IRC log of social on 2015-01-27

Timestamps are in UTC.

18:00:04 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
18:00:04 [RRSAgent]
logging to
18:00:06 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
18:00:06 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
18:00:08 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
18:00:08 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now
18:00:09 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
18:00:09 [trackbot]
Date: 27 January 2015
18:00:32 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:00:32 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom
18:00:33 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud,
18:00:33 [Zakim]
... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
18:00:39 [eprodrom]
18:00:45 [KevinMarks]
hm, did I dial in too early?
18:00:52 [eprodrom]
Apparently by like 30 seconds
18:00:56 [Arnaud]
hi there
18:00:59 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:00:59 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom
18:01:00 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud,
18:01:00 [Zakim]
... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
18:01:16 [eprodrom]
18:01:22 [eprodrom]
Did I miss something in my incantation?
18:01:53 [eprodrom]
I have 13:01 on my clock
18:02:02 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:02:02 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom
18:02:03 [mattl]
hey... not calling in, but GNU social got a ton more users thanks to Twitter banning a user.
18:02:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud,
18:02:04 [Zakim]
... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer
18:02:14 [Arnaud]
zakim, this is socl
18:02:14 [Zakim]
ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
18:02:18 [KevinMarks]
hm. hearing beeps on the call
18:02:20 [eprodrom]
18:02:23 [eprodrom]
There we go
18:02:26 [eprodrom]
Thanks Arnaud
18:02:27 [mattl]
eprodrom: if you have the db of the old StatusNet wiki, it would be great to get a copy :)
18:02:28 [wilkie]
mattl: ... what user?
18:02:29 [Arnaud]
it should have been unnecessary
18:02:35 [eprodrom]
mattl: OK, I can try and get that to you
18:02:36 [aaronpk]
whoa now there's music
18:02:38 [Zakim]
18:02:40 [Arnaud]
but for some reason it doesn't happen automatically
18:02:41 [Zakim]
18:02:43 [Zakim]
18:02:46 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
18:02:46 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
18:02:49 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:02:49 [Zakim]
On the phone I see eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, wilkie
18:02:49 [Arnaud]
already reported to sysreq
18:02:51 [eprodrom]
18:02:53 [jasnell]
aw, I was just starting to dance around a little
18:03:04 [Zakim]
18:03:10 [mattl]
18:03:13 [wilkie]
do we have a scribe? I can scribe.
18:03:21 [mattl]
eprodrom: thanks man :)
18:03:29 [KevinMarks]
we need adactio to come along and play us some folk
18:03:30 [wilkie]
18:03:31 [aaronpk]
wilkie wins by 3 seconds
18:03:31 [Zakim]
18:03:38 [bret]
Zakim, ??P5 is me
18:03:38 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
18:03:39 [Arnaud]
fyi: I'm officially on paternity leave for 2 weeks :-)
18:03:42 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
18:03:42 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
18:03:52 [eprodrom]
scribe: wilkie
18:03:57 [ShaneHudson]
I can't even hear ringing
18:04:01 [Arnaud]
yes, really!
18:04:19 [wilkie]
rude :(
18:04:19 [ShaneHudson]
Arnaud: Congrats! :)
18:04:37 [AnnB]
holy smokes
18:05:06 [jasnell]
18:05:08 [Loqi]
Arnaud has 2 karma
18:05:15 [bret]
18:05:17 [jasnell]
18:05:18 [Zakim]
18:05:23 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Alec Le Hors becomes youngest honorary member
18:05:24 [bblfish]
18:05:27 [wilkie]
18:05:28 [wilkie]
18:05:32 [KevinMarks]
18:05:34 [bblfish]
18:05:37 [bblfish]
we have a girl here
18:05:44 [bblfish]
she is 4 months old
18:05:44 [eprodrom]
RESOLVED: extend honorary membership to youngest ever member
18:05:51 [Zakim]
18:06:25 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if we are ready to go, unless we are waiting for somebody in particular. tantek will be joining shortly
18:06:32 [eprodrom]
18:06:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: first step: approval of our minutes from last week
18:06:46 [wilkie]
TOPIC: approval of minutes from last week
18:06:56 [wilkie]
eprodrom: any objections to approving these minutes?
18:07:23 [wilkie]
resolved: minutes approved from last week
18:07:46 [wilkie]
eprodrom: next meeting is Feb. 3rd, there's no reason to not have this meeting unless any objections?
18:08:10 [wilkie]
Topic: Actions and Issues
18:08:18 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we have a few that have sitting on the queue for a while
18:08:37 [jasnell]
18:08:39 [wilkie]
eprodrom: one that came up last week was the json-ld context for the activity streams namespace. not sure where that landed
18:08:43 [eprodrom]
ack jasnell
18:08:45 [wilkie]
eprodrom: don't see harry on the call
18:09:08 [wilkie]
jasnell: there is some magic incantation that needs to be done to serve the json-ld properly. sandro may offer some insight.
18:09:23 [wilkie]
jasnell: it is queued up and part of the publication of the draft, but I need to follow up with the team
18:09:31 [wilkie]
eprodrom: can harry help out?
18:09:34 [Zakim]
18:09:37 [wilkie]
jasnell: harry doesn't know the incantation
18:10:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: another action on the list is to look at social apis
18:10:26 [Arnaud]
he said he would do it next week
18:10:51 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we should add talking about this to next week so we can mark that one off
18:11:32 [harry]
harry has joined #social
18:11:33 [wilkie]
jasnell: tantek is going to go through the microformat examples, there's a lot, he may not have done all of them
18:11:38 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we'll leave it open
18:11:46 [harry]
Zakim, what's the code?
