks> There is a "builders day" tomorrow before the public day weds
17:21:20 <Lloyd_Fassett> Sandro: my point was about industry participation.  It used to be Microsoft ruled the world..then we got around the internet...I was expecting people to team up against Facebook....Google seems like the obvious candidate, but they have internal conflicts.
17:21:34 <Lloyd_Fassett> eprodrom: Google Buzz covered AS and PSHB pretty well.
17:21:37 <rhiaro> scribe: rhiaro
17:21:38 <tantek> KevinMarks are you going to the builders day?
17:22:01 <rhiaro> Lloyd_Fassett: I spoke with AnnB, she thinsk we'll close the IG as I was the only one who responded about who wants to keep going
17:22:08 <rhiaro> ... I expect something formal will come from her
17:22:15 <rhiaro> sandro: the IG is shutting down. Turning into a CG?
17:22:18 <rhiaro> Lloyd_Fassett: Yes
17:22:49 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
17:22:49 <rhiaro> ... I think the purpose of the next two days is to comment about wrapping up the IG's input into the process
17:22:56 <rhiaro> ... It does have some indication of things that could help for a new charter
17:23:20 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
17:23:31 <rhiaro> ... Particularly recent comments about MS to internet to facebook, are we building something that can challenge facebook? THe w3c is largely still being directed by large industry players, but I think the social web is about challenging what industry does and hwo they make their revenue
17:23:37 <rhiaro> ... I think there's a core conflict that would be hard to overcome
17:23:58 <rhiaro> ... I haven't thought about the distributed web as strongly as tantek, but there might be ar eally good opportunity to look for something for this group to coalesce around for distributed web standards
17:24:15 <rhiaro> ... For the two years I've been involved, I'm coming at this as an entrepreneur figuring out decentralised collaboration
17:24:20 <rhiaro> ... This group felt more like social networking
17:24:26 <rhiaro> ... I'm trying to build something that changes a funciton, a process
17:24:44 <rhiaro> ... So for me, if IBM is only going to do it if it's in their interest, or google, they've moved to just defending revenue streams
17:24:50 <rhiaro> ... That's in conflict with enabling individuals to collaborate
17:24:52 <KevinMarks> Yes, I'm going to builders day tomorrow. Will record what I can (not sure if Chatham House Rules)
17:25:10 <rhiaro> ... The thing about the decentralised summit.. maybe the people there and their interests, can further move what this work has been
17:25:13 <sandro> maybe a Decentralized Web Applications Working Group    :-)
17:25:23 <rhiaro> ... Just hard to get  people who want to fund it and put time in when there isn't some revenue stream
17:25:40 <rhiaro> ... The things that are of interest to me are trying to figure out ways to crowdsource and standardise vocabularies
17:25:51 <rhiaro> ... The decentralised web is decentralising the way industries are set up
17:25:56 <rhiaro> ... It's gonna be somewhat hard to find interest
17:26:08 <rhiaro> ... I think if we reach out to people that have objectives to do something like that
17:26:15 <rhiaro> ... There's a better chance of getting things adopted and better used
17:26:23 <rhiaro> ... There's a lot to unpack
17:26:41 <rhiaro> ... THe subtext is that the IG didn't contribute a lot. We did put forward use cases that were specifically about collaboration
17:26:58 <rhiaro> ... My personal industry is healthcare recruiting, but that's a figment. The asparagus seller use case is the same thing
17:27:10 <rhiaro> ... that's very different than tagging people in a picture
17:27:15 <rhiaro> ... However, very impressed to see the implementations
17:27:25 <rhiaro> ... Those types of things can be a good step towards doing something that's about making processes more efficient
17:27:28 <rhiaro> ... and enabling individuals
17:27:41 <tantek> s/implementations/implementations from the IndieWeb these past few days
17:27:44 <rhiaro> ... but the whole thing about enabling individuals, the decentralised web is about decentralsing the power of big businesses
17:27:53 <rhiaro> ... The w3c is being directed by members who are not so jiggy with that
17:28:17 <rhiaro> eprodrom: When we were chartered we had this continuation of the open social concept, a backbone within enterprise, you could buy these social applications from different vendors and they would all work together
17:28:26 <rhiaro> ... You could swap out backbones and they'd still work together
17:28:45 <rhiaro> ... I think the cominbination of the fact we haven't had a lot of participation from opensocial implementors so that voice has not been brought out here
17:29:05 <rhiaro> ... This might be a little bit predictiony, but my idea is that social within enterprise has changed from the activity stream model to more along the conversation format that you see in say a slack or a hipchat
17:29:13 <rhiaro> ... We're seeing a sea change in the enterpirse use of social from streams to chat
17:29:23 <rhiaro> ... Which has made that story of having applications that run in the stream work together less compelling
17:29:40 <rhiaro> ... All of which is to say that I think the story that we had about developoing business cases fromthe IG at the chartering time has reflected that world
17:29:50 <rhiaro> ... I don't think it's necessarily our job to force the hand of anyone to change that
17:29:56 <rhiaro> ... We can't necessarily whip up enthusiasm if it's not there
17:30:17 <rhiaro> Lloyd_Fassett :I think a part of coming in to the whole  process a couple of years ago is an innovation period
17:30:27 <rhiaro> ... The bes tprocess when something has been incubated from the outside and then brought to w3c
17:30:43 <rhiaro> ... Probably a lot of people in the world they would like to share and have standardised so it can gain adoption. Maybe more outreach could be a useful thing
17:30:55 <rhiaro> tantek: I expect a bunch of us will be trying to do outreach the next couple of days after the f2f
17:31:09 <rhiaro> ... sandro, rhiaro, kevinmarks, eprodrom for a day, me, we're all pretty active
17:31:13 <rhiaro> ... If we're all talking to people
17:31:20 <rhiaro> Lloyd_Fassett: I think there's a real need for that
17:31:27 <rhiaro> ... If there's non-large-compnay interest in doing some decentralisesd web
17:31:38 <rhiaro> ... I just want to direct it towards a use case in collaboration, crowdsourcing
17:31:51 <rhiaro> ... If we can standardise crowdsourced information in a way that it can be reused
17:32:07 <rhiaro> ... Something that enables people to solve a problem for less cost or allows you to aggregate more information
17:32:16 <rhiaro> tantek: may just be a problem space that's more social, political and economic than it is technical
17:32:35 <rhiaro> ... It may be a space where a technical solution no matter how awesome won't work and you end up siloing that information however
17:32:45 <rhiaro> ... like wikipedia
17:32:53 <rhiaro> sandro: a lot of peopel think of wikipedia as highly decentralised
17:32:57 <rhiaro> tantek: ?!
17:33:06 <rhiaro> sandro: in a technical sense it's not
17:33:19 <rhiaro> ... but distributed control. eg. compared to Britannica it's radically more decentralised
17:33:27 <rhiaro> ... I've seen wikipedia used as an example of decentralisation
17:33:39 <rhiaro> eprodrom: We have got to our limit for this topic
17:33:46 <rhiaro> ... Do we have action items from this discussion?
17:34:04 <rhiaro> ... Seems that we have at least an expectation that we'll be putting into SWP future directions
17:34:15 <rhiaro> ... Are there other concrete actions that we have coming out of this discussion?
17:34:40 <rhiaro> tantek: the one new thing is to suggest that for those who think we're going to want to recharter in december that any time between now and december would be a great time to be incubating things that you would expec tto put into the charter
17:35:01 <rhiaro> ... If you look at the charter now, written 2/3 years ago, what actually came of the group was something that was mentioned explicitly in the charter
17:35:13 <rhiaro> ... For the most part what we've produced is stuff that was mentioned by name
17:35:23 <rhiaro> ... So looking forward I would expect a future charter to succeed based on explicit things named in that
17:35:31 <rhiaro> ... So anyone who wants to put things there should start incubating asap
17:35:45 <rhiaro> eprodrom: would it make sense for us to collaboratively produce a next charter?
17:35:48 <rhiaro> sandro: that is ocmmonly done
17:35:56 <rhiaro> eprodrom: if we were to recharter, this is what we think it would be like
17:36:05 <rhiaro> ... We don't necessarily take that forward, but if we put that together
17:36:10 <rhiaro> tantek: we could block otu time at september tpac
17:36:15 <rhiaro> ... half or full day on rechartering
17:36:27 <rhiaro> sandro: my concern is we have to actually talk to people who might want to sign on
17:36:32 <rhiaro> ... If it's just us we're not going to have enough people
17:36:43 <rhiaro> eprodrom: but if we have one that *we* don't want to sign on for, it's unlikely we can convince anyone else
17:36:49 <rhiaro> tantek: our f2f is after the plenary, thu-fri
17:37:03 <rhiaro> ... if we can plan on doing a breakout session at tpac that's a place where we can float potential charter items to a broader set of people
17:37:27 <rhiaro> sandro: I'd like to understand whether we're trying to appeal to people as individuals with political and moral stances, or more traditional w3c space appeal to business and what makes good business sense
17:37:33 <rhiaro> ... Making this stuff make good business sense is pretty hard to do
17:37:45 <rhiaro> ... open social did it for a little while, but we seem to have not been able to tell that story
17:37:57 <rhiaro> ... facebook has not turned into an existential threat for others
17:38:02 <rhiaro> tantek: times are not desparate enough
17:38:16 <rhiaro> Lloyd_Fassett: I think there's a conflict between being driven towards businesses vs being driven towards invidiuals
17:38:22 <rhiaro> ... Some more methodological way of finding people might help
17:38:34 <rhiaro> ... I think a recharter would be more exciting if it included some data
17:38:37 <rhiaro> ... a lot of the work here is social first
17:38:42 <rhiaro> ... but I don' thave magic bullets for that
17:38:50 <rhiaro> ... maybe somethign will come up ath the decentralised web summit about that
17:39:07 <rhiaro> ... there are people who have a lot of battle scars from semantic web which was data-first
17:40:10 <rhiaro> eprodrom: We're past time, but I'd like to amend our agenda so we do implementation updates starting at 11 then half hour for SWP then possibly more this afternoon
17:40:36 <rhiaro> ... And we can take a 15 minute break before 11. Whatever time we save before 11 can be a break
17:41:04 <rhiaro> ... I mentioned earlier that social interactions within enterprises has been moving towards conversation/chat oriented. Slack is the leader here
17:41:10 <rhiaro> ... is there a place for us in providing specifications around that?
