IRC log of social on 2014-09-30

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:59:00 [RRSAgent]: RRSAgent has joined #social
16:59:00 [RRSAgent]: logging to http://www.w3.org/2014/09/30-social-irc
16:59:01 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
16:59:02 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs 411
16:59:04 [bret]: Zakim, mute bret
16:59:04 [Zakim]: bret should now be muted
16:59:04 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:59:05 [trackbot]: Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:59:05 [trackbot]: Date: 30 September 2014
16:59:05 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 1 minute
16:59:17 [Arnaud]: RRSAgent, make logs public
16:59:17 [jtauber]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is jtauber
16:59:17 [Zakim]: sorry, jtauber, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
16:59:52 [jtauber]: Zakim, IPcaller is jtauber
16:59:52 [Zakim]: sorry, jtauber, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
17:00:17 [tantek]: Zakim, this is SOCL
17:00:17 [Zakim]: ok, tantek; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
17:00:23 [tantek]: Zakim, who is here
17:00:23 [Zakim]: tantek, you need to end that query with '?'
17:00:29 [Zakim]: +??P14
17:00:32 [tantek]: Zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, [IPcaller], Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, ??P9, ??P14
17:00:34 [Zakim]: On IRC I see RRSAgent, Lloyd_Fassett, jtauber, elf-pavlik, jasnell, nicolagreco, tantek, evanpro, harry, bblfish, melvster, KevinMarks, bryan_, bret, rhiaro, Arnaud, wilkie, mattl,
17:00:34 [Zakim]: ... tommorris, Loqi, aaronpk, Zakim, oshepherd, kylewm, Tsyesika, trackbot, botie, sandro, wseltzer
17:00:47 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.a]
17:00:54 [jtauber]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:00:54 [Zakim]: +jtauber; got it
17:01:25 [bblfish]: zakim IPCaller.a is me
17:01:29 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller]
17:01:39 [Zakim]: +[IPcaller.aa]
17:01:40 [bblfish]: Zakim [IPCaller.a is me
17:01:43 [harry]: Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
17:01:43 [Zakim]: +hhalpin; got it
17:01:44 [evanpro]: Zakim, [IPcaller] is me
17:01:46 [Zakim]: sorry, evanpro, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
17:01:47 [bblfish]: Zakim [IPCaller.a] is me
17:01:56 [Zakim]: +Tantek (was ??P9)
17:01:59 [tommorris]: Apologies for absence: I am travelling today following medical treatment.
17:02:02 [Zakim]: +??P18
17:02:03 [evanpro]: Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:02:03 [Zakim]: sorry, evanpro, I do not recognize a party named 'IPcaller'
17:02:04 [bblfish]: Zakim, [IPCaller.a] is me
17:02:04 [Zakim]: +bblfish; got it
17:02:10 [harry]: trackbot, start meeting
17:02:12 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, make logs 411
17:02:12 [tantek]: apologies for the beeps but that worked! :)
17:02:14 [trackbot]: Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:02:14 [Zakim]: ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:15 [trackbot]: Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:02:15 [trackbot]: Date: 30 September 2014
17:02:17 [harry]: chair: Arnaud
17:02:34 [Arnaud]: agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-30
17:02:45 [MarkC]: MarkC has joined #social
17:03:00 [harry]: jtauber, can you scribe?
17:03:09 [evanpro]: harry: jtauber scribed last week
17:03:32 [jtauber]: Arnaud: I did the minutes wiki page
17:03:37 [Shane]: Shane has joined #social
17:03:40 [bret]: hey all, I'll be joining the call today too
17:03:47 [tantek]: zakim, who is making noise?
17:03:50 [evanpro]: Zakim, IPcaller.aa is me
17:03:50 [Zakim]: +evanpro; got it
17:03:55 [bret]: tommorris: :( hope you feel better and your travels go smoothly
17:03:57 [jtauber]: Arnaud: sorry, I'm still getting used to the process :-)
17:03:57 [markus]: markus has joined #social
17:03:57 [Zakim]: tantek, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: [IPcaller] (49%)
17:03:58 [evanpro]: (I think)
17:04:02 [Loqi]: it'll be ok
17:04:10 [tommorris]: thanks bret
17:04:11 [Shane]: zakim, what's the code?
17:04:12 [Zakim]: the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), Shane
17:04:19 [oshepherd]: I can scribe
17:04:26 [oshepherd]: (I forgot my headset again...)
