IRC log of social on 2015-01-20

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:58:49 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
17:58:49 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-social-irc
17:58:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:58:53 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
17:58:53 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
17:58:54 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
17:58:54 [trackbot]
Date: 20 January 2015
17:59:08 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
17:59:10 [Arnaud]
elf, you're jumping the gun :)
17:59:12 [Zakim]
+jasnell
17:59:16 [Zakim]
+??P2
17:59:43 [bill_looby]
bill_looby has joined #social
17:59:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.314.777.aaaa
17:59:57 [Zakim]
+aaronpk
18:00:02 [cwebber2]
cwebber2 has joined #social
18:00:06 [cwebber2]
hello
18:00:07 [Zakim]
+Arnaud
18:00:11 [AdamB]
Zakim, aaaa is me
18:00:11 [Zakim]
+AdamB; got it
18:00:24 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:00:31 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
18:00:31 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
18:00:46 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:00:49 [Zakim]
+ +1.541.410.aabb
18:00:50 [Zakim]
+Ann
18:00:52 [Zakim]
+ +1.514.554.aacc
18:00:54 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:01:02 [eprodrom]
Zakim, aacc is me
18:01:02 [Zakim]
+eprodrom; got it
18:01:06 [Zakim]
+??P12
18:01:40 [cwebber2]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
18:01:40 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
18:01:43 [cwebber2]
-q
18:01:45 [eprodrom]
AUGH
18:01:47 [Zakim]
-[IPcaller]
18:01:53 [cwebber2]
-q ??P12
18:01:57 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aadd
18:02:12 [cwebber2]
horray, dialed in.
18:02:13 [KevinMarks]
that's me
18:02:19 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:02:32 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
18:02:40 [Zakim]
+Wendy
18:02:41 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
18:02:47 [KevinMarks]
zakim, +1.408.335.aadd is me
18:02:47 [Zakim]
+KevinMarks; got it
18:04:21 [wseltzer]
zakim, [IPC is Bill
18:04:21 [Zakim]
+Bill; got it
18:04:25 [Lloyd_Fassett]
zakim, +1.541.410.aabb is me
18:04:25 [Zakim]
+Lloyd_Fassett; got it
18:04:30 [Arnaud]
zakim, [IPcaller] is bill_looby
18:04:30 [Zakim]
sorry, Arnaud, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]'
18:04:38 [wseltzer]
zakim, Bill is really Bill_Looby
18:04:39 [Zakim]
+Bill_Looby; got it
18:05:02 [Loqi]
tantek: elf-pavlik left you a message on 1/18 at 2:40pm: that rhiario suggested: indiefriends list could come useful for vouch
18:05:22 [elf-pavlik]
i could scribe
18:05:42 [tantek]
elf-pavlik: have you or rhiaro implemented vouch? how do you know it would be useful? just hypothesis?
18:05:50 [AnnB]
+1 on thanks to elf!
18:05:52 [wilkie]
elf-pavlik++
18:05:55 [Loqi]
elf-pavlik has 3 karma
18:06:01 [cwebber2]
thx elf-pavlik :)
18:06:07 [elf-pavlik]
scribenick: elf-pavlik
18:06:08 [wilkie]
I can scribe next week. put me on the queue or what-have-you
18:06:10 [elf-pavlik]
chair: Arnaud
18:06:15 [Zakim]
+??P14
18:06:17 [tantek]
zakim, ??p14 is me
18:06:17 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:06:23 [elf-pavlik]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-01-20
18:06:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: not yet (I know, I know), but I understand from the wiki that there needs to be some kind of discovery of trusted people for vouch to work?
18:06:31 [elf-pavlik]
rrsagent, make records public
18:06:50 [Zakim]
+Sandro
18:06:59 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Approval of Minutes of 16 December 2014 Teleconf
18:07:11 [eprodrom]
+1
18:07:11 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2014-12-16-minutes
18:07:15 [wilkie]
+1
18:07:20 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: any objections?
18:07:22 [tantek]
fixed heading
18:07:32 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Approval of Minutes of 13 January 2015 Teleconf
18:07:35 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-01-13-minutes
18:07:44 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: any objections?