17:41:20 <rhiaro> sandro: the bizarre thing there is that what does slack do that irc doesn't?
17:41:23 <rhiaro> various: a lot
17:41:30 <rhiaro> cwebber2: the main thing is an interface that makes it really friendly
17:41:32 <rhiaro> ... integration with contacts
17:41:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> it looks pretty
17:41:41 <rhiaro> aaronpk: the main thing it does is run everywhere, which is not to be undervalued
17:42:00 <rhiaro> ... The only reason slack works is because slack the company built all fo the apps. If it were a standard anyone could build apps on any platfors
17:42:07 <rhiaro> tantek: irc is too shitty a standard for a healthy app ecosystem to exist
17:42:20 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
17:42:23 <rhiaro> aaronpk: slack went beyond a provides webhooks to get more
17:42:23 <ben_thatmustbeme> very very easy set up too
17:42:27 <rhiaro> ... irc bots are a hack on top of irc
17:42:31 <rhiaro> ... slack has it built in
17:42:45 <rhiaro> cwebber2: if we used xmpp multi-user chat from a standards perspective is phenomenally written
17:42:48 <rhiaro> ... but the clients are terrible
17:42:56 <rhiaro> eprodrom: a poor developer experience too
17:43:07 <rhiaro> cwebber2: it's a library thing and things like that
17:43:11 <rhiaro> ... the standard is actually quite good
17:43:28 <rhiaro> aaronpk: So many more people write slack intergrations. I think that's a measure of success
17:43:47 <rhiaro> cwebber2: if slack had used xmpp multi user chat, I don't think the standard is the thing, it's pouring billions of dolalrs into UI
17:44:01 <rhiaro> aaronpk: if xmpp multi user chat had as simple interface as slack it would be as used
17:44:09 <rhiaro> eprodrom: if we wanted to chase the trendiest thing..
17:44:13 <rhiaro> sandro: we need a blockchain slack.
17:44:26 <rhiaro> eprodrom: conversational interfaces
17:44:28 <tantek> no
17:44:34 <rhiaro> aaronpk: irc protocol is being actively worked on
17:44:37 <tantek> no Slack is not a member of W3C
17:44:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> thats a shame
17:44:48 <rhiaro> ... doing things like adding proper identity
17:44:59 <rhiaro> eprodrom: this would be a stretch, though it would be fun, a stretch for what we're doing
17:45:05 <rhiaro> ... but maybe something to consider
17:45:17 <rhiaro> ... may be worthwhile for us to think about in terms of is it something that memberhsip would want to happen
17:45:25 <rhiaro> ... That said, big effort to do
17:45:31 <rhiaro> sandro: depends if they view slack as being sufficiently evil
17:45:40 <rhiaro> ... as long as everyone is okay using slack, they don't need to standardise in that space
17:45:47 <rhiaro> ... all the businesses building their business around slack seem comfortable with that
17:46:15 <rhiaro> tantek: we have seen with the examples of twitter and facebook there have been tons of buisness that have been built around eithe rone of those, and ther ehas been a slow attrition of tightening apis, cutting off, etc
17:46:27 <rhiaro> sandro: all the media companies that are built around twitter don't feel threatened or endangered by twitter
17:46:37 <rhiaro> ... if its started to be an unreliable or evil utiliyt they would want some open replacement
17:47:05 <rhiaro> eprodrom: I feel like we've covered the issue of where we stand today, what we're doing over the next 6 months, and what future directions would be
17:47:33 <rhiaro> ... We have some action items to look towards doing a draft charter at the next f2f, that we have some expections of what will go into SWP, as well as some urgency ot move the document swe have along as fast as we possibly can. And implementations
17:47:41 <rhiaro> ... Anything else we need to talk about in terms of strategy for the WG?
17:48:06 <aaronpk> here's the IRC v3 working group http://ircv3.net/
17:48:06 <rhiaro> tantek: If you want something in a charter renewal, an item, scope or deliverable, you need to be incubating it today and be prepared to present it at a breakout session at tpac
17:48:10 <rhiaro> eprodrom: break until 11am
17:48:17 <rhiaro> ... 12 minutes. Then reconvene for demos
17:55:04 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
18:00:03 <Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-06-06]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98581&oldid=98572
18:00:04 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 4 edits to [[Socialwg/2016-06-06]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=98585&oldid=98581
18:00:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> ick, all glare
18:00:27 <ben_thatmustbeme> thanks tantek
18:00:48 <KevinMarks_> KevinMarks_ has joined #social
18:01:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro, demos
18:01:24 <ben_thatmustbeme> exactly
18:01:44 <ben_thatmustbeme> getting on hangouts and screen share would be fine
18:02:14 <aaronpk> it's a little silly but ...
18:02:15 <KevinMarks_> where is the hangout?
18:02:26 <aaronpk> KevinMarks_: linked on the meeting page
18:02:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> KevinMarks_, https://hangouts.google.com/call/u6fcfqgoozgrnpb3g4ru3eqc6ye
18:02:45 <ben_thatmustbeme> just moved the camera to be able to see demos
18:03:34 <KevinMarks_> screensharing was very good for microformats yesterday
18:03:45 <aaronpk> This is what we see now https://aaronparecki.com/media/file-20160606180327-60143.jpeg
18:04:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> sorry aaron, couldn't you just shrink the tripod and not be in everyones way
18:04:43 <ben_thatmustbeme> oh, i guess lloyd sits there
18:04:54 <eprodrom> scribe: sandro
18:05:04 <eprodrom> scribenick: sandro
18:05:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> no they don't do the same
18:05:26 <ben_thatmustbeme> using scribe: sets the persons readable name, scribenick: sets the username
18:05:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> as i understand
18:05:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> and according to the documentation
18:07:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro, i don't think so, i think you need to do scribenick, and scribe is optional
18:07:31 <KevinMarks_> urls are people too
18:07:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> as least that was my reading of the documentation, but haven't looked at the code
18:08:09 <aaronpk> i shrank the tripod but now it might be worse here oh well
18:08:10 <KevinMarks_> or use a twitter hande and look them up
18:08:17 <KevinMarks_> thats my empirical answer
18:08:23 <sandro> topic: demos
18:08:45 <sandro> eprodrom: We might go over and move SWP until later
18:09:13 <sandro> rhiaro: I dump all my photos on my server
18:09:24 <sandro> .. this is activitypub updates
18:10:22 <sandro> .. curl with activitystreams+json of my /food to get AS2 list of photos
18:11:03 <sandro> .. on this server (a DO droplet) I made endpoint that accepted update activity
18:11:14 <sandro> .. no real auth
18:11:25 <sandro> .. made publishing app running on another server
18:11:50 <sandro> .. I can edit stuff about photos, name, date, tags
18:12:20 <sandro> .. it just does AS2 updates
18:12:30 <sandro> .. last f2f I demoed create
18:12:33 <sandro> .. showing again
18:12:39 <sandro> .. four clients that do creates
18:12:51 <sandro> .. food logger
18:14:04 <sandro> .. uses AS2 extensions in my namespace
18:14:10 <sandro> .. checkings
18:14:27 <sandro> s/checkings/check-ins/
18:15:07 <sandro> .. tracking purchases
18:15:46 <sandro> .. I take a photo, scp it to my server, then it appears in this collection
18:16:20 <sandro> .. events + travel plans ----  as events, arrives
18:16:25 <sandro> .. travel activity
18:16:57 <sandro> .. with in-reply-to it's an rsvp
18:17:18 <sandro> .. that's it for as2
18:17:38 <sandro> Lloyd_Fassett: Are you signalling that it's an RSVP
18:17:51 <sandro> rhiaro: using webmention
18:18:17 <sandro> .. shows up indieweb summit rsvp's list
18:18:25 <sandro> .. microformats, turtle, AS2
18:18:34 <sandro> eprodrom: questions!
18:18:56 <sandro> .. feeds?     you seem to post things in different feeds.   Do you have an amy-everything?
18:19:09 <sandro> .. I think that's in AP.   A Feed Of Me
18:19:14 <sandro> rhiaro: I used to.
18:19:45 <sandro> .. My home page is page by month, but it excludes checkins, purchases.    It drops things with explicit types.
18:20:29 <sandro> sandro: every feed is both human-readable HTML + any data feed
18:20:46 <sandro> rhiaro: Yes.   All con-neg.  This is all super simple PHP
18:21:19 <sandro> eprodrom: SOme of this stuff is personal.    You've chosen to make it public.      When I'm publishing, I publish some things only to some audiences.