17:04:30 [harry]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:04:30 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, +1.703.670.aaaa, [IPcaller]
17:04:33 [harry]: scribe: oshepard
17:04:41 [Zakim]: +??P25
17:04:46 [Shane]: zakim, ??P25 is me
17:04:46 [Zakim]: +Shane; got it
17:04:49 [Shane]: Zakim, mute me
17:04:49 [Zakim]: Shane should now be muted
17:05:11 [MarkC]: Zakim, +1,703.670.aaaa is me
17:05:11 [Zakim]: sorry, MarkC, I do not recognize a party named '+1,703.670.aaaa'
17:05:24 [harry]: Zakim, aaaa is MarkC
17:05:24 [Zakim]: +MarkC; got it
17:05:24 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: participation is still limited to members... number of invited expert applications, still working through list
17:05:34 [MarkC]: Zakim, +1.703.670.aaaa is me
17:05:34 [Zakim]: sorry, MarkC, I do not recognize a party named '+1.703.670.aaaa'
17:05:48 [harry]: Can we hold approving minutes till end of agenda?
17:05:50 [bret]: Totally understandable and reasonable
17:05:54 [harry]: I am still fixing the draft minutes up
17:05:55 [oshepherd]: ....and balancing desire between W3C being inclusive and keeping WG productive
17:05:59 [wilkie]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:05:59 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, MarkC, [IPcaller], Shane (muted)
17:06:26 [oshepherd]: .... and ensuring that people who should be W3C members are members.
17:06:37 [Arnaud]: http://www.w3.org/2014/09/23-social-minutes.html
17:07:18 [Arnaud]: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-30
17:07:45 [Arnaud]: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23-minutes
17:07:59 [oshepherd]: ... Agreed that minutes would be transcribed to wiki, turned into wiki page following a defined template.
17:08:23 [markus]: zakim, code?
17:08:23 [Zakim]: the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus
17:08:51 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Asking scribe to transcribe, post to mailing list once done so that people can discuss the cleaned up minutes, so that they have a heads up to chime in on last week's minutes
17:08:55 [evanpro]: +1
17:08:57 [jtauber]: my apologies for not getting it done in a timely fashion (still learning)
17:09:00 [Arnaud]: Proposed: approve minutes of 23 September: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-09-23-minutes
17:09:15 [jasnell]: +1 to approve
17:09:31 [Shane]: +1
17:09:38 [Zakim]: +??P29
17:09:42 [markus]: zakim, ??P29 is me
17:09:42 [Zakim]: +markus; got it
17:09:50 [harry]: RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 23 September
17:09:55 [harry]: (tentative)
17:10:09 [harry]: Let's hold a week to object over mailing list and maybe fix up minutes
17:10:22 [elf-pavlik]: +1
17:10:35 [oshepherd]: ??: Just saying for folks that if you have any objections with the minutes you should speak up
17:10:45 [tantek]: s/??/tantek
17:11:16 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: People have a week after call to raise comments on resolutions, past week's minutes, etc
17:11:34 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: So scribe should attempt to make sure that minutes are out promptly to maximize this time
17:11:44 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Looking at list of open actions...
17:11:59 [jasnell]: link?
17:12:05 [elf-pavlik]: http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/2
17:12:06 [Arnaud]: action-2
17:12:06 [trackbot]: action-2 -- James Snell to Describe how as2 diverges from json-ld and manages the compatibility -- due 2014-09-16 -- OPEN
17:12:06 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/2
17:12:08 [oshepherd]: TOPIC: How does AS2 diverge from JSON-LD (Action 2)
17:12:22 [jasnell]: q+
17:12:48 [oshepherd]: jasnell: This is in progress... as a result of conversations last week with regards to whether we are going to go with JSON-LD or not
17:13:07 [oshepherd]: jasnell: the changes themselves are already in spec document
17:13:15 [oshepherd]: jasnell: divergences are not called out specifically, but they're there
17:13:27 [oshepherd]: jasnell: going to go into that in more detail
17:13:32 [Arnaud]: action-4
17:13:32 [trackbot]: action-4 -- Arnaud Le Hors to Add "what is the role of social wg, ig and cg?" as an faq to https://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg#faq -- due 2014-09-23 -- OPEN
17:13:32 [trackbot]: http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/4
17:14:02 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: (Procedural) It is impolite to give other people actions without their consent
17:14:11 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Moving on...