18:07:51 [elf-pavlik]
... approved
18:07:55 [eprodrom]
+1
18:07:55 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:07:55 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:07:58 [eprodrom]
Whew!
18:08:27 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: minutes tentative until approved
18:08:54 [eprodrom]
Me!
18:08:55 [bblfish]
ok, my connection is very likely to break every 10 minutes
18:08:58 [elf-pavlik]
... next week chair eprodrom
18:09:08 [tantek]
handy pro-tip: chair rotation is alphabetical by first nam :)
18:09:08 [elf-pavlik]
... Jan 27th
18:09:11 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Tracking of Actions and Issues
18:09:15 [tantek]
s/first nam/given name
18:09:20 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/Social/track/
18:09:36 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/pendingreview
18:10:24 [wilkie]
tantek++
18:10:27 [Loqi]
tantek has 141 karma
18:10:34 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom: dates for milestones month & year instead of exact day
18:10:41 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/Social/WG#sched
18:10:46 [dromasca]
dromasca has joined #social
18:11:06 [elf-pavlik]
... fewer fine grained milesontes
18:11:14 [elf-pavlik]
... easier for us to stay more flexible with it
18:11:30 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: thank you Evan for doing it
18:11:42 [elf-pavlik]
... close actions 23 and 24
18:11:48 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/open
18:12:09 [Zakim]
+dromasca
18:12:16 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: will no go one by one, anyone has updates on any of them?
18:12:33 [elf-pavlik]
... any actions open for which you have problem and you need some kind of support?
18:12:40 [jasnell]
ACTION-27 is done. It's just waiting on the W3C staff. Expected publication is Thursday
18:12:42 [Zakim]
-bblfish
18:12:47 [elf-pavlik]
... anything that stops you from completing thos actions
18:12:54 [eprodrom]
q+
18:12:54 [jasnell]
ACTION-28 also
18:13:01 [tantek]
Arnaud: or any action where you are waiting for something, you need something, you need help from someone
18:13:09 [jasnell]
q+
18:13:15 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
18:13:28 [Zakim]
+??P4
18:13:37 [jessica_lily]
Zakim, ??P4 is me
18:13:37 [Zakim]
+jessica_lily; got it
18:13:41 [jessica_lily]
Zakim, mute me
18:13:41 [Zakim]
jessica_lily should now be muted
18:13:44 [jessica_lily]
sorry i'm late all
18:13:48 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom: on ACTION-25 expecting IG meeting tomorrow where we should have chance to address it
18:14:05 [elf-pavlik]
... we should continue to move forward with collecting requirements for Social API
18:14:34 [tantek]
congrats AnnB!
18:14:43 [AnnB]
q+
18:14:45 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: for those not on IG - change of chairs Mark needed to step down and Ann volounteered, still looking for co-chair!
18:15:02 [elf-pavlik]
... please step up if you would like to get some experience
18:15:14 [tantek]
ack AnnB
18:15:21 [bblfish_]
bblfish_ has joined #social
18:15:26 [Arnaud]
ack AnnB
18:15:33 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:15:34 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
18:15:38 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB: also waiting for approval from new boss, especially in relation to travel
18:15:53 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB: would like support from elf as background co-chair
18:16:06 [elf-pavlik]
... happy to hold those meetings even before formalized
18:16:10 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:16:16 [harry]
harry has joined #social
18:16:22 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #social
18:16:33 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: ACTION-30 all content archived and can be made available for us if needed
18:16:33 [tantek]
q+ to ask AnnB what she thinks of using #social for IG so we can all have the same logs etc. Just as we share f2f meeting venue and time.
18:16:36 [harry]
Zakim, what's the code?
18:16:36 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry
18:16:44 [AnnB]
re: chairing of SocialIG ... that is, if that arrangement is OK with elf
18:16:46 [Loqi]
harry: rhiaro left you a message on 1/15 at 2:04pm: http://pandoc.amy.gy - improvements/bug reports welcome
18:16:49 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
18:16:49 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
18:17:00 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: also following up on ACTION-29, please expect update next week
18:17:07 [harry]
+1 just using the same channel
18:17:10 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: anyone else would like to declair victory?