18:21:37 <sandro> rhiaro: I use "to" for targetting, but not currently for access control
18:21:57 <sandro> .. could have a /to-me page if you're logged in with indieauth
18:22:34 <sandro> tantek: This is an amazing accomplishment.   I like how you've thought through and combined elements, and it even looks nice
18:22:54 <sandro> rhiaro: explanation of microformats + AS2 magic
18:22:54 <tantek> s/it even looks nice/you've made it look nice
18:23:09 <sandro> rhiaro: All of this is blogged about
18:23:20 <sandro> q+ to ask about testing
18:23:25 <tantek> q-
18:23:40 <sandro> cwebber2: Nice to see something done on an individual basis
18:23:53 <sandro> rhiaro: Very much doing it because I wanted it
18:23:56 <sandro> cwebber2: inspiring  :-)
18:24:31 <sandro> eprodrom: Images on flicker, blogs on wp, ... separate feeds.    could/should we have multiple feeds?
18:24:38 <sandro> cwebber2: stream property, in last meeting
18:25:36 <sandro> cwebber2: plugin for blog....      turned out a big problematic
18:26:01 <sandro> rhiaro: I want to publish things in separate feeds
18:26:21 <KevinMarks_> classically activty stremas have a query api
18:26:38 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, i'm having a hard time getting the AS format
18:26:41 <sandro> sandro: having separate feeds is nicely more efficient for rare items
18:26:47 <ben_thatmustbeme> tried   curl -H "Accept: application/activity+json" http://rhiaro.co.uk/
18:26:57 <sandro> rhiaro: This is just client-to-server updates.
18:27:11 <sandro> rhiaro: Completely different from subscription
18:27:35 <sandro> cwebber2: Should AP be two separate specs, c-s and s-s ?
18:27:43 <sandro> cwebber2: Or at least clearly separated.
18:28:03 <sandro> rhiaro: Push should be different
18:28:32 <sandro> eprodrom: What you did was create a rich set of client-server apps
18:28:45 <sandro> eprodrom: Probably after the first one they were pretty easy
18:28:56 <sandro> rhiaro: Yes, I made burrow first then copied & modified
18:29:06 <sandro> rhiaro: Apps auth with indieauth
18:29:28 <sandro> eprodrom: So you've really addressed client-server, and you have some server-to-server in json-out.
18:29:55 <sandro> .. so I could implement a pull-based s-s to see what amy's been eating, but you don't have the push mechanism that we have AP
18:29:59 <sandro> .. strong use case
18:30:24 <sandro> rhiaro: At least F2F we talked about negotiating push-pull model
18:31:14 <sandro> sandro: How does this connect with implementation report
18:31:26 <sandro> rhiaro: I ran it against as2.rocks, and I can list features
18:31:32 <tantek_> tantek_ has joined #social
18:32:41 <sandro> eprodrom: How did we not do an implementation report template?   Oops!
18:33:08 <sandro> aaronpk: You can copy what I did with webmention
18:33:36 <sandro> tantek: We should have this ready for the CR transition call
18:33:59 <sandro> sandro: What about testing consumers?
18:34:31 <sandro> rhiaro: My consumer is mostly blind, but it knows an update is an update, and the obtainium album is built off AS2
18:34:43 <sandro> eprodrom: Nice to list extensions, too
18:35:38 <sandro> sandro: Can we put this feed data in the sample feeds repo?
18:35:44 <sandro> rhiaro: Yes
18:36:07 <sandro> tantek: the way you're using AS1 in the AS2 feed is important to note, for people doing the transition.
18:37:01 <sandro> tantek: rhiaro can you also try doing an implementation report of webmention?
18:37:31 <sandro> rhiaro: I don't have a current implementaiton, I'm using other products (webmention.io and telegraph)
18:38:24 <sandro> topic: Aaron's demo
18:38:48 <sandro> aaronpk: With webmention.rocks
18:39:00 <sandro> .. I've had for a while tests on your ability to send wms
18:39:11 <sandro> .. now there's incomplete support for testing your ability to receive wms
18:39:49 <sandro> .. I went through the spec and turned it into check boxes
18:39:58 <sandro> .. you can self-report everything
18:40:51 <sandro> .. login with indieauth
18:40:59 <sandro> .. demo test post
18:41:22 <sandro> .. demo in wm.rocks
18:41:35 <sandro> .. in browser
18:41:58 <sandro> .. it makes a comment on my post
18:42:31 <sandro> .. but only because I'm signed in
18:42:39 <sandro> .. on the same host
18:42:49 <sandro> .. testing that you reject invalid webmentions
18:43:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> huh, the second test i fail because i queue everything and actually respond with 449
18:44:07 <sandro> .. Receiving and Request Verifications
18:44:22 <sandro> sandro: what happens when someone clicks check boxed?
18:44:28 <tantek> ben_thatmustbeme, interesting, that may highlight a place where the spec should be updated to explicitly allow for the Vouch extension
18:44:51 <sandro> aaronpk: Really you submit the markdown
18:44:58 <ben_thatmustbeme> well presumably thats in the vouch spec
18:45:04 <sandro> aaronpk: update via pull request
18:45:17 <ben_thatmustbeme> but a good question for aaronpk
18:45:47 <sandro> aaronpk: I'll add a sentence encouraging Submit Early Submit Often
18:46:02 <sandro> tantek: Nice, new
18:46:36 <eprodrom_> eprodrom_ has joined #social
18:47:15 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk, you'll mail them to me?
18:47:28 <sandro> aaronpk: I make stickers for people who pass at least one test
18:47:48 <sandro> topic: Aaron demo of Micropub
18:48:11 <sandro> aaronpk: last F2F we talked about media endpoints
18:48:28 <sandro> .. because the create JSON section, there's no clear way to sent JPEG data.
18:48:42 <sandro> .. you could do form encoding, but no standard way to do that with json
18:48:49 <sandro> .. so a media endpoint helps solve that
18:49:00 <ben_thatmustbeme> this is how twitter does it as well correct?
18:49:31 <tantek> I was just going to ask about that
18:49:38 <sandro> .. you sent a form-encoded file-upload with your jpeg to the media endpoint; it returns the URL of the new media resource.
18:49:59 <sandro> .. then when you're posting micropub, you can just use that URL
18:50:19 <tantek> q?
18:50:21 <tantek> ack sandro
18:50:21 <Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask about testing
18:50:35 <sandro> .. implications on UI side
18:50:47 <sandro> sandro: so the endpoints COULD be the same if you want?
18:50:49 <sandro> aaronpk: sure
18:51:10 <sandro> tantek: All the research of proprietary APIs lent to this
18:51:23 <sandro> s/lent/led/
18:51:43 <sandro> aaronpk: Here's Quill, showing how I add a photo
18:52:17 <sandro> .. Quill posted the photo to my endpoint, then showed it in this HTML
18:53:08 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk++
18:53:10 <Loqi> aaronpk has 159 karma
18:53:33 <sandro> .. so when we publish, it's just a little json, the photos are already elsewhere
18:53:56 <tantek> is it a little json? or is it a form encoded response?
18:53:59 <sandro> sandro: if you don't post blog?
18:54:15 <sandro> aaronpk: twitter's media endpoint deletes items if they don't appear in a tweet
18:54:39 <sandro> aaronpk: but that standard doesn't need to know
18:55:01 <sandro> sandro: is there a security consideration that the URLs be unguessable?
18:55:18 <sandro> aaronpk: probably should be.   But they can be emphemeral.
18:55:54 <sandro> aaronpk: In my case my micropub endpoint copied the media from the media server!
18:56:40 <sandro> aaronpk: The only reason we'd want this spec'd is if there are commercial media endpoints, eg on S3
18:56:41 <ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk, are you posting html to your endpoint then, since you included multiple images in place in the post?
18:57:29 <sandro> sandro: This is in micropub spec now?
18:57:59 <sandro> aaronpk: In dioscovery -- you GET on the microub endpoint to find the media endpoint
18:58:51 <sandro> tantek: In the second request, the JSON one, is that JSON encoded or form encoded or what?
18:59:06 <sandro> aaronpk: Quill posts form encoded, I think, but they're equivalent
18:59:22 <ben_thatmustbeme> ahhh, okay
18:59:23 <tantek> s/the JSON one/the complete post one
19:00:07 <sandro> aaronpk: Another use of media endpoint, app to post food photos
19:00:25 <sandro> .. slightly more visible
19:01:01 <sandro> sandro: You could use the sha for the media endpoint?   that might be nice?
19:01:05 <sandro> aaronpk: yes, sure
19:02:20 <sandro> tantek: Upload a big media file?
19:02:44 <sandro> sandro: I don't think HTTP has any kind of partial/contining uploads.      youtube doesn't seem to have such a thing.
19:02:46 <KevinMarks_> ftp allows resume
19:04:27 <sandro> JS + https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Using_files_from_web_applications
19:04:34 <KevinMarks_> curl seems to support resume https://curl.haxx.se/libcurl/c/CURLOPT_RESUME_FROM_LARGE.html
19:04:55 <KevinMarks_> maybe thats ftp only?
19:05:27 <sandro> aaronpk: bookmarks with screenshots, using micropub to make it a separate app
19:05:27 <tantek> right, wondering what the HTTP equivalent is
19:05:33 <tantek> (to resume)
19:05:43 <sandro> just use xhr, imho
19:05:57 <sandro> or websockets :)
19:06:39 <ben_thatmustbeme> I plan to support it with mobilepub
19:06:49 <sandro> sandro: any other micropub impls?
