14:59:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swxg
14:59:19 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/05/19-swxg-irc
14:59:21 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs world
14:59:21 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #swxg
14:59:23 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be 7994
14:59:23 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see INC_SWXG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 1 minute
14:59:24 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Incubator Group Teleconference
14:59:24 <trackbot> Date: 19 May 2010
15:00:29 <mischat> mischat has joined #swxg
15:01:06 <tpa> tpa has joined #swxg
15:02:10 <MacTed> Zakim, this is 7994
15:02:10 <Zakim> ok, MacTed; that matches INC_SWXG()11:00AM
15:02:11 <rreck> rreck has joined #SWXG
15:02:14 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here
15:02:14 <Zakim> MacTed, you need to end that query with '?'
15:02:18 <MacTed> Zakim, who's here?
15:02:18 <Zakim> On the phone I see cperey, DKA, OpenLink_Software
15:02:20 <mischat> mmm 
15:02:22 <mischat> i am getting 
15:02:28 <mischat> "this passcode is not valid" 
15:02:28 <MacTed> Zakim, OpenLink_Software is temporarily me
15:02:28 <Zakim> +MacTed; got it
15:02:30 <MacTed> Zakim, muteme
15:02:30 <Zakim> I don't understand 'muteme', MacTed
15:02:33 <MacTed> Zakim, mute me
15:02:33 <Zakim> MacTed should now be muted
15:02:35 <mischat> when i dial into the bristol number 
15:02:41 <DKA> harry are you on your way?
15:02:57 <mischat> has anyone managed to join by calling the bristol number ?
15:03:08 <mischat> yep to me harry or to dan ?
15:03:21 <Zakim> +??P13
15:03:30 <hhalpin> Zakim, ??P13 is hhalpin
15:03:30 <Zakim> +hhalpin; got it
15:03:37 <DKA> I'm calling in thru the UK number.
15:03:40 <mischat> ok
15:03:42 <mischat> thanks
15:03:57 <Zakim> +SteveH
15:03:59 <hhalpin> chair: DKA
15:04:07 <mischat> zakim, +SteveH is me 
15:04:07 <Zakim> sorry, mischat, I do not recognize a party named '+SteveH'
15:04:12 <FabGandon> FabGandon has joined #swxg
15:04:15 <mischat> zakim, SteveH is me 
15:04:15 <Zakim> +mischat; got it
15:04:21 <mischat> zakim, mute me 
15:04:21 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
15:04:35 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:04:35 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose cperey
15:04:46 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:04:46 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose DKA
15:04:49 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:04:49 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose MacTed (muted)
15:04:52 <cperey> haha!
15:04:55 <hhalpin> MacTed?
15:04:56 <cperey> blah blah blah
15:04:56 <Zakim> + +1.218.296.aaaa
15:05:04 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:04 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hhalpin
15:05:06 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:06 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose hhalpin
15:05:08 <hhalpin> Zakim, pick a scribe
15:05:08 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose mischat (muted)
15:05:11 <hhalpin> mischa?
15:05:18 <mischat> sighes ... 
15:05:19 <mischat> ok
15:05:23 <cperey> tim anglade
15:05:23 <DKA> zakim, who is here?
15:05:23 <Zakim> On the phone I see cperey, DKA, MacTed (muted), hhalpin, mischat (muted), +1.218.296.aaaa
15:05:33 <rreck> zakim,  +1.218.296.aaaa is me
15:05:33 <Zakim> +rreck; got it
15:05:40 <rreck> zakim, mute me
15:05:40 <Zakim> rreck should now be muted
15:05:51 <caludio> caludio has joined #swxg
15:06:09 <hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2010/05/12-swxg-minutes.html
15:06:35 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Approve the May 12th meeting minutes as appropriate and correct?
15:06:52 <hhalpin> hhalpin has changed the topic to: May 19th
15:06:58 <mischat> rrs-agent is loggin to  http://www.w3.org/2010/05/19-swxg-irc
15:07:11 <hhalpin> +1
15:07:14 <cperey> thanks!