18:17:20 [AnnB]
+1 on same channel ... makes sense
18:17:31 [elf-pavlik]
tantek: harry said he will ask systeam to look into restoring OpenSocial blog, permalinks and content
18:17:39 [AnnB]
the others in IG would have to agree
18:17:49 [bblfish_]
action-31
18:17:49 [trackbot]
action-31 -- Harry Halpin to Will ask w3c systeam about prospect for archiving osf blog posts and perhaps other content -- due 2015-01-20 -- OPEN
18:17:49 [trackbot]
http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/31
18:17:49 [harry]
sysreq request filed
18:17:50 [jasnell]
30 is closed, 31 is still open
18:17:54 [harry]
but no response yet
18:18:03 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB, please count on me in IG ! :)
18:18:05 [jasnell]
we'll need access to the archived content in order to complete 31
18:18:13 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:18:13 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:18:16 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: closing 27, 28 and 30
18:18:19 [AnnB]
a deep bow of gratitude to elf
18:18:22 [elf-pavlik]
... thank you!
18:18:56 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: no new raised issues, we will need to tackle those open at some point
18:19:06 [elf-pavlik]
... we will need some product to organize issues better
18:19:20 [Arnaud]
https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/open
18:19:21 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: please make proposals on how to address issues
18:19:44 [jasnell]
there is backwards compatibility discussed in the current WD
18:19:46 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:19:51 [harry]
Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
18:19:51 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
18:19:56 [jasnell]
I believe the current draft addresses #7
18:20:01 [elf-pavlik]
... we should address them and officialy close
18:20:07 [elf-pavlik]
... so that we can move spec further
18:20:07 [jasnell]
q+
18:20:25 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Activity Streams 2.0's path to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
18:20:44 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:20:45 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to ask AnnB what she thinks of using #social for IG so we can all have the same logs etc. Just as we share f2f meeting venue and time.
18:20:46 [eprodrom]
q-
18:21:08 [elf-pavlik]
tantek: about previous topic, question or request or pool
18:21:14 [harry]
We probably want some more implementation experience before hitting Last Call.
18:21:30 [elf-pavlik]
... to reconsider if then want to use #social IRC channel to share it with WG to improve cross polination, cross working
18:21:39 [elf-pavlik]
AnnB: makes a lot of sense
18:21:40 [harry]
+1 it would simplify the situation, every call it's caused confusion :)
18:21:49 [elf-pavlik]
tantek: will put it forward as formal proposal
18:21:51 [AdamB]
being a member of both i have no problems with that either,
18:21:54 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:21:56 [harry]
Happy to file sysreq requests if we get consensus
18:22:15 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: back on issues, ISSUE-7 current draft addresses it
18:22:32 [elf-pavlik]
... provides clear rules how to support pre JSON-LD syntax
18:22:45 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: I suggest to send email to the list with proposed resolution
18:22:58 [elf-pavlik]
... we can put it on a agenda on the next call
18:23:01 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:23:01 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:23:05 [elf-pavlik]
... please makr it as pending review
18:23:12 [elf-pavlik]
s/makr/mark/
18:24:02 [elf-pavlik]
elf: i would prefer to move MediaObject for next week
18:24:09 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: please put it on next week agenda
18:24:09 [tantek]
zakim, who is noisy?
18:24:23 [Zakim]
tantek, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Arnaud (75%)
18:24:41 [bblfish_]
:-)
18:24:44 [jasnell]
tantek: no worries.
