IRC log of social on 2016-07-19

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:26 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:02:26 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/07/19-social-irc
17:02:28 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:28 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
17:02:30 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:30 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
17:02:31 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:31 [trackbot]
Date: 19 July 2016
17:02:36 [rhiaro]
present+
17:02:37 [annbass]
present+
17:02:42 [eprodrom]
present+
17:02:44 [dmitriz]
present+
17:03:04 [aaronpk]
present+
17:03:26 [sandro]
present+
17:03:32 [csarven]
present+
17:03:53 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:05:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
present+
17:06:29 [cwebber2]
present+
17:06:30 [cwebber2]
oops
17:06:32 [cwebber2]
:)
17:06:33 [eprodrom]
Arnaud: are you here? We're about to start. I'm going to take over as chair.
17:06:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/:/,/
17:06:49 [rhiaro]
chair: eprodrom
17:07:03 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Approval of minutes from 2016-07-12
17:07:21 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-07-12-minutes as minutes for 2016-07-12 meeting
17:07:42 [rhiaro]
+1
17:07:43 [eprodrom]
+1
17:07:46 [annbass]
+1
17:07:52 [cwebber2]
+1
17:07:53 [aaronpk]
+1
17:07:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:08:05 [sandro]
+1
17:08:11 [melvster]
+1
17:08:16 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-07-12-minutes as minutes for 2016-07-12 meeting
17:08:45 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I don't think we have any other admin besides minutes
17:08:59 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: LDN to FPWD
17:09:45 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Best process is to have sarven and amy give us an update on status of the document so far and sounds like they want to move to FPWD, we discussed last week and decided to give people time to review
17:09:48 [aaronpk]
scribenick: aaronpk
17:09:53 [sandro]
https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html
17:10:11 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: last week we sent an email saying we want to go to FPWD this week and asked for people to raise major issues by this week
17:10:25 [aaronpk]
... we resolved a lot of issues up to last week
17:10:32 [aaronpk]
... a lot of the changes to the document were explainig things better, editorial and stuff
17:10:46 [aaronpk]
... we still have some ongoing threads with people from various linked data communities participating
17:10:55 [aaronpk]
... some of the issues we've called out in the spec itself
17:11:21 [aaronpk]
... since the editor's draft, we've clarified a bunch of stuff and we think it's in a stable enough state and we have a more iplementations since last week
17:11:28 [aaronpk]
... we think it's in a good enough state to move it to FPWD
17:12:07 [cwebber2]
q+
17:12:11 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: I realized that LDN is more general than activitypub but there is a close relationship. has there been a discussion between amy and sarven and jessica and chris about the overlap?
17:12:21 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we've had a little bit of discussion, we've also got some ongoing stuff on github about that
17:12:26 [aaronpk]
... we should have a call to tlak about that
17:12:44 [aaronpk]
... i've started adding stuff to SWP to explain things
17:12:53 [aaronpk]
... there's an issue on SWP where i detailed all the alignment between the two to either bridge or align them
17:13:14 [rhiaro]
https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/36
17:13:23 [aaronpk]
... we need to work through these with chris and jessica to see which are major and which we can rough out
17:13:49 [tsyesika]
present+
17:14:07 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: i think that we've had mixed theories about what FPWD means, whether it's putting something on rec track or just putting it out for discussion, i'm leaning towards the second
17:14:40 [aaronpk]
... we have the microformats stack which is very different from activitystreams, and we're saying they're two totally different things
17:14:51 [aaronpk]
.. but here we're talking about more similar stacks so i'd want to see us come to a convergence on that
17:15:08 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i'm working on that in SWP, where the brainstorming and working things out is taking place
17:15:08 [sandro]
+1 converging activitysub and LDN would be really, really good
17:15:17 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: okay that makes sense
17:15:17 [sandro]
q?
17:15:20 [eprodrom]
q?
17:15:25 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber2
17:15:29 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
17:15:55 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i agree that there's a lot of similarities. amy and i have been talking, trying to figure out how to bridge things, because we'd like to make them as compatible as possible
17:16:17 [aaronpk]
... the fundamental difference between the two is LDN is a lot more general, in that it doesn't assume as much about vocabulary used, which is nice in some ways
17:16:27 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
17:16:33 [aaronpk]
... but also there's a tradeoff, it does assume that you're probably working with Linked Data toolkit.