17:14:19 [oshepherd]: TOPIC: TPAC
17:14:35 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Reminded that regisrtation ends on October (28th ?)
17:14:36 [harry]: So if you haven't register, register *now*
17:14:40 [harry]: Oct 8th
17:14:51 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Running out of space, if you haven't registered yet, register now
17:14:55 [harry]: Sept 27-28th is our meeting
17:14:55 [tantek]: zakim, mute me
17:14:55 [Zakim]: Tantek should now be muted
17:15:07 [harry]: s/Sept/Oct
17:15:10 [harry]: oct 27-28th is our meeting
17:15:14 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Talking about adding a BOF session with Schema.org. Not joining WG or WG meeting, but BOF during wednesday plenary so we can discuss matters with them
17:15:22 [Arnaud]: q?
17:15:29 [harry]: Oct 29th is a schema.org BOF, Google will attend.
17:15:32 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: (At least 2 people from Google, someone from Yandex) to see if there is any synergy or can be any transfer of work
17:15:37 [tantek]: happy to hold an indieweb BOF as well
17:15:42 [evanpro]: +1
17:15:44 [harry]: +1
17:15:48 [evanpro]: tantek: Indieweb BOF would be great
17:16:10 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: I have setup meeting pages on the wiki for this meeting, again invite everybody to go to page and indicate if they are intending to attend in person or remotely and to indicate which topic they would like to be discussed
17:16:22 [harry]: Add here: http://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC2014/SessionIdeas
17:16:31 [harry]: for TPAC BOFs on Wednesday
17:16:38 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Can't guarantee we will be able to acommodate, but have done in past and has worked well; aranging things to fit other people's timezones where possible
17:16:56 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: As we get closer to meeting, will try to set up an agenda which provides specific time frames as for when we intend to talk about what
17:17:14 [dromasca]: dromasca has joined #social
17:17:20 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Always difficult to work out how much time each topic will take, but good to have an agenda so we have some reference, even if we are somewhat flexible around that
17:17:33 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Moving on from procedural work towards specifications we have to discuss...
17:17:47 [oshepherd]: TOPIC: Activity Streams 2
17:18:03 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: We already aimed to publish document by TPAC. Is there anything in the wya of attaining that goal?
17:18:33 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Have updated the vocabulary document based upon technical feedback received so far, regarding link value and relationship with link relations and JSON-LD alignment
17:18:50 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Sent out detailed note yestefday and another this moring detailing what these changes are
17:19:02 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Apologise that these are long notes, will take time to go through, but do cover everything changed
17:19:20 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Second document (covers serialziation, syntax) will be updated tomorrow; by friday indent to have drafts of all documents
17:19:31 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Can discuss if we are to publish these as FPWD in time for TPAC
17:19:33 [tantek]: q+ re: AS2 approval for FPWD
17:19:43 [tantek]: Zakim, open the queu
17:19:43 [Zakim]: I don't understand 'open the queu', tantek
17:19:49 [tantek]: Zakim, open the queue
17:19:49 [Zakim]: ok, tantek, the speaker queue is open
17:19:55 [tantek]: q+ re: AS2 approval for FPWD
17:20:04 [harry]: The key is to get it *decided* by TPAC
17:20:10 [harry]: it might not appear on Web for a week or so after.
17:20:14 [tantek]: no, sooner
17:20:14 [harry]: with its official status
17:20:18 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Aiming to get document published by the ??nd of October, lots of W3C admin processes to go through especially for FPWD
17:20:27 [harry]: although the Github Editor's Draft will be accurate
17:20:28 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Need to get webmasters to publish document, etc.
17:20:40 [harry]: and up to date on day off.
17:20:48 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Aiming for document by end of this week, decision on 14th of October
17:20:53 [tantek]: Arnaud: aim to make decision by 2014-10-14
17:21:00 [tantek]: +1 on make decision by 2014-10-14
17:21:02 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: By then must have reviewed draft, must be able to vote as to whether we should publish as a FPWD
17:21:03 [harry]: If we ask for FPWD by Oct 14th, then we'll have it published by TPAC
17:21:04 [tantek]: to publish FPWD
17:21:23 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Not discussion of if things are done, etc; just if the document is reasonable, so we have a stick in the ground
17:21:45 [Zakim]: +dromasca
17:21:46 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Does it sound reasonable to have decision by 14th? That gives us 2 weeks before TPAC to get doc published, which is reasonable
17:21:48 [tantek]: note that FPWD is a starting point. We are allowed to make plenty of changes, including breaking changes.