18:24:51 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Activity Streams 2.0's path to Candidate Recommendation (CR)
18:25:04 [aaronpk]
*whew* much better
18:25:12 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: just to highlight W3C process
18:25:23 [Zakim]
-bblfish
18:25:30 [elf-pavlik]
... used to have stage callled Last Call
18:25:39 [harry]
Note that we have a schedule: http://www.w3.org/2013/socialweb/social-wg-charter
18:25:40 [elf-pavlik]
... we think we are done and now invite world to comment
18:25:52 [elf-pavlik]
... then CR after that
18:25:54 [harry]
That has ActivityStreams going into Candidate Rec at Q4 2015
18:26:12 [elf-pavlik]
... now process become simpler and combined it into single Candidate Recommendation
18:26:29 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:26:30 [harry]
So you can just ignore LC part of the charter on web-page, although if we feel ambitious we can hit Q3 2015
18:26:34 [elf-pavlik]
... spec republished as new draft
18:26:54 [elf-pavlik]
... in practice chairs will need to produce *transition request*
18:27:09 [elf-pavlik]
... chairs from other WG will get notifications
18:27:14 [Arnaud]
http://services.w3.org/xslt?xmlfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/01-transitions2014.html&xslfile=http://www.w3.org/2005/08/transitions2014.xsl&docstatus=cr-tr
18:27:23 [elf-pavlik]
... i put it on agenda ^
18:27:30 [elf-pavlik]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-01-20#Activity_Streams_2.0.27s_path_to_Candidate_Recommendation_.28CR.29
18:27:40 [jasnell]
We need to determine what a "test suite" looks like for AS2
18:27:42 [elf-pavlik]
... important one - have Test Suite
18:27:52 [elf-pavlik]
... maybe a test framework
18:28:12 [elf-pavlik]
... doesn't need to be complete at time of publishing the CR
18:28:33 [elf-pavlik]
... people who want to provide feedback on their implementations need to have test to check their work
18:28:45 [elf-pavlik]
... we also need to gather feedback on implementation work and experience
18:28:51 [tantek]
q+ to mention how to help with test suite / test case contribution motivation. hint: everything starts "at risk".
18:29:03 [elf-pavlik]
... as we go to CR we need to define as group criteria of declairing victory
18:29:12 [AnnB]
OK
18:29:42 [elf-pavlik]
... at least 2 implementations required and passing the test suite
18:29:54 [elf-pavlik]
... each feature needs *at leaset 2 implementations*
18:29:56 [jasnell]
There are three aspects: (1) Syntax Production ... verify that an implementation produces valid AS2 (2) Syntax Consumption ... verify that an implementation is properly able to parse and understand all normative serialization and (3) Semantics ... make sure that an implementation properly understands the semantics of the data it's working with.
18:30:08 [elf-pavlik]
... i had some talks with James about this and he has some ideas
18:30:41 [elf-pavlik]
... the easier we make it to people to implement and test their implemenations the better
18:30:50 [elf-pavlik]
... i hope people realize that it involves quite some of work
18:31:07 [elf-pavlik]
... i try to prepare you to step up and take on some of that work
18:31:11 [hhalpin]
Note that we need at least *two* interoperable implementations but we really prefer more.
18:31:17 [elf-pavlik]
... we need to *document implementation reports*
18:31:36 [hhalpin]
At this stage, a wiki-page to keep track of implementations make sense, and we can start a test-suite on github.
18:31:43 [elf-pavlik]
... we need workflow for collecting such reports
18:31:54 [hhalpin]
See here for more info on testing: http://testthewebforward.org/
18:32:18 [elf-pavlik]
... we need to start thinking about what it will take to do all that
18:33:16 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: we need to claim that we had a wide review of the specification and decide if we have any features at risk
18:33:30 [elf-pavlik]
... i learned in the hard way in LDP WG
18:33:42 [elf-pavlik]
... as we move forward the specification gets more and more stable
18:34:05 [elf-pavlik]
... when we get to CR we say: save for you to implement and unless we find problem we will make no changes
18:34:05 [tantek]
it's not that we think we're done, but rather, that we believe all outstanding issues have been resolved
18:34:30 [elf-pavlik]
... safety valve - features at risk
18:34:39 [tantek]
and that we're *ready* for implementer feedback. we know we're not done because we know that implementers *will* find issues while they implement, report them, and help improve the spec.