17:16:48 [aaronpk]
... currently the main convergence is that activitypub is kind of linked data under the hood but you don't need to know
17:16:54 [aaronpk]
... hopefully we can find out how to hit the intersection
17:17:24 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: things we can do if you're an LDN implementation and you want to support activitypub, then you have to serve your JSON as compacted JSON-LD so any consumer can read it as plain JSON
17:17:38 [aaronpk]
... so either it's activitystreams, or if it has other vocab then it's like dealing with an extended activitystreams object
17:17:44 [cwebber2]
q?
17:17:59 [aaronpk]
... which might happen anyway. so things like that we can align on i think we can work things out so that LDN can serve stuff that plain activitypub implementations can handle and vice versa
17:18:36 [tantek]
present+
17:18:42 [sandro]
+1 activity sub as a restriction on ldn, so you can just use an ldn inbox for activitysub
17:18:50 [aaronpk]
... that also means you can use an LDN inbox to receive stuff from your friends
17:19:02 [eprodrom]
q?
17:19:09 [tantek]
q+ to ask about prescriptive (spec first) vs descriptive (code first) approaches
17:19:17 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: okay that sounds reasonable to me
17:19:33 [aaronpk]
... i'm going to be pretty concerned if these two specs go very far into the REC world without having some level of integration between them
17:19:48 [cwebber2]
I agree, it would be worrying if we ggot there without integration
17:19:50 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
17:19:50 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask about prescriptive (spec first) vs descriptive (code first) approaches
17:20:31 [aaronpk]
tantek: the biggest concern i have is that it's a mythological difference between descriptive vs prescriptive approaches
17:20:41 [annbass]
mind
17:20:47 [eprodrom]
s/mythological/methodological/
17:20:54 [eprodrom]
I think!
17:20:58 [aaronpk]
... one of the things this group has tried to do is that there's a lot of existing work, running code, how can we find common specs between those
17:21:10 [aaronpk]
..there's running code with people publishing stuff and running servers and tha'ts helped drive our spec development.
17:21:25 [aaronpk]
... that's why we've been okay with multiple approaches, is that there's multiple running implementations
17:22:13 [aaronpk]
... it's great that amy has done some implementations of LDN already. where i start to get concerned is when we talk about how we could converge specs that isn't based on implementation experience. where we start having specs make compromises that break existing impls, but don't have any actual value
17:22:24 [aaronpk]
... just because we have people on a phone call agree, doesn't actually make someone's code on their website work
17:23:02 [aaronpk]
... i want to call that out as a concern. while i agree that the general trend towards convergence is good, but premature convergence where people in a room agree on spec-first convergence that isn't followed up with implementation
17:23:24 [aaronpk]
... if we are proceeding with the assumption that these are rec track, then we'll be implementation testing them. if we want to relax that assumption then we should do so explicitly and up front
17:23:34 [aaronpk]
... that's one cautionary point i want to make
17:24:00 [aaronpk]
... we're still waiting on implementations to update on activitypub itself, i'm a little worried about that disconnect
17:24:07 [tantek]
s/mythological/methodological
17:24:13 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: chris said he was working on an activitypub implementaiton, so please post stuff to my inbox
17:24:24 [aaronpk]
... the implementations we have of LDN are not just me by the way
17:24:45 [aaronpk]
... getting actual code interop between LDN and activitypub is super important and way more fun than just spec interop
17:25:01 [eprodrom]
q?
17:25:48 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: iT sounds like amy and sarven are ready to go to FPWD so i think what i will propose is that we approve this document
17:26:24 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED publish https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html as FPWD of LDN
17:26:26 [melvster]
+1
17:26:31 [rhiaro]
+1
17:26:32 [sandro]
+1
17:26:37 [rhiaro]
wait
17:26:39 [csarven]
+1
17:26:43 [rhiaro]
https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/
17:26:46 [rhiaro]
yeah
17:26:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
that was going to be my question, which URL
17:27:08 [eprodrom]
+PROPOSED publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
17:27:11 [melvster]
+1
17:27:18 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
17:27:24 [melvster]
+1
17:27:25 [csarven]
+1
17:27:25 [rhiaro]
+1
17:27:25 [annbass]
+1
17:27:27 [tsyesika]
+1
17:27:33 [sandro]
s/PROPOSED/PROPOSED:/
17:27:34 [sandro]
+1
17:27:37 [dmitriz]
+1
17:27:43 [eprodrom]
+0
17:27:53 [cwebber2]
+1
17:28:02 [tantek]
+1 with a link to Social Web Protocols somewhere up top like Status etc. to set context
17:28:16 [aaronpk]
+1 what tantek said
17:28:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
17:28:29 [sandro]
(yes, agreed that link is important)
17:28:40 [annbass]
yes on the caveats from tantek and evan
17:28:49 [rhiaro]
yep
17:28:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
btw, https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ and https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html do have some minor differences
17:29:01 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
17:29:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
looks to be just editorial
17:29:18 [rhiaro]
ben_thatmustbeme: that's weird, they're both reading from github
17:29:34 [csarven]
ben_thatmustbeme: You are correct. Apparently I didn't git pull last
17:29:39 [csarven]
Should be up to date now.