17:22:06 [elf-pavlik]: q+ re: discussions on mailing list of github issues?
17:22:09 [tantek]: we can publish updated WD as often as we the WG can review and agree to publish
17:22:26 [tantek]: elf-pavlik: issue tracking per spec is up to the editor
17:22:37 [tantek]: in this case, the editor has indicated he prefers github issues on his drafts
17:22:39 [oshepherd]: jasnell: We do have a draft now, working on edits to that. Putting updated draft in branch on GitHub. Would suggest people review both, so that we can fall back to older draft if changes are not yet ready for FPWD
17:22:48 [Shane]: Is there a set amount of drafts that we are allowed to publish?
17:22:58 [tantek]: Shane - no set amount.
17:22:58 [Arnaud]: q?
17:23:02 [Arnaud]: ack tantek
17:23:03 [Zakim]: tantek, you wanted to discuss AS2 approval for FPWD
17:23:11 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Important to signal to group when you freeze the doucment so that we can have stable draft for people to review (limited time etc)
17:23:31 [jasnell]: Yes Please.
17:23:35 [oshepherd]: tantek: Decided to publish by 14th, given how much iteration jasnell has been doing, don't wait until Friday to review document, please review ASAP
17:23:40 [harry]: FPWDs are usually pretty sketchy
17:23:55 [oshepherd]: tantek: Think document is in very stable space, especially for FPWD, on Friday please check what changes he has made since today
17:23:58 [harry]: so we are in good shape relative to other WGs, nothing is in stone as well
17:24:08 [bblfish]: yes, but in my experience from the LDP WG once something is in FPWD it is very difficult to remove something
17:24:24 [jasnell]: this is the updated version to review: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/blob/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html
17:24:35 [oshepherd]: tantek: On Friday you will still have 14 days to raise any issues, though I don't think will be any blockers
17:24:37 [Arnaud]: ack elf-pavlik
17:24:37 [Zakim]: elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss discussions on mailing list of github issues?
17:24:38 [bblfish]: because there is a prejudice for something to be in the draft, so you have to get a lot of consensus to get it out
17:24:43 [jasnell]: to view as HTML locally, check out the ontology-approach branch
17:25:04 [bret]: mic is garbled
17:25:04 [bblfish]: yes, voice is garbled
17:25:05 [harry]: I think elf is asking if jasnell prefers github issues or not
17:25:07 [jasnell]: git clone -b ontology-approach https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams.git
17:25:28 [tantek]: jasnell - please provide a URL that doesn't require executing any command lines
17:25:32 [oshepherd]: elf-pavlik: What channel should we use to discuss issues on drafts, Github or WG ML?
17:25:50 [harry]: q+
17:25:54 [jasnell]: tantek: I will have to do that a bit later today
17:25:55 [melvster]: melvster has joined #social
17:26:03 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Discussed point before, important operational issue. Would personally prefer people use tracker+ml because connected, but some people prefer GitHub.
17:26:10 [tantek]: jasnell - ok for you to take that as an action?
17:26:12 [harry]: I've seen both used well
17:26:18 [harry]: for small issues, github issues make sense
17:26:21 [bret]: tantek: https://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html
17:26:25 [harry]: for larger design issues, use the WG/tracker
17:26:36 [tantek]: jasnell - is that correct? https://rawgit.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/ontology-approach/activitystreams2-vocabulary.html
17:26:41 [harry]: WebCrypto and a few other WGs do that productively
17:26:42 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Up to editor which way they want to do it. Been raised before that for smaller issues GitHub is probably OK, but for bigger issues should probably be raised on the WG/Tracker so whole ML is aware
17:26:43 [Arnaud]: ack harry
17:26:48 [jasnell]: bret: thanks ;-) ... that doesn't seem to pull in the respec formatting but that works
17:26:57 [bret]: dang!
17:27:21 [oshepherd]: harry: The problem if we raised issues for any minor semantic issue, overloads tracker and ML with noise, so chuck on GitHub unless you think needs formal discussion from WG
17:27:24 [jasnell]: I'll push the branch to the gh-pages branch a bit later this morning
17:27:38 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: James, are there any technical issues you would like us to discuss now?