19:06:53 <ben_thatmustbeme> the media endpoint that is
19:07:02 <sandro> aaronpk: Some, but without support for media endpoint
19:09:09 <KevinMarks_> i think you'd have to use PUT to resume as POST doesn't let you set target URL
19:10:06 <sandro> I don't think PUT supports ranges.   So you'd need PATCH.     Or a custom POST-chunks protocol.
19:10:53 <tantek> also demo'd 2016.indieweb.org, RSVPs from 24 independent sites, sent via webmention, nearly that many different implementations, though some may have been sent by curl
19:11:49 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, I tried   curl -H "Accept: application/activity+json" http://rhiaro.co.uk/
19:11:54 <ben_thatmustbeme> but i didn't get anything
19:12:03 <ben_thatmustbeme> or rather, i got html
19:23:27 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
19:23:59 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
19:33:22 <eprodrom> Wow, I should make sure not to do any Risky Business dancing
19:35:33 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
19:48:03 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
20:24:48 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
20:34:41 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
20:35:09 <rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: yeah my main site is dodgy
20:35:09 <rhiaro> img.amy.gy should be stable
20:35:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> i'm here
20:39:26 <aaronpk> present+
20:43:36 <KevinMarks2> Yes, I think that refers to a very different draft
20:44:51 <tantek> chair:tantek
20:44:54 <tantek> scribe:cwebber2
20:45:03 <tantek> Topic: implementation updates
20:45:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: cwebber2
20:45:20 <tantek> subtopic: AS2 implementation - WordPress plugin
20:45:25 <cwebber2> eprodrom: so one of the implementations that hasn't come out of this group from AS2 is the wordpress implementation which came up a few telcons ago
20:45:39 <cwebber2> ... since then I've looked into it and put it onto the blog for my company fuzzy.io
20:45:46 <cwebber2> ... and you can see the as2 format here
20:46:50 <cwebber2> ... in general looking over implementation there are strong points, is almost painless to roll out form in wordpress
20:47:15 <cwebber2> ... there are some downsides, looking at validation report it says "object does not have a type property"
20:47:47 <cwebber2> ... there are basicall ya lot of funky as1-isms, for example generator and provider are properties in as1 that aren't in as2
20:48:22 <cwebber2> ... that said, there are some good parts; it's relatively complete in handling actors, objects, targets
20:48:45 <cwebber2> ... one last thing is that there's type and id properties @-prefixed, which we took out relatively early on in as2
20:48:55 <cwebber2> ... but we've seen at least one other implementation that had a similar problem
20:49:33 <cwebber2> .... so I think it will come down to supporting that in validation.  To be honest, my json-ld foo is not strong enough to know if our alias is defined
20:50:30 <cwebber2> cwebber2: (and  rhiaro:) yeah it's fine (sorta)
20:50:53 <cwebber2> eprodrom: there's some great wordpress blogs out there, maybe if we can get some review from some of them, it might be a nice next step to get on w3c blog and etc
20:51:07 <ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom, out of curiousity, who wrote this implementation? is this just the as1 plugin writers extended it to as2?
20:51:21 <cwebber2> sandro: it would be great if there was some consumer that only consumed as2
20:51:30 <cwebber2> tantek: not sure that's a fair criteria to apply
20:51:51 <cwebber2> sandro: I mostly need to justify to w3c team
20:52:13 <tantek> pfefferle
20:52:19 <cwebber2> eprodrom: ben asked who wrote it, it's Matthais Pfefferle
20:52:41 <cwebber2> ... he's done a number of other distributed social network efforts; think he worked on friendica / diaspora
20:52:45 <cwebber2> ... having this version is good
20:52:51 <ben_thatmustbeme> cool
20:52:53 <aaronpk> he also wrote the wordpress webmention plugin
20:52:55 <cwebber2> tantek: matthias is great
20:53:05 <cwebber2> ... has written many distributed social web things
20:53:16 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yeah so hopefully if we can keep that momentum going, it'd be really good
20:53:43 <cwebber2> eprodrom: there are a couple of things from us, at least from a specification standpoint, do we need for someone who has an as1 implementation, what can we do to let them upgrade to as2
20:54:06 <cwebber2> ... since this is an example of someone who's done that who hasn't been in these discussions, would be good to see what "mistakes" he's made, etc
20:54:26 <cwebber2> ... so @-prefix properties, default type, one object has name one has display name...
20:54:43 <cwebber2> ... he also grabbed a schema.org type for the blog itself because we don't have one in as2
20:55:05 <cwebber2> ... but I was happy to see it up there, it helped me put an as2 feed up for my company
20:55:11 <cwebber2> ... any other questions?
20:55:39 <cwebber2> ... I'm happy with it, next actions will be to look at what was tricky for him and submit pull requests
20:56:04 <cwebber2> sandro: I hope writing will be kind of trivial once you know both sides of the interface
20:56:17 <cwebber2> eprodrom: to be fair, wordpress has a pretty reasonable feed mechanism built in
20:56:28 <cwebber2> ... so 36k?  not a lot of code, and that contains l10n stuff
20:56:38 <cwebber2> ... thank you!
20:56:44 <eprodrom> https://wordpress.org/plugins/activitystream-extension/
20:57:26 <eprodrom> http://blog.fuzzy.io/feed/as2
20:57:52 <cwebber2> tantek: as we get into CR, that's a question we'll keep asking
20:58:13 <cwebber2> eprodrom: I think my strategy will be see what those implementations are...
20:58:40 <cwebber2> sandro: for this use case where it's kind of just doing the same thing as RSS, would it make sense to have consuming libraries that take rss / atom / etc and give you as2 out
20:59:05 <cwebber2> tantek: I guess I'd like to ask that question generally, what's the external implementation status for webmention?
20:59:23 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I have not received any implementation reports
20:59:37 <cwebber2> tantek: we knew 27 implementations when we went to CR, any changes?
20:59:40 <cwebber2> aaronpk: not that I know of
20:59:49 <cwebber2> sandro: most of them were not all of webmention
20:59:58 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think many were just senders and not receivers
21:00:21 <cwebber2> sandro: maybe good to pick high profile ones and get them to (?)
21:01:04 <cwebber2> tantek: I think that's good encouragement from sandro, and figure out what's the gap between you ran webmention.rocks, but haven't filled out implementation report
21:02:44 <cwebber2> eprodrom: what we decided to do for as2 test suite is two things, one is a validator, which for publishers is the "test" mechanism.  for consumers we have a test suite of sample documents, served off of github, or you can download them and read them off the filesystem, and that's the level we went for in terms of as2
21:03:00 <cwebber2> eprodrom: as we see more implementations we see more edge cases where we see this does/doesn't work, etc
21:03:13 <cwebber2> aaronpk: for those, can you consider them complete implementations of the specs?
21:03:53 <cwebber2> eprodrom: let me try the consumer side first, since seed of test repo was the document itself, I would say that yes, that's the case, however... not all variations of the different types are fully there
21:04:22 <cwebber2> eprodrom: for example, let's say adding a photo to a collection.  We don't have examples of adding a video to a collection, a blogpost, a collection to a collection, etc
21:04:52 <cwebber2> eprodrom: if we were going to unit test this to make it bullet proof, we don't quite have that, and we don't have a lot of the sociopathic examples of adding a person to themselves, etc
21:05:02 <cwebber2> eprodrom: but I think at least we have a few hundred documents in there
21:05:38 <cwebber2> sandro: I was unable to find that collection, the spec links to as2rocks for testing, but maybe there can be a link to examples for consumers
21:05:42 <cwebber2> eprodrom: good idea
21:07:27 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
21:10:43 <cwebber2> tantek: we're jumping into social web protocols now
21:10:55 <cwebber2> rhiaro: should I give a rundown?
21:11:04 <tantek> topic: Social Web protocols
21:11:19 <rhiaro> http://w3.org/tr/social-web-protocols
21:11:51 <rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues
21:12:16 <cwebber2> tantek: I realize document status is semi-automatic?