15:07:15 <mischat> cperey: is looking at the irc room title
15:07:15 <DKA> +1
15:07:19 <Zakim> +??P25
15:07:20 <mischat> it should be a problem 
15:07:24 <mischat> shouldn't
15:07:27 <hhalpin> APPROVED: May 12th meeting minutes are appropriate and correct
15:07:31 <melvster> Zakim, ??P25 is me
15:07:31 <Zakim> +melvster; got it
15:07:44 <hhalpin> cperey regrets next week
15:07:45 <mischat> christine can't make the call next week
15:07:48 <rreck> +1 meet again
15:08:04 <hhalpin> +1 on jumping to high-level report
15:08:12 <mischat> straight into talk about the editorial report
15:08:19 <hhalpin> topic: High-level structure for final report
15:08:22 <DKA> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReportElementsDiscussion
15:08:27 <DKA> Topic: Final Report
15:08:29 <mischat> christine to talk about the high-level structure of the final report
15:08:51 <mischat> cperey, wants to tell a story, about what we have been doing, and what we propose as an outcome 
15:09:13 <mischat> cperey, this is what christine thinks our mandate is. proposing the outcome 
15:09:13 <oshani> oshani has joined #swxg
15:09:55 <mischat> report should start with a one page summary, highlighting personal, and business related investigations 
15:10:15 <rreck> cperey: fwiw, i think this looks like a great structure
15:10:16 <mischat> the table of content should include all the work we have undertaken in the XG
15:10:26 <mischat> should we have 1 or 2 reports ?
15:10:54 <hhalpin> +1 sounds good to me
15:11:01 <rreck> i think it makes sense to list presenters chronologically
15:11:10 <mischat> hopefully today we will have a chance to go over the table contents and decided what should be in the document and what shouldn't 
15:11:17 <hhalpin> ron - that's usually done in acknowledgements
15:11:20 <mischat> any questions form the room?
15:11:27 <rreck> what are the drawbacks of a single report? length?
15:11:36 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #swxg
15:11:49 <hhalpin> notes that summaries haven't been done for most.
15:11:52 <hhalpin> q+
15:11:57 <DKA> ack hh
15:12:01 <rreck> i think the pointers could be in an appendix
15:12:11 <mischat> all the documents and links given to us should be put in the appendix 
15:12:15 <rreck> focus?
15:12:15 <mischat> ack hhalpin 
15:12:25 <Zakim> + +95177aabb
15:12:47 <mischat> hhalpin, final reports are usually short, and shouldn't go over 30 pages 
15:12:54 <mischat> so that people end up actually reading it 
15:13:24 <mischat> hhalpin, the final document shouldn't be intimidating for people to read 
15:13:36 <caludio> shouldn't the report include concrete standardization proposals?
15:13:52 <mischat> it is an XG and not a WG
15:13:56 <mischat> caludio: ^^
15:14:15 <caludio> right but these would be proposals not charters
15:14:21 <rreck> i think possibly 2 reports, thereby allowing a single report to be best focused on the thesis
15:14:48 <rreck> +1 an effort to ensure longevity
15:14:53 <tinkster> IIRC we can suggest future ideas for W3C recommendations, but can't issue W3C recs ourselves. 
15:14:56 <hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/rdb2rdf/RDB2RDF_SurveyReport.pdf
15:15:08 <hhalpin> That's a good sample report - about 15 pages long, and did lead to a Working Group
15:15:09 <mischat> for the longevity of the materials we should include all of the pointers and text collected in the XG should be put into a report so that they don't get lost 
15:15:21 <hhalpin> Ideally, AC reps should read the final report.
15:15:30 <rreck> zakim, DKA is straighman
15:15:30 <Zakim> +straighman; got it
15:15:35 <rreck> oops sorry
15:15:43 <mischat> half of the report to be technical , and half of the report to be about the high-level issues 
15:15:55 <rreck> zakim, straighman is DKA
15:15:55 <Zakim> +DKA; got it
15:16:30 <hhalpin> One would be surprised how much work we overviewed in the last year :)
15:16:54 <DKA> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: We will go for one report including high-level and technical material.
15:16:55 <mischat> the report should be meeting the needs of the readers, christine thinks that the readers need to know, what we did, what our conclusions are, and what are recommendations are 
15:17:27 <mischat> 2nd target audience, people who participated/contributors to the XG 
15:17:38 <rreck> +1 concise
15:17:47 <hhalpin> +1 concise
15:17:47 <melvster> the document above is 15 pages
15:17:54 <melvster> +1 concise
15:17:58 <hhalpin> I'd put a limit on it of about 30 pages.
15:18:00 <Zakim> -pchampin
15:18:09 <mischat> and to the future for the Social Web, i.e. people we talked to and people which were in the XG, and poeple which are potentially going to join any future WG
15:18:14 <hhalpin> DKA? Want to formally take a vote on that?
15:18:32 <hhalpin> any objections?
15:18:33 <cperey> 2nd target audience includes people thinking of contributing to the WG
15:18:37 <rreck> +1 single document
15:18:39 <hhalpin> or strong feelings in the other directions?