17:27:57 [Arnaud]: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
17:27:58 [oshepherd]: jasnell: So it looks like elf-pavlik has raised a bunch I have not yet gone into regarding link relations, etc.
17:28:06 [oshepherd]: jasnell: most seem to be low level technical issues don't need to get into right here
17:28:19 [oshepherd]: jasnell: One regarding issue of audience targetting, how we identify audience.
17:28:23 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Automatic testing
17:28:35 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Nothing which sticks out as needing urgent review here
17:28:41 [jasnell]: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
17:28:52 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: To WG, are there any issues you would like to talk about now?
17:29:08 [jasnell]: issue https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/19 is resolved by the proposed vocab update
17:29:27 [wilkie]: Zakim, who's on the phone?
17:29:27 [Zakim]: On the phone I see bret (muted), jasnell, jtauber, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, Tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), bblfish, hhalpin, evanpro, ??P18, MarkC, [IPcaller], Shane (muted),
17:29:31 [Zakim]: ... markus, dromasca
17:29:32 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Hope we have verified what is expected to happen with AS
17:29:38 [wilkie]: Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:29:38 [Zakim]: +wilkie; got it
17:29:43 [harry]: Zakim, who's making noise?
17:29:44 [tantek]: zakim, who is making noise?
17:29:55 [Zakim]: harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (49%)
17:30:06 [Zakim]: tantek, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (88%)
17:30:26 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Should we discuss ActivityStreams vocabulary?
17:30:37 [elf-pavlik]: who managed to read updated documents?
17:30:40 [oshepherd]: jasnell: As I said, I did post the changes to WG.
17:30:59 [oshepherd]: jasnell: in response to Tantek's response on IRC, will be pushing update to github pages after call, so everyone can see nicely formatted version easily
17:31:17 [oshepherd]: jasnell: There are some fairly significant changes, e.g. type value has been removed; link value has been refactored into Link class
17:31:37 [oshepherd]: jasnell: End result is that there are some fairly important changes to the abstract model, but syntax isn't much changed. Mostly semantic changes
17:31:56 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Major change is Actions have been folded into the ActivityStreams main vocabulary; were previously in separate draft
17:32:05 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Will see things like Potential Action, ActionHandlers, etc
17:32:14 [elf-pavlik]: q+
17:32:27 [Zakim]: -??P18
17:32:29 [oshepherd]: jasnell: Have reworked design so actions are more similar to Schema.org's actions, without introducing dependency on schema
17:32:36 [Arnaud]: ack elf-pavlik
17:32:46 [Shane]: I like the design being similar without a dependency
17:32:49 [Zakim]: +??P10
17:32:57 [tantek]: who just joined?
17:33:00 [elf-pavlik]: I wanted to clarify something on JSON-LD
17:33:14 [elf-pavlik]: that one can design around JSON-LD and use it later as JSON
17:33:18 [dromasca]: ??P18 is me
17:33:21 [dromasca]: maybe?
17:33:23 [elf-pavlik]: but the other way it doesn't work that well
17:33:30 [tantek]: let's not spend time on call on JSON-LD tutorial please
17:33:39 [jasnell]: +1
17:33:44 [elf-pavlik]: as for example, i have hard time to get microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD
17:33:53 [elf-pavlik]: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/17
17:34:06 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: <echos Tantek>, clear that JSON-LD is designed so that it can be consumed as JSON (but the other way is not necessarily true)
17:34:14 [harry]: q+
17:34:17 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Any question on direction taken by jasnell and vocabulary?
17:34:20 [Arnaud]: ack harry
17:34:22 [tantek]: elf-pavlik: microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD is offtopic for this channel at this time. happy to discuss "microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD" in Freenode IRC #microformats if you wish
17:34:55 [oshepherd]: harry: I do think there is a valid point that we have heard a lot from elf-pavlik and wondering if anybody else would like to speak esp. from non-JSON-LD using community e.g. indiewebcamp and see if they have had time to look at spec at all
17:34:55 [Zakim]: -Shane
17:35:01 [Loqi]: Loqi has joined #social
17:35:09 [Zakim]: +??P15
17:35:14 [Shane]: Zakim, ??P15 is me
17:35:14 [Zakim]: +Shane; got it
17:35:14 [tantek]: who just joined?