21:12:21 <cwebber2> rhiaro: it's completely automatic
21:12:39 <cwebber2> tantek: maybe in overview text might indicate our general intent
21:12:44 <cwebber2> rhiaro: third paragraph of 1.1
21:12:48 <cwebber2> tantek: oh ok
21:13:09 <cwebber2> rhiaro: might be that if we produce some normative text to do you must use this spec in these circumstances, must use this in these circumstances
21:13:23 <cwebber2> tantek: I grealy appreciate this update
21:13:50 <cwebber2> rhiaro: the main thing is I need to see if there are major things missing from the sepecs, and where there are missing things in specs I've put a red box
21:14:52 <tantek> PuSH needs an explicit entry in references
21:15:37 <cwebber2> rhiaro: I see two ways there's subscribing
21:15:50 <cwebber2> rhiaro: the issue is the wg doesn't have a coherent story on subscriptions
21:17:04 <ben_thatmustbeme> cleaning_up_PuSH++
21:17:05 <Loqi> cleaning_up_PuSH has 1 karma
21:17:15 <snarfed> snarfed has joined #social
21:17:16 <cwebber2> tantek: a general feedback is any issues in this spec is worth raising github issues
21:17:23 <cwebber2> ... maybe link to those specs
21:17:46 <cwebber2> eprodrom: most general purpose protocols don't handle distribution to groups, eg posting to just friends and family, etc
21:18:01 <cwebber2> ... there's a mechanism for doing that in activitypub, and it's not something that pubsubhubbub handles
21:18:30 <cwebber2> ... there are tricks to doing it with different feeds, eg a friends feed, but that can get tricky when you say ony send this to Sandro and the public
21:18:48 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's tricky there and not in activitypub
21:19:07 <cwebber2> eprodrom: in activitypub situation it's a subscribe thing
21:19:14 <cwebber2> aaronpk: you've moved the burden
21:19:22 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes now on publisher side not subscriber side
21:19:40 <cwebber2> ... was one of the things that was a big deal for ostatus, which was a problem because it only supported one feed
21:19:52 <cwebber2> ... only stuff that was 100% public went out on pubsubhubbub
21:20:06 <cwebber2> rhiaro: we diagramed things to separate out push and pull
21:20:17 <cwebber2> ... so you don't have to support people subscribing to you when pushing out to get your content
21:20:54 <cwebber2> ... the algorithm is my server tells your server hey amy wants to subscribe, you say yes from now on I push to you, or your server can say no i don't support that, keep polling
21:20:57 <tantek> Suggest renaming 1.2 to Social Web Working Group Documents
21:21:09 <cwebber2> ... so it allows flexibility
21:21:10 <tantek> and moving Post Type Discovery [ED] to that
21:21:13 <cwebber2> eprodrom: also a scaling issue
21:21:18 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
21:21:20 <cwebber2> rhiaro: that's something I don't know anything about
21:21:24 <tantek> and third add PubsubHubbub explicitly to 1.3
21:21:30 <cwebber2> ... but for me it's sepration of concerns
21:22:17 <cwebber2> eprodrom: the only problem with polling, it's great in a lot of ways in that you can do kind of lighter-weight servers etc, but you can imagine two servers with 1000 servers, and now you have one million possible relationships, and with all that polling you could shut that down with all those polls
21:22:32 <cwebber2> rhiaro: in this scenario no server has to support poll and no server has to support push
21:22:54 <cwebber2> tantek: is that something you want to describe in section 4
21:23:04 <cwebber2> rhiaro: if we have a spec that has these 2 options then yes
21:23:12 <cwebber2> tantek: you have specs that do *one* of those options
21:23:40 <cwebber2> rhiaro: if we as a group can figure out a story about htat
21:23:51 <cwebber2> q+
21:24:11 <cwebber2> tantek: that sounds like AP only,. so I'd say for your document
21:24:33 <cwebber2> tantek: well yes it has an opinion, and your specification can say push vs pull
21:24:51 <tantek> q?
21:24:54 <cwebber2> eprodrom: if I'm not mistaken aaronpk, you do a poll to pull things right?
21:24:59 <cwebber2> aaronpk: also pubsubhubbub
21:25:14 <cwebber2> aaronpk: and kyle wrote woodwind, which uses pubsubhubbub if it has it
21:25:20 <tantek> q?
21:25:22 <cwebber2> eprodrom: and it uses rss with woodwind (?)
21:25:32 <tantek> ack cw
21:25:32 <eprodrom> scribe: eprodrom
21:25:50 <eprodrom> cwebber2: one of the things when we wrote out the whiteboard for subscription we thought we would need two separate terms
21:26:02 <eprodrom> rhiaro: We had an amended version of that whiteboard process
21:26:08 <eprodrom> rhiaro: issue 80
21:26:09 <rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/80
21:26:42 <tantek> q+ to make 3 requests for Social Web protocols http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-06-06#t1465248057089
21:26:46 <eprodrom> rhiaro: this version has an advantage of having fewer verbs
21:27:03 <eprodrom> cwebber2: will be reviewing during break time
21:27:23 <cwebber2> scribe: cwebber2
21:27:34 <cwebber2> tantek: first, anyone else have input for Amy?
21:28:10 <cwebber2> ... I think all spec editors want to read and see if this correctly summarizes features of specs
21:28:28 <cwebber2> ... and if not maybe you want to see if it gets more readable in those areas as welll as update socialwebprotocols
21:28:38 <cwebber2> rhiaro: also I have bullet points to compare
21:28:47 <cwebber2> ... like you have to use json or don't use json
21:28:49 <tantek> q?
21:29:17 <cwebber2> rhiaro: I can drop a link to the issues on irc
21:29:23 <cwebber2> tantek: you should put it in the document
21:29:50 <rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues
21:29:50 <tantek> s/tantek/paul
21:30:11 <tantek> ack tantek
21:30:11 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to make 3 requests for Social Web protocols http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2016-06-06#t1465248057089
21:30:54 <cwebber2> tantek: I think we should explicitly add pubsubhubbub to 1.2
21:31:00 <cwebber2> s/1.2/1.3/
21:31:20 <cwebber2> ... specifically asking for post type discovery to be added to 1.2
21:32:04 <tantek> https://www.w3.org/TR/social-web-protocols/#profiles
21:32:13 <cwebber2> rhiaro: there's a big hole in profiles, we haven't worked on that, but we should at least give a story about why
21:32:47 <cwebber2> tantek: I like both how your document is working on both the stuff that's happening in the wg and things that are outside
21:34:33 <cwebber2> tantek: I think it doesn't need to turn into the wikipedia article of social web protocols, which is a massive mess
21:34:38 <cwebber2> rhiaro: it's good to have an archive of that
21:34:43 <cwebber2> tantek: yes, but that's not this
21:35:44 <eprodrom> scribe: eprodrom
21:36:03 <cwebber2> http://dustycloud.org/tmp/activitypub_wd_2016-06-02.html
21:36:05 <tantek> Topic: start Deep dive on ActivityPub
21:36:27 <eprodrom> cwebber2: I have the token necessary to publish on Echidna
21:36:33 <tantek> we will be breaking at 14:50
21:36:34 <Loqi> I added a countdown for 6/6 2:50pm (#5848)
21:36:49 <eprodrom> Not as much to talk about as implementation for AP
21:37:05 <eprodrom> cwebber2: what can best be done with AP
21:37:27 <eprodrom> cwebber2: should we talk about issues first?
21:38:14 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
21:38:31 <eprodrom> tantek: we need to have an implementation to get to CR
21:38:37 <eprodrom> sandro: Not necessarily
21:38:45 <eprodrom> tantek: it's a way to expose critical issues
21:39:03 <eprodrom> sandro: having at least one implementation will make sure the spec is stable
21:39:12 <eprodrom> cwebber2: I will add an issue and will make sure it happens
21:39:13 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/85
21:39:57 <eprodrom> cwebber2: micropub supports partial updates and activity pub does not
21:41:04 <eprodrom> eprodrom: patch vs put
21:41:10 <eprodrom> KevinMarks: patch is constrained
21:41:17 <bengo_> bengo_ has joined #social
21:42:25 <aaronpk> scribe: aaronpk
21:42:42 <aaronpk> eprodrom: if we were to do that we would need to have a type for properties
21:42:58 <aaronpk> cwebber2: it's possibly conceptually tricky with json-ld
21:43:18 <aaronpk> ... if your'e thinking about saying i'm going to add these specific things or change them, but then have remove and refer to it by name, if you think about json-ld then this name might expand
21:43:40 <aaronpk> eprodrom: let me propose this... if we take the update type to mean patch, make changes to the properties i'm providing and everything else stays the same
21:43:59 <aaronpk> ... then if the client wants to change all the properties then they send all the properties, if theyw ant to remove a property you provide null
21:44:05 <aaronpk> rhiaro: that's what my implementation does now
21:44:12 <aaronpk> eprodrom: that does require the client know the state of the object on the server
21:44:28 <aaronpk> rhiaro: right, you send everyhting you want. if there's something on the server you don't know about then you shouldn't be updating it anyway
21:45:25 <aaronpk> cwebber2: the place this might break with pump.io implementations, current implementations expect full replacements. with this there is a change of expecations of clients now.
21:45:33 <aaronpk> eprodrom: yes but there are also lots of other things they'll have to learn
21:45:42 <aaronpk> cwebber2: so we're deciding that updates are always mutation
21:45:52 <aaronpk> ... to remove a value you supply null
21:46:15 <aaronpk> ... is there a case when null is a meaningful value?
21:46:43 <aaronpk> rhiaro: what about empty strings
21:46:56 <aaronpk> cwebber2: i prefer empty string to mean empty string
21:47:24 <aaronpk> rhiaro: if there's a property that has multipel values, how do you remove a specific value
21:47:32 <aaronpk> ... i want to remove the tag "social"
21:47:42 <aaronpk> ... so you'd have to resubmit the new list of tags
21:48:02 <eprodrom> http://jsonpatch.com/
21:48:20 <eprodrom> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6902
21:49:02 <Loqi> we will be breaking
21:49:03 <Loqi> Countdown set by tantek on 6/6/16 at 2:36pm
21:49:24 <aaronpk> eprodrom: there are a couple mechanisms on this with json, such as json patch
21:50:08 <aaronpk> .. i think jsonpatch ground to a halt a couple years ago
21:50:16 <aaronpk> tantek: is this discussed far enough to put something into the issue?