18:34:47 [elf-pavlik]
... if we don't feel fully confident about some features we can mark them as *Feature at risk*
18:35:07 [Zakim]
-wilkie
18:35:13 [jasnell]
we could reasonably go through the various Classes in the Extended Vocabulary and mark those At Risk I think
18:35:24 [jasnell]
there are many that are pretty stable
18:35:30 [elf-pavlik]
... this way we can simply remove it and the rest of the spec can safely move forward
18:35:34 [Zakim]
+[IPcaller]
18:35:38 [jasnell]
but there are some we'd likely need a bit more impl experience to prove out
18:35:40 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
18:35:40 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
18:35:48 [elf-pavlik]
... otherwise it will require going again into cycle of CR
18:35:51 [Zakim]
-bblfish
18:36:27 [elf-pavlik]
... once again i learned it the hard way
18:36:40 [elf-pavlik]
... we ended up with one feature which we didn't get implemented
18:36:55 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:37:17 [hhalpin]
Actually, of more concern to me is that we don't have a FPWD of the API as well.
18:37:18 [elf-pavlik]
... we have a lot of work to do and please take it as clear invitation to help
18:37:26 [eprodrom]
q+
18:37:27 [jasnell]
+1 :-)
18:37:36 [elf-pavlik]
... jasnell took a lot of work and he could recive some help from the group
18:37:37 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:37:38 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to mention how to help with test suite / test case contribution motivation. hint: everything starts "at risk".
18:37:41 [hhalpin]
Ideally, as there may be dependencies, we didn't want for one to go to CR before the other.
18:37:57 [elf-pavlik]
tantek: first of all thank you Arnaud for this excelent overview
18:38:19 [elf-pavlik]
... in many WG and many draft for getting test suites for specs
18:38:36 [elf-pavlik]
... we can start with all features marked as *at risk*
18:38:46 [cwebber2]
jasnell: I'm interested in helping, but I'll need help learning how to help ;)
18:38:51 [elf-pavlik]
... this way people who care about them, will produce test case and implemenation
18:38:58 [KevinMarks]
+1 to test-driven spec dev
18:39:30 [elf-pavlik]
... this allows us the freedom to as a group to decide if we want to wait for tests and implementation for big number of features
18:39:31 [bblfish_]
sounds interestnig the idea of a test driven spec
18:39:45 [elf-pavlik]
... or smaller number of features and ship faster
18:39:48 [bblfish_]
The only issue is how to write the tests, what would they look like
18:40:01 [hhalpin]
bblfish, see the testthewebforward.org page
18:40:10 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
18:40:16 [hhalpin]
http://testthewebforward.org/docs/writing-tests.html
18:40:23 [bill_looby]
q+
18:40:28 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom: i feel concerend about testing process
18:40:51 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:40:51 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:41:00 [elf-pavlik]
... especially at this point, simple JSON-LD processor can consume AS2.0 content without any need to understand semantics underneeth
18:41:11 [tantek]
I share eprodrom's concern.
18:41:19 [tantek]
Abstract data structure processing is not particularly interesting.
18:41:25 [jasnell]
q+
18:41:30 [elf-pavlik]
... do we have best practices for testing data structures without an API recomendation?
18:41:40 [elf-pavlik]
... not clear what to do with AS2.0 on its own
18:41:42 [hhalpin]
In general, we need the API to go to CR at same time at AS 2.0. See charter.
18:41:56 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: we need to clarify what exactly we test
18:42:03 [tantek]
In regards to eprodrom's question, I'd like to see tests that show some *visibly* *distinctive* result for each type of AS object
18:42:16 [tantek]
not just a code dump / pretty-print JSON
18:42:18 [elf-pavlik]
... we need to develop test framework and explain to people how tests look like for people to contribute tests
18:42:21 [Arnaud]
ack bill_looby
18:42:39 [elf-pavlik]
bill_looby: question about *features*
18:42:47 [elf-pavlik]
... not clear how we define features
18:43:10 [elf-pavlik]
... do we want to tie down individual APIs and call them features?