15:18:45 <mischat> +1 single document
15:18:49 <mischat> +1 <= 30 pages 
15:19:07 <melvster> +1 single document
15:19:10 <DKA> +1 to <= 30 pages
15:19:25 <melvster> christene the categories above were:
15:19:26 <melvster> 1. Introduction  
15:19:26 <mischat> dan, notices that is consensus when it comes to a concise single report to be the output of the XG
15:19:26 <melvster> 2. Reference Framework for Survey of RDB2RDF Mapping Approaches 
15:19:26 <melvster> 3. Survey of RDB to RDF Mapping Approaches 
15:19:26 <melvster> 4. Discussions  
15:19:26 <melvster> 5. Conclusions 
15:19:28 <melvster> 6. Acknowledgements 
15:19:31 <melvster> 7. References 
15:19:44 <Zakim> +pchampin
15:20:21 <mischat> so we should look at the Wiki, and see which bits of the wiki we want to include into the final report
15:20:29 <rreck> it seems that the "State of the Social Web" is in flux over the time we have been meeting
15:20:52 <mischat> christine suggests that we define how many pages we are going to allocate for each section 
15:20:56 <rreck> audience is part of our charter isnt it?>
15:21:02 <mischat> we should now go through this table of cotents 
15:21:39 <mischat> executive summary (1 page) 
15:21:51 <mischat> then a table of contents 
15:21:54 <rreck> +1 executive summary should be "miniskirtish"
15:21:58 <mischat> introductions (1-2 pages)
15:22:20 <mischat> description of the audience to go into the introduction 
15:22:25 <rreck> audience is like a paragraph is it not?
15:22:49 <mischat> who are the intended readers -> a few sentences in the introduction
15:22:59 <rreck> dont those principles come from our charter?
15:23:14 <mischat> rreck: ask a question
15:23:14 <hhalpin> we have guiding principles in charter
15:23:47 <rreck> isnt cperey on IRC?
15:23:50 <hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/charter
15:24:26 <rreck> i dont *really* have a question
15:24:31 <DKA> q?
15:24:42 <mischat> ronald askes if, our guiding principles are in the charter ? Dan states that we can extract this information from the charter
15:24:54 <mischat> intro <= 2 pages 
15:25:23 <rreck> +q
15:25:24 <mischat> should we have a section on the state of SocialWeb in 2010 
15:25:28 <rreck> zakim, unmute me
15:25:28 <Zakim> rreck should no longer be muted
15:25:32 <mischat> onesocialweb ;)
15:25:48 <melvster> i think this is a good wiki page: http://groups.fsf.org/wiki/Group:GNU_Social/Project_Comparison
15:25:51 <mischat> http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/05/facebook-rogue/
15:26:31 <hhalpin> q+
15:26:32 <mischat> dan, asks if we should reference the wired article about how there is no dedistributed social networks 
15:26:40 <DKA> +1 to flux
15:26:47 <mischat> who was that?
15:27:12 <rreck> zakim, mute me
15:27:12 <Zakim> rreck should now be muted
15:27:16 <hhalpin> the cambridge study?
15:27:17 <melvster> Soeren Preibusch
15:27:18 <mischat> joe from cambridge
15:27:32 <mischat> first talk 
15:27:35 <melvster> privacy jungle
15:27:43 <melvster> http://preibusch.de/publications/social_networks/privacy_jungle_dataset.htm
15:27:54 <rreck> rreck: the social web is in flux and the contextualization of our recommendations is based, in part, to a response to the tensions we perceive
15:28:10 <mischat> ron mentioned that we should mention that given the whole facebook privacy outburst the social web is now in a state of flux
15:28:46 <rreck> ownership is the heart of the privacy issue
15:29:00 <rreck> which itself is driven on the business case for providers
15:29:01 <mischat> christine then mentioned that we could include the cambridge uni privacy jungle dataset and how privacy policies are causing tension with social networking users 
15:29:33 <rreck> +1 <5
15:29:39 <mischat> State of Social Web <= 5 pages 
15:29:43 <mischat> to follow the introduction 
15:30:21 <rreck> +1 dka's re-ordering
15:30:32 <mischat> dka, suggests that we should go into Use Cases next 
15:30:55 <rreck> no, i think state of the web should precede
15:31:19 <mischat> State of Social Web 2010 -> Use Cases -> Technology as proposed by DKA
15:31:36 <rreck> sounds good
15:31:44 <rreck> the loaded question
15:31:50 <mischat> social web use cases <= 5 pages 
15:31:56 <hhalpin> a considerable shortening but probably possible
15:32:03 <mischat> yeah i think so too
15:32:27 <rreck> awesome
15:32:37 <melvster> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReportElementsDiscussion
15:32:46 <rreck> wiki's are for soundbytes
15:33:16 <mischat> Technology gaps or areas where there is lack of agreement , this is an important section of the work 
15:33:25 <rreck> i agree its central
15:33:31 <rreck> maybe in the conclusion?