21:50:27 <aaronpk> cwebber2: yes i've captured this in an issue
21:50:44 <aaronpk> tantek: can we close on the discussion of this issue
21:50:48 <aaronpk> ... time for a break
21:51:00 <aaronpk> ... afternoon break until 3:30
21:51:15 <aaronpk> ... maybe take a few minutes to re-read social web protocols
22:16:09 <Arnaud> Arnaud has joined #social
22:17:16 <KevinMarks> I wasn't  in a rocket ship, but the mic in the car is a bit close to the air conditioning
22:21:05 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
22:29:21 <aaronpk> and it's in a car lol
22:30:03 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
22:32:39 <cwebber2> http://saraswat.org/desiderata.html
22:33:44 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
22:35:29 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
22:38:03 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
22:42:10 <ben_thatmustbeme> ben_thatmustbeme has joined #social
22:47:10 <aaronpk> scribe: aaronpk
22:47:12 <tantek> RESUME
22:47:31 <aaronpk> cwebber2: talk about possibly splitting the spec up
22:47:35 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/79
22:48:03 <aaronpk> ... we talked about this at the last meeting. there's several ways we could split it up
22:48:17 <aaronpk> ... probably the simplest way is to have a client-server and server-to-server spec
22:48:30 <aaronpk> ... maybe one of them included the possibility of including polling and the other didn't
22:48:42 <aaronpk> ... my main concern is that refactoring while keeping coherence with what we have now will be hard
22:49:10 <aaronpk> ... one of the big challenges is that right now the spec interlinks and would duplicate stuff between documents
22:49:15 <aaronpk> ... i'm open to hearing input on this
22:49:38 <aaronpk> rhiaro: a year ago i did a first attempt at taking it apart into distinct sections
22:49:44 <aaronpk> ... that's still the organization in my head
22:49:53 <aaronpk> ... i did a PR i think
22:50:18 <aaronpk> ... basically the thing you say about refering back and forth between things, i reorganized it in such a way that the parts don't depend on each other
22:50:25 <aaronpk> ... that's my goal, is that the parts don't depend on each other
22:50:32 <aaronpk> sandro: in theory that makes implementations a lot easier
22:50:49 <aaronpk> rhiaro: that also means if there are 3-4 activitypub specs and we get two of those to CR that's better than nothing to CR
22:51:22 <aaronpk> epodrom: I made an illustrated diagram on our wiki at some point,
22:51:31 <aaronpk> s/epodrom/eprodrom
22:51:39 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/API/Layers
22:51:53 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #social
22:51:54 <cwebber2> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/API/Layers
22:52:10 <aaronpk> ... the idea being that there's a small amount of CRUD with activities
22:52:27 <aaronpk> ... and second layer of access to various feeds, these are my followers, friends, etc
22:52:37 <aaronpk> ... and finally a last point which is the server to server
22:52:44 <aaronpk> rhiaro: for me the server to server part breaks down further
22:53:13 <aaronpk> ... the server to server differentiates (inspired by webmention being a tiny thing) stuff appearing in mhy inbox that i didn't ask for vs subscribing to things
22:53:26 <aaronpk> ... under the hood they may use the same mechanism, but you can have one and not the other
22:53:36 <aaronpk> ...they're super tied together in activitypub right now but they seem distinct to me
22:53:48 <aaronpk> ... the fact that we have webmention right now that doesn't involve subscriptions seems important to me
22:54:10 <aaronpk> cwebber2: assuming activitypub's implementation is the same, would it still simplify things separating out things you subscribed to vs not
22:54:10 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
22:54:21 <aaronpk> ... if you assume the functionality is the same, then you kind of implementt them all in one go right?
22:54:43 <aaronpk> ... they both happen where one is someone posts something to you becasue you hit subscribe earlier, and the other because someone just wants to post to you
22:55:03 <aaronpk> ... would it simplify things to break this up or not
22:55:09 <aaronpk> ... assuming no technical chang
22:55:10 <aaronpk> e
22:56:05 <aaronpk> rhiaro: the bit that's different is how the server decides why to send something
22:56:47 <aaronpk> ... for me it's a big enough thing that it's a barrier to implement it. implementing webmention seems small but implementing subscribe in activitypub seems big
22:57:26 <aaronpk> eprodrom: i feel like activitypub now is disproportionate in terms of how mujch deals with S2S
22:57:44 <aaronpk> ... it's a little talk about the inbox about oh by the way this is how federation works
22:57:54 <aaronpk> rhiaro: notification and delivery are kind of ambiguous in the spec and it's not super clear right now
22:58:24 <rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/76 - another issue about notifcation/delivery
22:59:30 <aaronpk> eprodrom: with OStatus, there were two different mechanisms for subscriptions vs replies. salmon for replies and PuSH for subscription, it seems like in the indieweb stack that's how it works now too
23:00:15 <aaronpk> ... PuSH is used to subscriptions, webmention for replies
23:00:35 <aaronpk> tantek: there was an early attempt by sandeep for doing subscriptions with webmentions.
23:00:55 <cwebber2> rhiaro: could you ack whether this captures what you were saying? https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/79#issuecomment-224114464
23:01:25 <aaronpk> ... the rough idea is you'd send a comment to a post, but instead you'd send a follow to a home page
23:01:40 <aaronpk> ... and then what they would do is send a webmention every time they post something
23:02:25 <aaronpk> ... there was some mechanism that didn't involve PuSH but as far as i know nobody ever implemented it
23:02:54 <aaronpk> cwebber2: so in AP what those subscription verbs are really for mutating the special collections of people
23:03:08 <aaronpk> ... that might not be clear right now, it's not clear at what point you start blasting things out to people
23:03:20 <aaronpk> ... so maybe if we broke those out we coudl say now you've added someone to this internal list
23:03:32 <aaronpk> .. that makes sense to me, i wanted to talk this through to make sense of it
23:03:52 <aaronpk> ... so there's still a question about whether this should be one specficiation that has clearly separated parts or whether this should be broken into multiple documents
23:04:11 <aaronpk> rhiaro: maybe this is a quetsion for sandro about process
23:04:29 <aaronpk> tantek: it allows each to proceed independently towards the rec track
23:04:47 <aaronpk> cwebber2: what might be a good workflow is to break them into sections in the same spec, and maybe as a second step split them into separate documents
23:05:26 <aaronpk> rhiaro: my instict would be to write them from the ground up. rather than untangling the existing wording, write two new specs
23:05:48 <aaronpk> ... ActivityPub and ActivitySub
23:06:22 <aaronpk> sandro: trying to make sense of this for someone who doesn't know the lingo
23:06:28 <aaronpk> ... activity distribution and activity server control
23:09:04 <aaronpk> cwebber2: it soudns like splitting into two specs is the general plan
23:09:28 <aaronpk> ... but it's up to me to decide whether to start by spltiting the same doc into sections or start writing two new ones immediately
23:09:38 <sandro> Activity Pub  + Activity Federation
23:10:22 <aaronpk> tantek: i don't want you to have to do 2x the overhead of work
23:10:53 <aaronpk> cwebber2: anybody have anything else they were hoping to discuss about activitypub?
23:10:57 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/54
23:10:57 <aaronpk> ... issue 54
23:11:18 <aaronpk> ... a couple of people would like it to be definde how we order it
23:11:34 <aaronpk> .. but, a server might end up implementing ordering differently based on how the database is structured
23:11:49 <aaronpk> ... if a server is sorting based on updated time vs when they incrementally add things to the database
23:11:55 <aaronpk> ... i think it should be fine as long as it's consistent
23:12:18 <aaronpk> eprodrom: unfortunately it's not something explicit within activitystreams, we do have ordered collection but it doesn't specify how items are ordered
23:12:28 <aaronpk> ... if i were looking at a collection in activitypub i wouldn't know how it's ordered
23:13:13 <aaronpk> ... i'll be honest, for some of the collections like following/follower it might not be a big deal. but for inbox/outbox i would be surprised to do it any way other than reverse chronological by published
23:13:56 <aaronpk> ... i just contradicted myself. the world of feeds is not reverse chronological, e.g. facebook and twitter are moving towards ordering by relevance
23:14:18 <aaronpk> tantek: we ran into a non-reverse-chron use case at IWC Düsseldorf, which i think we ran into in this group earlier, which is tombstones
23:14:32 <aaronpk> ... you bubble up a tombstone back up in a feed when you want readers to delete old posts
23:15:10 <aaronpk> cwebber2: pump.io had a requirement that you could say i want everything since this post
23:15:21 <aaronpk> .. .but that functionality doesn't require a specific order, just since this thing
23:15:27 <aaronpk> tantek: is that "since" created since or created since?
23:15:54 <aaronpk> cwebber2: imagine you have a client and you logged in yesterday and you have a local cache of the objcets, and you log in again, and you want just the objects that have been added to the collection since this one
23:16:27 <aaronpk> eprodrom: one of the things that happens with naive paging within collections is you say here are the first 20 elements, and the next request is show me the next 20. if any new items have come into the collection you would skip some
23:16:39 <aaronpk> ... the idea is you start with the bottom of what you have and show everything starting from there
23:18:09 <tantek_> tantek_ has joined #social
23:19:05 <tantek_> s/or created since/or updated since
23:19:34 <aaronpk> tantek: i have another exception. facebook in the primary feed for a group, bubbles things to the top based on most recently commented on
23:20:10 <aaronpk> cwebber2: it seems that there's a difference between ordered collections and unordered collections
23:20:17 <aaronpk> tantek: there is an order, but it's just not about the post
23:20:44 <aaronpk> cwebber2: the activitystreams vocab has the right terminology here
23:21:02 <aaronpk> ... the ordered collection says that it's always strictly ordered but doesn't say by what
23:24:49 <aaronpk> cwebber2: i'm going to be focusing the next many months on getting implementations of activitypub. i originally didn't think we were going to fill up this whole time.