17:29:40 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: i would like to move on to our next topic
17:29:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro, one is last modified the 17th, the other was the 9th
17:29:48 [aaronpk]
sure
17:29:52 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
17:29:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
ahh, okay
17:30:17 [eprodrom]
TOPIC: AS2
17:31:02 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Taking AS2 to CR with a couple of caveats around marking at risk sectionw as agreed. Immeidately afterwards we had i18n input
17:31:19 [rhiaro]
... We decided to hold of on CR until we had resolved i18n issues
17:31:24 [rhiaro]
... and largely we did
17:31:57 [rhiaro]
... As of right now we have for i18n 2 normative issues and 1 editorial
17:32:04 [rhiaro]
... Which are both interesting
17:32:25 [rhiaro]
... One is waiting for the original poster to give comment, I believe they were going to bring it up at i18n telecon last Thursday so looking for some feedback on that
17:32:35 [rhiaro]
... That question is about using markup in the name property
17:32:51 [rhiaro]
... I guess this has some i18n implications in terms of being able to set character sets and direction using html
17:33:10 [rhiaro]
... For activitystreams historically that title or displayName or name has not had markup in so that you can show it directly without having to worry about markup
17:33:15 [rhiaro]
... I think that james and I both want to keep that
17:33:29 [rhiaro]
... So we're trying to figure out if the fallback of using some other properties is sufficient
17:33:37 [rhiaro]
... The other issue is around using the map terms
17:33:48 [rhiaro]
... We had a long discussion about this last week
17:33:51 [eprodrom]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341
17:33:55 [rhiaro]
... I don't want to againt his week. There is a discussion on the github issue
17:34:14 [rhiaro]
... It's a normative change, roughly about how we format language in the documents
17:34:37 [rhiaro]
... but as a courtesy last week because jasnell was on vacation we decided not to resolve it without him. He's back but still on vacation and hasn't commented yet
17:34:44 [rhiaro]
... What we have right now does not have this normative change in it
17:35:01 [rhiaro]
... The proposed change I think is unnecessary and a bad solution. We're waiting on jasnell for that.
17:35:12 [rhiaro]
... We also had 3 editorial issues come up since last week
17:35:18 [rhiaro]
... (not i18n ones)
17:35:27 [rhiaro]
... One posted by me about how we're using URLs
17:35:47 [rhiaro]
... At this point I'm getting concerned about where we are with the CR process. I would like to get some guidence from the group about what we do next
17:36:23 [rhiaro]
tantek: The challenge here with getting to CR is that we're supposed to take things to CR when we don't know any outstanding substantitive issues, that would alter implementations
17:36:34 [rhiaro]
... And clearly with the i18n issues you're working on making those happen
17:36:42 [rhiaro]
... Even once the spec enters CR it's still goign to get issues, substantitive ones
17:36:55 [rhiaro]
... What I've seen groups do is just draw a line at some point and say we think we have resolved our substantitive issues that we understand
17:37:13 [rhiaro]
... Going to acknowedlge that there may be other ones filed that would cause the spec to change, which may mean there's a new CR, but tha'ts okay
17:37:19 [rhiaro]
... That's one way to get the spec to CR whilst allowing new issues to show up
17:37:25 [rhiaro]
... And that's a judgement call of the editors and the group
17:37:36 [rhiaro]
... To how you keep hitting 0 issues
17:37:47 [rhiaro]
... So Evan, the issues that you've seen come in that are not i18n related.. how impactful are they to implementations?
17:38:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Right now they are negligible. Making sure that the list of properties in one section is exactly the same as in another
17:38:21 [rhiaro]
... Obviously yes if you're using the document for a reference that needs to be accurate, but in terms of normative stuff they're almost entirely editorial
17:38:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: editorial things we don't need to worry about
17:38:42 [rhiaro]
... The way that we solve the multiple list of properties problem is typically by making one normative and the others non-normative and point back to where they are normatively defined
17:38:49 [rhiaro]
... That way if there's a doubt you can say here's the normative list
17:38:59 [rhiaro]
sandro: issue 341 is not editorial, that's a major imlementation change
17:39:02 [rhiaro]
... not really major, but..