18:43:20 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:43:48 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: we have data format itself and the context it gets used in
18:43:56 [elf-pavlik]
... we can't test right now any of the behaviours
18:43:56 [AnnB]
s/underneeth/underneath/
18:44:09 [elf-pavlik]
... for now we can for example make a validator
18:44:21 [elf-pavlik]
... similar as we did during work on ATOM format
18:44:24 [AnnB]
s/excelent /excellent /
18:44:35 [tantek]
IMO a validator would be a nice implementation but not a sufficient implementation to exit CR
18:44:41 [tantek]
it's too abstract
18:44:44 [elf-pavlik]
... in the long term, we could have set of valid and invalid AS2.0 documents
18:45:08 [elf-pavlik]
... once we get API defined then we can go back and create test suite together with context we use them
18:45:13 [tantek]
TBH there is enough history and experience with AS that we should expect *presentational* results. Not just validator results.
18:45:14 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
18:45:17 [tantek]
q+
18:45:30 [eprodrom]
I like the validation angle
18:45:31 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: i didn't expect us to have answers to all those questions right away
18:45:40 [elf-pavlik]
... that's why i wanted to bring them up today
18:45:49 [elf-pavlik]
... we need to have an idea what we want to test
18:46:00 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
18:46:01 [elf-pavlik]
... we need to at least know where we go with it to move forward
18:46:14 [Zakim]
-bblfish
18:46:42 [elf-pavlik]
tantek: given long history and experience with ActivityStreams we should go for a higher bar than just a validator or something that checks only syntax or data
18:46:47 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:46:48 [bblfish_]
So it looks like mostly we would have a syntax validator as a test suite. But that does not seem to make it possible to have a number of people add to the test suite.
18:47:00 [sandro]
q+
18:47:04 [jasnell]
tantek: open to ideas on what that would look like absent an api :-)
18:47:05 [Loqi]
sandro: ben_thatmustbeme left you a message on 1/15 at 2:13pm: looks like i'll be co-organizing IWC Cambridge 2015, can you confirm that we have a venue for those dates? 2015-03-19/20?
18:47:06 [elf-pavlik]
... i know we don't have an API yet but don't think we need one
18:47:11 [aaronpk]
+1 to the goal of actually presenting AS 2 data in a usable way
18:47:16 [elf-pavlik]
... just to test various object types we work with
18:47:22 [elf-pavlik]
... let's raise the bar!
18:47:23 [Arnaud]
ack sandro
18:47:31 [jasnell]
need to know what those higher expectations are
18:47:34 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:47:34 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:47:35 [elf-pavlik]
sandro: couple of thoughs
18:47:41 [jasnell]
not arguing against it, just saying :-)
18:47:42 [elf-pavlik]
... we don't need a test suite
18:47:58 [elf-pavlik]
... we need an evidence that spec has proper implementations
18:47:58 [tantek]
jasnell: screenshots are a good start - of implementations showing different presentations of different object types
18:48:10 [elf-pavlik]
... and agreement that they correctly implement the spec
18:48:18 [KevinMarks]
possible tool: http://apiary.io
18:48:30 [elf-pavlik]
... test suite acts only as one of techniques to proove proper implementations
18:48:43 [elf-pavlik]
... on acting everyting as 'at risk' dosn't sound right to me
18:48:57 [bblfish_]
Is there some interoperability requirements of activity streams 2.0
18:48:59 [bblfish_]
?
18:49:05 [elf-pavlik]
... it should act as *highlighting* some features and would not come helpful for community
18:49:14 [elf-pavlik]
... we would make a really strong case to do it this way
18:49:23 [wilkie]
it will be a challenge to capture testing the extensibility we should be promoting as a strength
18:49:32 [jasnell]
is consistent UI presentation of an Activity Stream object a requirement? If it is, it's a new one. There have never been presentation requirements in AS
18:49:41 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: i understand it as makring everything what doesn't have tests marked as 'at risk'
18:50:03 [elf-pavlik]
sandro: i've seen specs with 2 or 3 features *at risk* but 5 and more sounds like bluring it all
18:50:03 [KevinMarks]
right, but we have inherited a lot of speculative features from our inputs
18:50:26 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: I agree with sandro, test suite is only a means to an end
18:50:44 [elf-pavlik]
... test suite often makes it easier for poeple to test their implementation
18:50:50 [elf-pavlik]
... let's leave it for this week
18:50:50 [jasnell]
to use UI presentation as a benchmark, we'll need someone to draft up a proposed set of UI requirements or guidelines
18:50:58 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Action draft status
18:51:11 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: we have this document that James started developing
18:51:18 [tantek]
jasnell - we need nothing so formal. Even just guidance about *different* presentation for different object types would be a good start.