23:26:02 <aaronpk> ... currently 21 open issues, most have resolutions jsut need to be done now
23:26:31 <aaronpk> tantek: i'm going to encourage you to keep the momentum going with resolving issues
23:26:38 <aaronpk> BREAK
23:30:12 <bengo> bengo has joined #social
23:35:03 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
23:38:24 <cwebber2> KEARB
23:38:43 <cwebber2> scribe: cwebber2
23:38:47 <aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/Micropub/issues/24
23:38:50 <tantek> topic: Deep dive on Micropub
23:38:52 <eprodrom> Hunh
23:38:53 <eprodrom> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropub
23:39:42 <cwebber2> aaronpk: 24 is something someone has noticed which is that because the expectation was that all values would be arrays, but the spec didn't say that
23:40:01 <cwebber2> ... so the question is that whether it should be explicit that in the json format that all values MUST be arrays
23:40:03 <cwebber2> sandro: or never
23:40:20 <cwebber2> aaronpk: well if there's a single value, should it still be an array, that's the same way the microformats json works
23:40:32 <cwebber2> sandro: I guess for when the values are only single
23:40:38 <cwebber2> aaronpk: but the spec doesn't know
23:40:55 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so that would mean that the form encoding is a special case?
23:41:11 <cwebber2> sandro: so this is a hack syntax?
23:41:23 <cwebber2> aaronpk: this is the oldschool php hack that has since been adopted nearly everywhere
23:41:30 <cwebber2> sandro: and how are the values...
23:41:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: there's only one value there, and you could do "and bracket bracket"
23:41:55 <cwebber2> sandro: technically in formencoding you don't need the bracket brakcet
23:42:07 <cwebber2> aaronpk: technically not but implementations...
23:42:21 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so in json you just have arrays, so I think it's the simplest story
23:42:35 <cwebber2> sandro: that's the general correspondence between formencoding and json
23:42:45 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so we agree, add...
23:43:03 <cwebber2> ... explicit text that says values must be arrays in the JSON, that takes care of that one
23:43:11 <aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/Micropub/issues/23
23:43:22 <cwebber2> ... next issue is 23, I think the next simplest, came up when reviewing an implementation of a client
23:43:44 <cwebber2> ... this was for editing posts, the client loads up the values from a post, it assumed it would include the URLs from the posts
23:44:07 <cwebber2> ... in order to get that the client needed the URL already, but the way the client was written it assumed it already knew the URL
23:44:17 <cwebber2> sandro: and so the server and clients may have different expectations
23:44:41 <cwebber2> aaronpk: well for example the slug can be anything, so someone can load a url that could be a redirect
23:45:00 <cwebber2> aaronpk: if the server does get the wrong url of this post
23:45:07 <cwebber2> sandro: basically a canonical url...
23:45:50 <cwebber2> aaronpk: the question is when querying for the raw content of the post, should posts include the canonical URL?
23:46:00 <cwebber2> https://github.com/w3c-social/activitypub/issues/83
23:46:20 <cwebber2> cwebber2: did you file this bug because it's mostly the same?
23:46:33 <cwebber2> aaronpk: it's different, this is if update *causes* url to change
23:46:42 <cwebber2> tantek: if this is like a slug changing?
23:46:43 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yes
23:48:08 <cwebber2> cwebber2: the pump.io philosophy is that you have a seaparate id that doesn't change and a url (which might be the same thing) which might change
23:48:16 <cwebber2> ... though that may not be the same philosophy
23:48:20 <cwebber2> aaronpk: yeah.
23:48:46 <cwebber2> sandro: so occasionally I've written servers that don't know what the url is until (...?)
23:49:04 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so if it's not required that the url is on the response, then it's on the responsibility of the client to remember what the url was
23:49:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #social
23:49:14 <cwebber2> sandro: I think that's less likely to result in some weird error
23:49:25 <cwebber2> Loqi, time for you to run the meeting
23:49:37 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I'm totally fine with not making it a requirement
23:49:50 <cwebber2> sandro: I have no idea because I haven't implementing it but my gut is to not make it a requirement
23:50:00 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I think that's how my clients have worked so let's go with that
23:50:37 <aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/Micropub/issues/22
23:51:26 <cwebber2> aaronpk: a while ago I had it use the activitypub type syntax for updates, started working on a draft for that, but the problem I ran into is that there was no way for it to specify partial updates
23:51:30 <cwebber2> ... that may have just changed
23:51:43 <cwebber2> ... but it didn't have a way to just add one value to a property
23:51:48 <cwebber2> ... or remove a value from a property
23:51:54 <cwebber2> cwebber2: and it probably won't have that part
23:51:57 <cwebber2> aaronpk: correct
23:52:04 <cwebber2> sandro: and why do you need to do that?  it's not very big
23:52:26 <cwebber2> aaronpk: well this is so you can avoid update order concerns with atomic updates
23:52:35 <cwebber2> sandro: why not just replace the whole post
23:52:52 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I don't ever want to require replacing the whole post, because I don't trust clients to replace with a full fidelity version
23:53:06 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so I don't want to trust that apps preserve the full content and post it back
23:53:16 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so a great example is a server adds screenshots to my bookmarks
23:53:39 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I assume someone wants to add screenshots to my bookmarks, I don't want them to preserve my publish date and all the tags I've added...
23:53:52 <cwebber2> sandro: to me it seems reasonable, they can be malicious if they want to
23:53:59 <cwebber2> tantek: why raise the responsibility if they don't need to
23:54:22 <cwebber2> sandro: GET and PUT is simpler than PATCH
23:54:49 <cwebber2> aaronpk: well I did do an example in a weekend because it was simpler
23:55:00 <cwebber2> sandro: why not use HTTP PATCH to the rest of the page
23:55:12 <cwebber2> tantek: in http verbs you're talking about *the* resource
23:56:06 <cwebber2> aaronpk: the way this actually works, my app quill can add publish date and location of where I am, sets the timezone of the publish date properly, so now when I add a photo I can't imagine there's any reason to require that the app adding a photo also know about all the specifics about the rest of this post
23:56:21 <cwebber2> sandro: in my mind, because this is years of argument in LDP
23:56:35 <cwebber2> ... you do POST to create it, and then you do a GET to post back the entire content
23:56:48 <cwebber2> ... and you only PUT it back if someone changes things
23:57:15 <cwebber2> s/PUT/PATCH/ (???)
23:57:37 <cwebber2> eprodrom: so if you provided a PATCH which had the full content, that would be equivalent to a PUT with full content
23:57:54 <cwebber2> sandro: if it's a json overlay, putting what you put the full contnet doesn't delete the things you don't know about
23:58:03 <cwebber2> eprodrom: yes you need a way to do property: NULL or something
23:58:10 <cwebber2> aaronpk: so this isn't the original issue
23:58:22 <cwebber2> ... this came up because micropub does now support partial updates in its own way, via POST
23:58:26 <cwebber2> ... it's more RPC style
23:58:48 <cwebber2> ... but the original issue was to use the ActivityPub syntax for that, or to do what's already there which has been implemented by people not me
23:59:02 <cwebber2> ... but the question is about whether partial updates is important comes up later
23:59:39 <cwebber2> eprodrom: if I can maybe specifically talk to the activitypub issue, that we thought there would be value in having overlap here, but if there's not value maybe close it saying "it could have been helpful, it turns out to not be helpful"
23:59:54 <cwebber2> aaronpk: but I think that the original view could be that they have the same document
00:00:16 <cwebber2> rhiaro: well in the recent discussion we talked about UPDATE updating only parts, except that adding/removing values to sets
00:00:25 <cwebber2> aaronpk: I'm kind of on the same page with that but not 100% sold
00:00:36 <cwebber2> ... it does let me with the bookmark thing it can just add a photo
00:00:44 <cwebber2> rhiaro: and what happens if you just add the photo
00:00:52 <cwebber2> sandro: if you just use RDF instead of json it wouldn't have this problem
00:01:11 <cwebber2> rhiaro: so it's not like there's mysterious stuff this client doesn't know about
00:01:23 <cwebber2> tantek: I feel like there's a real world oauth type assumption here we're not taking into account
00:01:40 <cwebber2> ... which is that clients like on Flickr allow people to tag other peoples' stuff but not add/delete tags
00:01:58 <cwebber2> sandro: in this particular case it doesn't actually conflict because it's up to the server
00:02:27 <cwebber2> aaronpk: but it makes it more complicated on the server... tantek's on the right track in saying that if we add the ability to *just add* something
00:03:15 <rhiaro> scribe: rhiaro
00:03:17 <rhiaro> cwebber2: whether or not activitypub should have the ability to add or remove things from a set on an individual level, eg. tags
00:03:35 <rhiaro> ... Currenly you write a comma separated list and the server breaks it up. So in the user interface it'sa ll at once update and remove
00:03:38 <rhiaro> ... Maybe it could be useful
00:03:42 <rhiaro> ... We don't do things that way right now
00:03:54 <rhiaro> ... But there is a question about whether or not this is tricky to do in json-ld
00:04:04 <rhiaro> ... Earlier, adding and removing something from a field, how would you model it?
00:04:09 <rhiaro> ... What woulld it look like in the AP syntax?
00:04:44 <cwebber2> {"addToField": {"prop": "tags", "val": ["gorilla", "pics"]}}
00:05:27 <rhiaro> ... in json-ld the context won't expand out the property of the tags
00:07:11 <rhiaro> eprodrom: does AP having it help micropub?