15:33:42 <mischat> q+, where have there been lack of agreements ?
15:33:46 <hhalpin> +1
15:34:04 <DKA> q?
15:34:08 <rreck> -q
15:34:13 <DKA> ack hh
15:34:17 <rreck> i blurted already
15:34:29 <mischat> dka suggests that the technology gaps are going to be one of the main parts of our report
15:35:08 <mischat> hhalpin, suggests we revisit our past speakers to identity which technologies have standards already, and which ones have multiple standards in place 
15:35:15 <mischat> and that this should educate our final report
15:35:37 <rreck> zakim, unmute me
15:35:37 <Zakim> rreck should no longer be muted
15:36:46 <mischat> ron, states that he thinks that Use Cases, and Technologies should be subsections of the State of the Social Web 2010 section 
15:37:14 <hhalpin> +1
15:37:20 <hhalpin> let guest speakers read document...
15:37:43 <rreck> cperey correctly points out that usecases also encompass what users could possibly want in the future as well
15:37:46 <mischat> dka, doesn't think we shouldn't block on getting feedback from our guest presenters, but we should let them read the document first, before it goes out live
15:38:13 <rreck> maybe we can offer speakers to alter what we said about them
15:38:20 <rreck> provide them with our deadlines
15:38:34 <rreck> when is this due?
15:38:45 <hhalpin> its due after summer
15:38:49 <hhalpin> sept 
15:38:53 <hhalpin> 1st sept I think.
15:38:56 <mischat> chritine, states that if we show the report the experts, it will boost their confidence in our report and our activity
15:39:00 <mischat> +q
15:39:03 <rreck> so how long would we give them to respond?
15:39:19 <hhalpin> we could stretch it to 40 or so.
15:39:19 <DKA> ack mischat
15:39:22 <hhalpin> it's a big field
15:39:38 <hhalpin> +1 mischa
15:39:59 <mischat> zakim, mute me 
15:39:59 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
15:40:11 <mischat> agreements should read "overlaps"
15:40:17 <rreck> business considerations is important
15:40:31 <rreck> zakim, unmute me
15:40:31 <Zakim> rreck was not muted, rreck
15:40:50 <rreck> +Q
15:41:47 <hhalpin> +1
15:41:59 <hhalpin> not anti-business, maybe anti-monopoly on the social web :)
15:41:59 <rreck> harmony
15:42:09 <mischat> this section should emphasise that our work is not anti-business 
15:42:17 <mischat> +1 to harry's suggestion
15:42:17 <hhalpin> although notes that facebook is using open standards well, see Open Graph Protocol
15:42:33 <rreck> i think the largest efforts in the social web are only there with the intention to make money
15:42:52 <mischat> gnuSocial should change that rreck 
15:43:02 <rreck> true
15:43:20 <rreck> but the landscape currently is responding 
15:43:46 <hhalpin> also see all the work around diaspora
15:43:49 <melvster> +1 evolving ... very rapidly this year
15:43:52 <hhalpin> NYT times article on open social networks
15:43:57 <hhalpin> (we picked a good year!)
15:43:59 <rreck> zakim, mute me
15:43:59 <Zakim> rreck should now be muted
15:44:00 <mischat> we should have a bit of text regarding to what we think the new business models will be, that will support the development of future social networks tools 
15:44:12 <hhalpin> q+
15:44:13 <oshani> oshani has joined #swxg
15:44:21 <rreck> create an WG
15:44:27 <hhalpin> :)
15:44:31 <rreck> +1 hhceo
15:44:47 <mischat> is our recommendation to form a social web working group ?
15:44:48 <rreck> pros/cons?
15:45:39 <MacTed> Zakim, unmute me
15:45:39 <Zakim> MacTed should no longer be muted
15:46:11 <mischat> we shouldn't have an open ended social web WG 
15:46:20 <mischat> is what hhalpin is suggesting 
15:46:29 <mischat> q+
15:46:31 <rreck> -q
15:46:35 <hhalpin> +1 MacTed
15:46:42 <DKA> q?