18:51:22 [elf-pavlik]
... i would like to know where we stand af of this document
18:51:27 [bblfish]
which action draft URL?
18:51:38 [hhalpin]
tantek - I'm wondering if there's some other analogous cases in other WGs.
18:51:38 [tantek]
Because if two object types are treated the same in presentation, then it's evidence we don't need both.
18:51:45 [jasnell]
http://jasnell.github.io/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/activitystreams2-actions.html
18:51:50 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: we have updated version of a draft which i have kept up to date with other document
18:52:08 [elf-pavlik]
... at this point would make sense to acknowledge if we want to work on ti
18:52:14 [tantek]
The challenge here is that there's A LOT of different object types / etc. in AS - and that's been a longstanding weakness of AS (or challenge to implementers to try to understand it)
18:52:19 [tantek]
"There are too many types, make fewer"
18:52:30 [elf-pavlik]
... we need a lot of implementaiton experience and to get more people looking at it
18:52:34 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: any comments?
18:52:35 [tantek]
similar to the feedback given at the F2F about - do we really need verbs?
18:52:57 [elf-pavlik]
... i would like to propose next week to consider publising it as FPWD
18:52:57 [eprodrom]
+1
18:53:01 [tantek]
answer: in practice, no.
18:53:01 [tantek]
This is why we need a high bar for AS features for CR
18:53:02 [jasnell]
+1
18:53:27 [hhalpin]
Would be good to have some more discussion of it onlist beforehand.
18:53:30 [elf-pavlik]
... we'll put it as fromal proposal for next week, please prepare to take a position on this
18:53:37 [elf-pavlik]
jasnell: please take a look at editor draft
18:53:50 [KevinMarks]
the original AS process was in effect a Union of features in existing platforms
18:53:56 [elf-pavlik]
topic: Social API / Protocol
18:54:01 [tantek]
sees XSD in actions spec - yikes - people still use XSD?!?
18:54:01 [jasnell]
elf-pavlik: already posted it above
18:54:04 [shepazutu]
shepazutu has joined #social
18:54:06 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: i want to make sure we on the same page
18:54:13 [KevinMarks]
interop requirement means redefining it as an Intersection
18:54:28 [jasnell]
tantek: XSD used for typing, It's in JSON-LD too. Wouldn't get hung up on that
18:54:30 [elf-pavlik]
... we had very extensive activity going over various social APIs out there
18:54:35 [elf-pavlik]
... trying to educate ourselves
18:54:38 [bill_looby]
q+
18:54:52 [elf-pavlik]
... now how we go from there to have a draft
18:54:56 [tantek]
jasnell - yeah it's quite heavyweight - for both.
18:55:00 [jasnell]
tantek: I have no problems marking specific classes in the vocabulary as At Risk until impls prove them out more
18:55:06 [hhalpin]
Well, we need an editor :)
18:55:12 [elf-pavlik]
... email from harry puzzled me announcing first draft before next F2F meeting
18:55:15 [tantek]
jasnell - I'd say mark all types at risk until we have test cases for them.
18:55:15 [Arnaud]
ack bill_looby
18:55:16 [jasnell]
we rely on it solely for the data type identifiers
18:55:20 [eprodrom]
+q
18:55:24 [eprodrom]
Sorry, I thought I was speaking next
18:55:34 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:55:34 [Zakim]
tantek was already muted, tantek
18:55:39 [elf-pavlik]
bill_looby: i implemented AS withing Connections product
18:56:01 [elf-pavlik]
... if i have long list of requried features, product featues, structural features
18:56:30 [Zakim]
-bblfish
18:56:43 [tantek]
bill_looby: for each feature you feel is "required", could you commit to providing a test case?