17:39:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: 341 and 338 are both normative
17:39:13 [rhiaro]
tantek: these are i18n issues right?
17:39:15 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: yes
17:39:33 [rhiaro]
tantek: to handle this properly we should resolve these before CR
17:39:39 [rhiaro]
... Especially since they came in from horizontal review
17:40:08 [rhiaro]
... The other option is that if we honestly believe these are not going to affect implementatiosn we have to make a very strong case to the director to say we have these outstanding issues but we still think the document should go to CR and here is our case. Hard but not impossible
17:40:15 [rhiaro]
... If you decide you want to pursue it it's an option
17:40:41 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think that my main concern is that we went through a process that we resolved all the issues and decided to go to CR and did the transiton request and that from start to finish took about 4-6 weeks
17:40:48 [rhiaro]
... From the time we finished up the issues and got approval to go to CR
17:41:04 [rhiaro]
... I'm wondering if we would be restarting the clock ont hat or if we can just say we resolve these issues then go to CR without th emeeting again?
17:41:18 [rhiaro]
sandro: Ralph said if we resolve them by consensus including with the commentor we don't need another transition meeting
17:41:29 [rhiaro]
... so if Richard and James and you are all cool with solving these within in the next few days e can publsih at that point
17:41:32 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: great
17:41:40 [rhiaro]
sandro: I thought you were cced on an email from Ralph saying that
17:41:44 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I may have just missed that
17:41:50 [rhiaro]
... Is our date still this week?
17:41:56 [rhiaro]
sandro: whenever you get it done, the next tuesday or thursday
17:42:05 [rhiaro]
tantek: waiting on the consensus and edits to happen
17:42:39 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: great. That's good news. I'm going to let james know that we are waiting on publication for him and then also double check with Richard that we've satisfied him on 338
17:42:58 [rhiaro]
... and we would publish without another meeting of this group
17:43:02 [rhiaro]
sandro: yep
17:43:13 [rhiaro]
tantek: Evan I think all you have to do is make sure Richard is happy with the edits
17:43:27 [rhiaro]
... Once you've got the draft edited to resolve the issue Richard needs to take another look to check those sections align with his understanding
17:43:36 [rhiaro]
... Once you get that thumbs up you can publish. Assuming we're not making other changes to the draft
17:43:42 [rhiaro]
... We're responding to a specific issue, nto affecting other issues
17:43:56 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I will take care of the editorial issues in the meantime
17:44:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: if anyone else in the group is concerned about this issue or wants to follow it just go ahead and comment on the issue
17:44:11 [eprodrom]
https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/338
17:44:20 [rhiaro]
... You'll be notified as evan updates the issue with resolutions and that will be your opportunity to offer your opinion or objection
17:44:35 [rhiaro]
... To be clear none of this is trying to sidestep the groups ability to participate in this decision. Just tryign to streamline
17:44:48 [rhiaro]
... So if you do want to keep participating in this particular issue you can comment directly there. We're not taking it back to a resolution vote in the group
17:44:51 [rhiaro]
... make sense?
17:45:13 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: if we don't have any further questions on AS2 I'll put my chair hat back on
17:45:24 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Document status
17:45:33 [cwebber2]
q+
17:45:46 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber2
17:46:09 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm working on AP implementation, mostly done but not publicly demonstrable. Should be up by next week
17:46:11 [rhiaro]
... It's mostly in place now
17:46:23 [eprodrom]
q?
17:46:26 [cwebber2]
q-
17:46:27 [eprodrom]
ack cwebber
17:46:46 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: Any other updates?
17:46:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
JF2 is just waiting for when we decide to publish them all
17:47:17 [eprodrom]
q?
17:47:18 [rhiaro]
... If no other issues or actions to address time to wrap up
17:47:41 [rhiaro]
... tantek down for next week's chair
17:47:45 [rhiaro]
... Thanks everyone
17:47:50 [eprodrom]
Thanks all
17:47:52 [annbass]
thanks Evan, Amy and Aaron!
17:47:57 [tantek]
aaronpk++
17:47:57 [Loqi_]
aaronpk has 1068 karma (59 in this channel)
17:47:59 [tantek]
rhiaro++
17:47:59 [Loqi_]
rhiaro has 230 karma (120 in this channel)
17:48:06 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
17:48:06 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
17:48:06 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, annbass, eprodrom, dmitriz, aaronpk, sandro, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tsyesika, tantek
17:48:14 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:48:14 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2016/07/19-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:48:15 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
17:48:15 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items