15:46:45 <DKA> ack hh
15:47:04 <mischat> macted, social web is too big to be standardise 
15:47:16 <hhalpin> I'm thinking 1) API and formats for personal data interchange
15:47:34 <mischat> macted thinks that user interchange is an important topic 
15:47:38 <hhalpin> 2) Privacy and Access Control Language Languages
15:47:45 <mischat> 3) Data portability 
15:47:53 <hhalpin> 3) Maybe even OpenID v.Next and FOAF+SSL 
15:48:01 <hhalpin> or make that 4)
15:48:03 <hhalpin> :)
15:48:06 <melvster> :)
15:48:18 <rreck> true
15:48:18 <DKA> 5) APIs
15:48:20 <mischat> dka, we should list these topics and they should be set out in the User Cases and the Technology gaps 
15:48:24 <mischat> and should be in the conclusions 
15:48:42 <hhalpin> q+
15:49:04 <mischat> dka, instead of recommending a WG, we could recommend a list of future activities 
15:49:05 <melvster> remember also what timbl said, 'APIs are poor, expose your data'
15:49:09 <DKA> ack hh
15:49:13 <DKA> ack misc
15:50:28 <hhalpin> +1 DKA and Mischa's point
15:51:06 <rreck> i am in vehement agreement
15:51:31 <mischat> zakim, mute me 
15:51:31 <Zakim> mischat should now be muted
15:51:54 <mischat> the relationship between xmpp based work, and the social web work 
15:52:05 <mischat> go timbl http://www.w3.org/2010/Talks/0303-socialcloud-tbl/
15:52:30 <mischat> thanks cperey 
15:52:30 <rreck> sounds good but i dont see that verbage
15:52:46 <cperey> at the top
15:52:57 <cperey> in the executive summary part
15:53:00 <mischat> ah ok 
15:53:08 <cperey> :-)
15:53:12 <mischat> hhalpin: can you repeat 
15:53:13 <mischat> ?
15:53:27 <mischat> micropayments ?
15:53:46 <mischat> and W3C to allow for more independent members 
15:53:48 <mischat> ?
15:54:08 <hhalpin> that's fine.
15:54:17 <mischat> micropayments to go into the business related section 
15:54:27 <melvster> open market place: http://openetherpad.org/sNh9yF0w9c
15:54:37 <mischat> regarding future business model 
15:54:54 <rreck> maybe we need a definition
15:54:58 <mischat> MacTed, suggests that we are talking about the Social Internet 
15:55:14 <mischat> and not the Social Web, as we are talking about lots of technologies which aren't "web"
15:55:21 <rreck> web in the layman's sense
15:55:21 <mischat> +1 rreck 
15:55:40 <mischat> +1 we need a definition 
15:55:55 <mischat> +1 MacTed 
15:56:13 <mischat> are you talking about the xmpp technology stack MacTed ?
15:56:14 <rreck> yes i agree he is correct
15:56:51 <mischat> HAHA
15:57:04 <rreck> thanks for your efforts cperey
15:57:34 <mischat> dka suggests that the audience should go beyond our normal W3C audience 
15:57:41 <hhalpin> maybe we can feed some of the bits of the report into this wiki page
15:57:46 <mischat> and it should reach out to people interested in the "social internet" 
15:57:46 <rreck> can we just hang out here"?
15:57:55 <hhalpin> yes rreck, you can.
15:58:28 <rreck> is there a document coordinator?
15:58:31 <mischat> hhalpin, suggests we give cperey and DKA a couple of weeks to mull over this document 
15:58:40 <mischat> good question rreck 
15:59:02 <hhalpin> I could make a W3C Report Wiki-page, have done this already
15:59:28 <hhalpin> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport
15:59:57 <mischat> i would like to help write the privacy/facebook madness bit, leading into the motivation for a decentralised social network 
15:59:58 <mischat> :)
16:00:05 <hhalpin> ?
16:00:09 <rreck> me neither
16:00:15 <mischat> ah
16:00:20 <mischat> there is a wiki page above 
16:00:27 <mischat> http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport
16:00:42 <mischat> we could put the headings into the w3c styled wiki page
16:00:51 <rreck> i hate wikis
16:00:57 <mischat> so we could have 2 wiki pages, 1 which is a draft 
16:01:01 <hhalpin> sorry ron, but its better than shipping WORD docs around
16:01:02 <rreck> hate is too strong
16:01:03 <mischat> and 1 which is what we are agreed on
16:01:17 <rreck> bubye y'all
16:01:19 <hhalpin> OK,let's adjourn call
16:01:21 <mischat> bye bye all 
16:01:24 <hhalpin> trackbot, end meeting
16:01:24 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
16:01:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been cperey, MacTed, hhalpin, mischat, rreck, melvster, +95177aabb, pchampin, DKA
16:01:24 <rreck> +1 adjoun
16:01:25 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:01:25 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/05/19-swxg-minutes.html trackbot
16:01:26 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
16:01:26 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
16:01:26 <Zakim> -cperey
16:01:27 <DKA> bye all