00:07:15 <rhiaro> cwebber2: ... I think it's okay to move forward with these separately
00:07:25 <rhiaro> ... I understand the reasoning for both
00:07:45 <rhiaro> aaronpk: Proposed resolution is to not adopt AP syntax for updates and deletes
00:07:51 <rhiaro> ... and to keep current micropub syntax
00:08:27 <rhiaro> PROPOSED: Close issue #22 without changes. Use current micropub syntax and not adopt AS2 syntax
00:08:34 <eprodrom> +1
00:08:39 <aaronpk> +1
00:08:43 <tantek> +1
00:08:52 <sandro> +0 (very mixed)
00:08:59 <rhiaro> +0 what sandro said
00:09:08 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
00:09:16 <cwebber2> +1
00:09:20 <rhiaro> tantek: I would encourage you to try to interoperate, even if it's informative and non-normative
00:09:26 <rhiaro> cwebber2: I agree
00:09:39 <rhiaro> ... I want to test it before saying yes or not to anything
00:09:53 <rhiaro> RESOLVED: Close issue #22 without changes. Use current micropub syntax and not adopt AS2 syntax
00:10:11 <rhiaro> tantek: I feel like we understand the sublties and reservations to raise more specific issues in the future if this becomes a problem
00:10:13 <sandro> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7396
00:10:21 <sandro>                             JSON Merge Patch
00:10:37 <cwebber2> sandro: JSON merge patch is the sane version of json patch
00:10:48 <ben_thatmust> ben_thatmust has joined #social
00:12:10 <aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/Micropub/issues/25
00:12:17 <sandro> sandro: Maybe raise issue on activitypub and micropub about they should use PATCH + JSON-merge-patch
00:12:41 <rhiaro> aaronpk: The way that the spec originaly was written, if you were doing an update you could use either form-encoded or json
00:12:50 <rhiaro> ... See the example right now
00:13:12 <rhiaro> ... In both of these examples of the same update operation as form-encoded and json, the data structure if the request is the same, so you can convert between them
00:13:22 <rhiaro> ... However there's no actual functional benefit to form-encoded in this case
00:13:36 <rhiaro> ... Whereas there is a benefit to form encoded for creating, cos it's simpler. But for updates it's not simpler
00:13:44 <rhiaro> ... The proposal is for doing updates you must use json
00:13:49 <rhiaro> ... And updates are not supported in form-encoded
00:14:09 <rhiaro> ... It means that clients and servers don't have to handle both formats so in theory it should be easier to both because there's fewer cases to handle
00:14:16 <rhiaro> ... And there isn't a large benefit to using form-encoded for this anyway
00:14:22 <eprodrom> q+
00:14:36 <rhiaro> ... whereas if the spec allows the client to send either, the server has to support both, and will probably end up just mapping one to the other
00:15:17 <rhiaro> eprodrom: There is an arguement from a consistency point of view.. i've been using form-encoded for creation why should I switch to json for update? That said, if real implementors are not saying this it makes sense to me that if there are two ways to do something and everyone is doing it one way, it's not necessary to support both ways
00:15:27 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I think it's also important to note that in a lot of cases a client might only create post and never intend on updating posts
00:15:34 <rhiaro> ... In which case it can still just create with form encoded
00:15:40 <rhiaro> ... So there is no burden to switch formats
00:15:47 <rhiaro> ... And if the client is planning o n updating posts it can use json all the way through
00:16:09 <rhiaro> ... So for me, cleans things up to only support json for updates on the server
00:16:19 <rhiaro> ... I'll go through the examples and remove all the form encoded versions
00:16:42 <rhiaro> ... Publishing clients is a different class of client than editing clients
00:17:09 <rhiaro> ... Publishing clients MUST support sending form-encoded requests and they may only publish, and never edit a posts. Whereas editing clients are going to support the full list of operations on posts, so they can just use json all the way through
00:17:17 <rhiaro> ... I feel like it separates those conformance classes better
00:17:45 <rhiaro> eprodrom: Proposal?
00:17:54 <rhiaro> tantek: any objections to as discussed?
00:17:59 <rhiaro> cwebber2: none here
00:18:02 <rhiaro> eprodrom: my full support
00:19:22 <rhiaro> aaronpk: resolution is that editing clients don't need to support form-encoded, only json
00:20:45 <rhiaro> aaronpk: My current thinking with the media endpoint is that based on what I've seen with... github issues - if you drag a photo into an issue it uploads it right away and puts a url into the markdown. In these cases it seems like the url to the image is permanent, it is meant to be the actual location of the photo
00:21:17 <rhiaro> ... Twitter returns an id not a url
00:21:47 <rhiaro> ... The reason the spec should specificy it is if we want to be able to have someone create a media endoint service that clients and servers can expect to work a certain way
00:22:09 <rhiaro> ... You can implement your own in your micropub endpoint,t hen it becomes an implementation detail. But if we want to support stand-alone media endpoints then clients and servers need to know how it will work
00:22:15 <rhiaro> sandro: isn't it only servers that need to?
00:22:18 <ben_thatmustbeme> ben_thatmustbeme has joined #social
00:22:25 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I guess it is only the server that needs to know whether it should copy the photo or not
00:22:34 <rhiaro> sandro: sounds like a possibility for future standaridsation
00:22:40 <rhiaro> aaronpk: So should the spec mention it? Or not?
00:23:22 <rhiaro> cwebber2: if you post something and that cycle never finishes in mediagoblin, it gets garbage collected eventually
00:23:30 <rhiaro> ... But if you don't end up implementing it it doesn't affect the standard
00:23:49 <rhiaro> sandro: clients must do media endpoint discovery? they can't jus tpost it to the mmicropub endpoint? THe discovery thing concerns me. Seems like a whole complication
00:24:14 <rhiaro> aaronpk: its' a different issue. I like that for clients that only want to create posts they can just post a photo to the micropub endpoint. That's still in there in the form-encoded creating
00:24:38 <rhiaro> ... One of the reasons for using a media endpoint at all was for user experience when you're putting multiple photos in a blog post. Also if you want to create a post with the json syntax you have to do two different posts
00:24:41 <rhiaro> sandro: why not to the same endpoint?
00:24:57 <rhiaro> aaronpk: the url returned is not expected to be the actual jpeg url, it's supposed to be the url of the post
00:25:11 <rhiaro> ... The thing being created is not the jpeg, it's the post with all the data
00:25:25 <rhiaro> sandro: you could have that be a header on the post
00:25:37 <rhiaro> ... If you're posting certain media types you could get certain behaviour
00:25:45 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I think it moves the complication to a different part of the process
00:25:47 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
00:25:53 <rhiaro> ... The way it's written right now, the complication is discovering the media endpoint
00:26:01 <rhiaro> ... Otherwise it's does the endpoint expect what kind of data
00:26:25 <rhiaro> ... Chris, you said media goblin does do the periodic cleanup of media never used in a post?
00:26:31 <rhiaro> cwebber2: I remember tsyesika and I talking about it at some point
00:26:38 <rhiaro> aaronpk: how does it know if a file is used in a post?
00:27:11 <rhiaro> cwebber2: Media is specifically associated with a post in mediagoblin's case. You upload it and it ends up going through a step where it gets transformed by the processing to generate multiple resolutions of the file etc, and also associates that...
00:27:15 <rhiaro> ... we can talk about it tomorrow
00:27:37 <KevinMarks3> KevinMarks3 has joined #social
00:28:04 <rhiaro> tantek: also facebook. and instagram
00:28:11 <rhiaro> ... It's a pattern that we are seeing driven by better UX
00:28:30 <rhiaro> sandro: in that case we want not just multipart form for upload, but you want to use javascript to send in a recoverable way
00:28:38 <rhiaro> aaronpk: partial uploads are a different story
00:28:49 <rhiaro> sandro: in that case you want a different protocol. ideally rsync over websockets to the server..
00:28:55 <rhiaro> aaronpk: I think it's useful without going that deep into it
00:29:14 <rhiaro> ... Even when the upload either succeeds or fails it still provides a better experience cos when it does succeed it's great. doesn't have to support partial upload to provide a better experience
00:29:36 <rhiaro> ... The is this pattern that we're seeing implemented by lots of services, so it's useful to caputre that in the spec and encourage implementors to also follow that pattern
00:29:46 <rhiaro> ... It's in the ED
00:30:29 <rhiaro> tantek: you could consider adding an UX flow to support the why
00:30:32 <rhiaro> aaronpk: ok
00:30:43 <rhiaro> tantek: done with outstanding issues. this morning sandro asked what's left to go to CR
00:30:49 <rhiaro> ... We could have that discussion tomorrow morning
00:30:56 <rhiaro> ... Ajourned!
00:34:13 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
01:06:36 <ben_thatmustbeme> Sooo should we do trackbot end meeting?  Or just keep out open all night?
01:23:35 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
01:28:06 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
03:09:41 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
03:59:23 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
04:01:40 <aaronpk> keep open all night
04:01:46 <aaronpk> isn't that how we normally do it?
05:00:10 <jasnell> jasnell has joined #social
06:05:15 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
06:54:37 <KevinMarks> KevinMarks has joined #social
07:12:17 <tsyesika> rhiaro: cwebber2: it does clean them up by the way, there is celery task which runs every 24 hours (by default) to clean them up
07:14:00 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social
07:27:27 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
07:42:23 <KevinMarks2> KevinMarks2 has joined #social
07:52:49 <bblfish> bblfish has joined #social