17:35:17 [Shane]: Zakim, mute me
17:35:17 [Zakim]: Shane should now be muted
17:35:28 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: To clarify, this is not intended to be published at same time as the spec, right?
17:35:34 [tantek]: jasnell we need two URL to review
17:35:36 [oshepherd]: jasnell: To clarify, both AS2 vocab + syntax are intended to be published together
17:35:40 [tantek]: so we are proposing two FPWD
17:35:44 [tantek]: AS2 vocabs
17:35:47 [tantek]: AS2 syntax
17:36:01 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Process is that as people review documents, raise a list of issues they have, and we can start working on those issues and moving forward
17:36:01 [jasnell]: tantek: yes. the AS2 vocabs is what I posted yesterday. I'm working on updating the AS2 syntax today and tomorrow
17:36:16 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Perfectly reasonable to publish an FPWD with open issues; nobody expects FPWD to have all issues closed
17:36:28 [tantek]: q+ to respond to Harry
17:36:29 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Lastly, action handlers
17:36:40 [oshepherd]: jasnell: The actions stuff has been pulled into vocabulary; does have a revised model
17:36:49 [tantek]: q+ to respond to Harry as to whether any indieweb folks have looked at AS2 drafts
17:37:03 [oshepherd]: jasnell: As a bit of background, actions original proposal that was contributed overlapped fairly significantly with schema.org actions
17:37:10 [oshepherd]: jasnell: but took different approaches with regards to syntax and properties
17:37:40 [oshepherd]: jasnell: in update published yesterday, have revised model so that it is /closer/ to what schema.org has done, follows same basic model, but property names etc are slightly different, no direct dependency
17:37:57 [oshepherd]: jasnell: aligned so that community has /one/ way of doing things, but don't overlap
17:38:27 [tantek]: are there any implementations of actions?
17:38:28 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Don't think we have discussed the merging of these two together in the past. It is important to indicate that we are abandoning separate document
17:38:38 [Arnaud]: ack tantek
17:38:38 [Zakim]: tantek, you wanted to respond to Harry and to respond to Harry as to whether any indieweb folks have looked at AS2 drafts
17:38:40 [tantek]: I'd prefer to keep actions separate
17:38:44 [evanpro]: Separate
17:38:47 [tantek]: Zakim, unmute me
17:38:47 [Zakim]: Tantek was not muted, tantek
17:38:47 [evanpro]: q+
17:38:54 [oshepherd]: jasnell: The actions portion is still separate section in the main vocab draft, so can be separateed out if necessary
17:39:10 [oshepherd]: tantek: So harry asked if anyone in Indieweb community had had a chance to review the AS2 draft
17:39:24 [oshepherd]: tantek: Don't speak for commuinity, just for myself; have looked over some of draft, haven't done a total reading
17:39:39 [oshepherd]: tantek: Don't see how to map some of Indieweb microformats usage into AS2 JSON...
17:39:53 [oshepherd]: tantek: ...but that might just be me not quite understanding it yet, not going to raise as a blocker
17:39:54 [Shane]: I've read it but having not implemented AS, I don't have strong opinions either way
17:40:06 [oshepherd]: tantek: As I see it, the AS2 work should continue to go forward, should try to figure out some form of mapping
17:40:24 [oshepherd]: tantek: If we can't figure out some form of direct mapping, maybe worth bringing forth some form of proposal, not worth crossing bridge until we get to it
17:40:26 [jasnell]: I'm happy to work with you on exploring that mapping
17:40:41 [oshepherd]: tantek: Regarding the actions: thats all new, as far as I understand, not based upon anye xisting implementations
17:40:49 [oshepherd]: tantek: Based upon that I think we should keep it separate
17:40:59 [oshepherd]: tantek: Don't want tthat to cause any issues for existing AS2 syntax+vocab documents
17:41:09 [oshepherd]: tantek: Would prefer to go to FPWD with both vocab+syntax without actions
17:41:13 [Arnaud]: ack evanpro
17:41:16 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Need to get to bottom of that problem
17:41:32 [jasnell]: ok, so the proposal should be: keep actions vocabulary in a separate document from the activity vocabulary
17:41:36 [oshepherd]: evanpro: I was going to second that. Not sure if actions are really necessary for our FPWD, may take a lot of our time
17:41:48 [oshepherd]: evanpro: I think architecture of AS is such that they fit in nicely..
