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