18:56:56 [Zakim]
+bblfish
18:57:03 [elf-pavlik]
... i don't want to fill the wiki with lots of useless text
18:57:22 [elf-pavlik]
... interesting question from tantek about providing a test cases
18:57:32 [elf-pavlik]
... we could provide it for some of features we already implemented
18:57:39 [KevinMarks]
+q
18:57:44 [tantek]
sounds like a good split then
18:57:57 [tantek]
I'd rather get to REC sooner with a smaller real-world shipping spc
18:58:02 [tantek]
s/spc/spec
18:58:09 [Arnaud]
ack eprodrom
18:58:20 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom: glad to have you here!
18:58:22 [Zakim]
-dromasca
18:58:29 [elf-pavlik]
... we hopw for presentation of connections product
18:58:54 [AnnB]
s/hopw /hope /
18:58:59 [tantek]
+1 on a review of Connections
18:59:00 [elf-pavlik]
... especially review of your API
18:59:19 [elf-pavlik]
bill_looby: on conference next week, but could do it week after that
18:59:26 [eprodrom]
https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements
18:59:32 [elf-pavlik]
eprodrom: we should try to collect functionality out of those reviews
18:59:33 [elf-pavlik]
+1
18:59:47 [elf-pavlik]
... we started last fall but we should update it
19:00:09 [elf-pavlik]
... one of the big new things that came out - game mechanics, enterprise activities
19:00:28 [elf-pavlik]
... i'd love to get to provisional tumbs up/down on this list of requirements
19:00:41 [elf-pavlik]
... so that we can start soliciting some requirements for the API
19:01:01 [elf-pavlik]
... please *go over those requirements*, start conversation around them
19:01:09 [Arnaud]
ack KevinMarks
19:01:16 [elf-pavlik]
... so next week we can decide on those requirements
19:01:36 [bill_looby]
just as a note - I can add a lot of text to those requirements
19:01:46 [elf-pavlik]
KevinMarks: AS tried to be union of all this stuff while currently in W3C i see it more as intersection
19:01:51 [jasnell]
bill_looby: +1
19:01:52 [tantek]
+1 to spec'ing intersection, not union
19:01:55 [elf-pavlik]
Arnaud: the discussion will continue
19:01:56 [bill_looby]
if there is any format restrictions/suggestions let me know
19:02:00 [bblfish]
thanks
19:02:01 [elf-pavlik]
... thank all for joining today
19:02:03 [wilkie]
thanks all
19:02:05 [hhalpin]
+1
19:02:12 [tantek]
aside: microformats2 dev meetup tonight in SF
19:02:15 [elf-pavlik]
thanks Arnaud!
19:02:17 [Zakim]
-jasnell
19:02:18 [Zakim]
-Sandro
19:02:19 [AnnB]
thanks Arnaud!
19:02:20 [Zakim]
-Lloyd_Fassett
19:02:22 [Zakim]
-elf-pavlik
19:02:23 [Zakim]
-aaronpk
19:02:23 [Zakim]
-Wendy
19:02:24 [tantek]
http://microformats.org/wiki/events/2015-01-20-sf-meetup
19:02:25 [Zakim]
-AdamB
19:02:26 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
19:02:28 [Zakim]
-eprodrom
19:02:28 [Zakim]
-Ann
19:02:34 [Zakim]
-cwebber2
19:02:35 [Zakim]
-Bill_Looby
19:02:35 [Zakim]
-bblfish
19:02:36 [Zakim]
-tantek
19:02:42 [Arnaud]
trackbot, end meeting
19:02:42 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:02:42 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, elf-pavlik, +1.314.777.aaaa, aaronpk, Arnaud, AdamB, wilkie, bblfish, Ann, +1.514.554.aacc, eprodrom, cwebber2, Wendy, KevinMarks,
19:02:46 [Zakim]
... Lloyd_Fassett, Bill_Looby, tantek, Sandro, dromasca, jessica_lily, hhalpin
19:02:46 [Zakim]
-KevinMarks
19:02:50 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:02:50 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/01/20-social-minutes.html trackbot
19:02:51 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:02:51 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items