17:42:03 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Not sure if much to discuss, hearing multiple nods as to people prefering to keep things separate
17:42:13 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Inviting silent ones to chime in on keeing things separate
17:42:21 [oshepherd]: oshepherd: +1 on separating
17:42:24 [elf-pavlik]: any drawbacks of having 4 documents rather then 2 ?
17:42:32 [wilkie]: +1 keep them separate
17:42:39 [oshepherd]: jasnell: No real objection to separating things out, am agnostic, can go either way as to if one or two documents
17:42:53 [oshepherd]: jasnell: ...Looking at IRC, looks like folks prefer keeping separate
17:42:56 [Arnaud]: Proposed: Keep Action spec separate
17:42:58 [Shane]: I agree with separate, though if they can be linked together for easy navigation then that would be useful
17:42:59 [harry]: In general, we minimize documents
17:43:02 [evanpro]: +1
17:43:02 [oshepherd]: +1
17:43:03 [jasnell]: +0
17:43:03 [Shane]: +1
17:43:04 [wilkie]: +1
17:43:04 [tantek]: +1
17:43:07 [elf-pavlik]: +0.5
17:43:12 [markus]: +0
17:43:23 [tantek]: modularity++
17:43:23 [Arnaud]: Resolved: Keep Action spec separate
17:43:23 [oshepherd]: jasnell: No problem, will separate those out
17:43:34 [Loqi]: modularity has 2 karma
17:43:48 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: We have reached the end of our agenda. Any more comments on actions before we move on?
17:43:56 [bblfish]: Is there an overview to the actions spec?
17:43:57 [evanpro]: q+
17:44:03 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: I think elf brought up a question on ML?
17:44:09 [harry]: q+
17:44:09 [elf-pavlik]: about *Implementations Task Force*
17:44:10 [Arnaud]: ack evanpro
17:44:11 [jasnell]: Actions is going to require close review and discussion. I will write up an overview bblfish
17:44:29 [oshepherd]: evanpro: So the thing I wanted to bring up as a point of business is that we have on our schedule the intention to start looking at
17:44:48 [oshepherd]: evanpro: some social API candidates and patterns, this week and next week, would like to start collecting social API candidates
17:44:54 [evanpro]: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API_candidates
17:44:55 [tantek]: aside re: actions, we have had more implementation experience with webactions, see http://indiewebcamp.com/webactions#IndieWeb_Examples for actual usage on public websites.
17:44:59 [oshepherd]: evanpro: Will see if I can make a wiki page
17:45:17 [tantek]: evanpro++ for sharing an empty wiki page to be filled in :)
17:45:20 [Loqi]: evanpro has 1 karma
17:45:24 [jasnell]: Do we have a list of requirements for the Social API that we can use to evaluate candidates?
17:45:33 [oshepherd]: evanpro: As we go into discussing social API with our contributions of the AS portion of OpenSocial, would like to see some others so we can evaluate multiple candidates
17:45:41 [tantek]: jasnell - # of implementations would be a good start
17:45:45 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: So people to go to wiki page and add candidates?
17:45:48 [oshepherd]: evanpro: Exactly
17:45:52 [Arnaud]: q?
17:45:56 [Arnaud]: ack harry
17:46:06 [oshepherd]: harry: I'd just like to rather quickly address elf's point
17:46:23 [oshepherd]: harry: I think that the WG is the implementation group. Don't think it mkaes sense to separate out the implementation folks
17:46:32 [tantek]: Harry: working group is the implementation group. no need for separate task force.
17:46:37 [tantek]: +1 to what Harry said
17:46:40 [Shane]: +1 for WG is the implementation group
17:46:41 [oshepherd]: harry: Don't think task forces make sense given our numbers at this point; TF unneeded for a WG of this scale
17:46:59 [oshepherd]: harry: Usually less meetings = more productivity, so don't think we want the overhead of extra impls
17:47:09 [oshepherd]: harry: Would love to see people listing implementations, stats on estimated users if possible
17:47:17 [elf-pavlik]: makese sense
17:47:35 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: See several people have agreed with people on IRC. Seems to be premature, not sure what the purpose of an implementers group would be
17:47:46 [elf-pavlik]: agreed!
17:47:51 [jasnell]: relevant to impls discussion: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams#Implementations
17:47:52 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Don't think we have the critical mass at which it is necessary to split into multiple formal groups
17:48:17 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: We have reached the end of the agenda, unless people have anything to bring up, we can end the meeting early...
17:48:18 [jasnell]: harry: +1
17:48:20 [tantek]: q+ to ask about criteria for minimal vocabs
17:48:25 [bret]: I will look over it
17:48:25 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: ...and you can use the free time to reviwe those drafts ;-)
17:48:29 [Arnaud]: ack tantek
17:48:29 [Zakim]: tantek, you wanted to ask about criteria for minimal vocabs
17:48:34 [jasnell]: I'd like to see a review from *everyone* ;-)
17:48:38 [oshepherd]: tantek: So I wanted to raise one of the points that we have made in this WG
17:48:49 [oshepherd]: tantek: (Pretty sure it is in the charter) that we should try to come up with minimal vocab
17:49:07 [oshepherd]: tantek: So in particular when reviewing the AS2 draft pay special attention to and provide feedback on what of the vocabulary you find useful
17:49:31 [oshepherd]: tantek: and what of the vocab, espeically if you have implemented AS1 or AS2 or similar functionality, what terms and values you have shipped, what you haven't
17:49:49 [harry]: +1 data-driven design
17:49:50 [oshepherd]: tantek: That information is useful to WG, if we see clear pattetns that implementers only care about 80% of terms, we can use that to make the vocab smaller
17:49:58 [oshepherd]: tantek: Smaller standard benefits everyone
17:50:01 [harry]: [or empirical driven design if possible]
17:50:05 [wilkie]: tantek: where should we put that?
17:50:08 [oshepherd]: tantek: So people please provide your implementation experience
17:50:16 [bret]: does pump.io use all of AS?
17:50:19 [oshepherd]: tantek: so we can aim for minimal set based upon real world experience
17:50:39 [jasnell]: wilkie: either to the mailing list, wiki or the github issues
17:50:52 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Would like to remind people that as a part of the W3C spec track, there will be a point at which we have a call for implementations, at which point we need 2 implementations of _every_ feature to move forward
17:51:00 [tantek]: wilkie: wiki!
17:51:15 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: May be a case where we have seomthing we thought was a good idea but nobody is implementing it, so we need to publish new draft
17:51:17 [jasnell]: wikie: you can post elsewhere, but please at least post a permanent url to the mailing list or github issues so I can better keep track
17:51:22 [bret]: tantek: which wiki page?
17:51:30 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: this causes delays, best to avoid if necessary
17:51:43 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: Have a feature like this in LDP WG
17:52:06 [Shane]: /implementation-feedback would be a nice url
17:52:08 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: We have a concept of a "feature at risk"; if we have a feature we aren't sure of, we can mark a feature like this indicating that we aren't sure if we are going to move forward with feature
17:52:10 [Zakim]: -hhalpin
17:52:12 [tantek]: bret how about /socialwg/vocab-implementations ?
17:52:22 [Zakim]: -Lloyd_Fassett
17:52:28 [tantek]: where we can document each implementation and what vocab it uses?
17:52:31 [Zakim]: -jtauber
17:52:33 [Zakim]: -jasnell
17:52:35 [Zakim]: -dromasca
17:52:36 [harry]: trackbot, end meeting
17:52:36 [trackbot]: Zakim, list attendees
17:52:36 [Zakim]: As of this point the attendees have been bret, jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, elf-pavlik, jtauber, hhalpin, Tantek, bblfish, +1.703.670.aaaa, evanpro, Shane, MarkC,
17:52:39 [oshepherd]: Arnaud: With everything said, looks like we can close this call a little early. Thank you all; see you again next week; meeting adjourned
17:52:39 [Zakim]: ... markus, dromasca, wilkie, oshepherd
17:52:39 [Zakim]: -Shane
17:52:40 [Zakim]: -wilkie
17:52:41 [Zakim]: -Sandro
17:52:42 [Zakim]: -Arnaud
17:52:44 [Zakim]: -Tantek
17:52:44 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:52:44 [RRSAgent]: I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2014/09/30-social-minutes.html trackbot
17:52:45 [trackbot]: RRSAgent, bye
17:52:45 [RRSAgent]: I see no action items
17:52:46 [Zakim]: -evanpro
17:52:46 [markus]: thanks, bye
17:52:48 [Zakim]: -elf-pavlik
17:52:48 [jasnell]: fwiw, I tend to prefer assuming everything is "at risk" by default... and mark items as stable when we're sure rather than at-risk