18:11:46 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, harry
18:12:36 [wilkie]
jasnell: (wrt speaking out to people) still getting a list and reaching out to people, some may need IE status
18:12:46 [Zakim]
18:12:50 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
18:12:50 [Zakim]
+ShaneHudson; got it
18:12:59 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, mute me
18:12:59 [Zakim]
ShaneHudson should now be muted
18:13:17 [wilkie]
eprodrom: other open actions... "archiving osf blog posts" that may be open for some time
18:13:37 [wilkie]
jasnell: the archives are available, we just need to have someone volunteer to do that work and have a place set up to put it
18:13:52 [Zakim]
18:13:59 [harry]
Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin
18:13:59 [Zakim]
+hhalpin; got it
18:14:07 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I went to the social IG call last week to discuss the process and present social apis to the IG. it went well
18:14:21 [harry]
Note that the archives are available as a SQL dump from drupal
18:14:28 [wilkie]
eprodrom: a very open discussion about the process that seemed helpful and there was a general agreement and approval of what we've done by the IG
18:14:34 [harry]
so someone would have to 1) reset-up drupal and 2) snapshot the blogs as HTML.
18:15:05 [wilkie]
eprodrom: one thing that did come up is that most of the APIs we reviewed were primarily US focused and it was noted we should look at networks in other parts of the world
18:15:06 [KevinMarks]
18:15:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I took that as an action. my ability to navigate documentation in Russian and Chinese is slim, but I'll give it a good effort.
18:15:41 [Zakim]
18:15:44 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the idea was to see if there were significant patterns in these APIs not found in Western social networks
18:15:46 [tantek]
zakim, ??p14 is me
18:15:47 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
18:16:18 [harry]
Note that Jeff is going to discuss Social with Weibo in two weeks
18:16:19 [wilkie]
AnnB: yes, is there a difference between these networks. We do have members who are in China, only a few in Russia, but some may be recommended [to help]
18:16:21 [KevinMarks]
historically, several of them adopted opensocial and had some mapping; the differences were often about payment
18:16:51 [wilkie]
eprodrom: between a few members, most of these countries are covered. I feel like I can look at the bottom and read through the documentation so I could collaborate
18:16:51 [eprodrom]
18:17:02 [ShaneHudson]
Worth looking at Orkut?
18:17:06 [ShaneHudson]
(defunct I know)
18:17:10 [wilkie]
eprodrom: here is the list. part of this may be to reach out to these organizations.
18:17:20 [wilkie]
eprodrom: any other issues we have not captured? any actions we should cover?
18:17:21 [harry]
Note that minor HTML issues have delayed publication of AS 2.0 till Thursday.
18:17:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: new stuff for the tracker?
18:17:36 [tantek]
18:17:38 [AnnB]
s/is there a diff/ I wondered if there is a diff/
18:17:46 [wilkie]
eprodrom: time to move on to the next agenda item
18:18:05 [KevinMarks]
orkut's api was opensocial
18:18:06 [wilkie]
Topic: Review List of Requirements
18:18:08 [Tsyesika]
Tsyesika has joined #social
18:18:17 [AnnB]
hmm, Harry .. re: Weibo .. that's interesting
18:18:22 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we are tasked with coming up with a social api. the process we are following to do so is the following
18:18:22 [eprodrom]
18:18:28 [harry]
yes, its a f2f meeting, we'll see what happens
18:18:29 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:18:29 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:18:34 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we identified a number of APIs throughout the web and we've looked at what they do
18:19:07 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we've looked at twitter, facebook, etc and open source, etc and some from non-specific standardization e.g. linked data platform
18:19:27 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we've covered quite a bit and our next step is gathering from these multiple apis and coming up with a set of requirements for our API
18:19:48 [tantek]
q+ to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves"
18:20:01 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we've talked about them a lot and documenting them online, but the time is rapidly arriving when we need to decide what these requirements are to move forward with a candidate proposal
18:20:35 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the idea is if we can approve a list of requirements, then we can start soliciting proposals and can measure the quality of the proposals based on those requirements
18:20:59 [eprodrom]
18:21:16 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we had a list of requirements earlier and should be updated and we should discuss if these requirements are good for upcoming proposals
18:21:56 [wilkie]
eprodrom: one thing we can do is say "great, these are fine" and move on, or we can look at these and rewrite or elaborate on them further
18:22:10 [wilkie]
eprodrom: my goal is to move the process further
18:22:23 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:22:24 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves"
18:22:30 [wilkie]
eprodrom: it would be fantastic to have looked at proposals before the face to face
18:22:38 [wilkie]
eprodrom: tantek?
18:22:43 [harry]
yes can hear you
18:22:44 [bblfish]
+1 can hear you
18:22:54 [Lloyd_Fassett]
Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social
18:22:57 [wilkie]
tantek: there are many ways to pick features and requirements.
18:23:15 [wilkie]
tantek: on the lower end of the spectrum to just decide politically: go through a list and vote on each point
18:23:18 [Zakim]
18:23:24 [elf-pavlik_]
elf-pavlik_ has joined #social
18:23:29 [wilkie]
tantek: we've taken a slightly better approach so far; we've researched existing APIs
18:23:33 [eprodrom]
Zakim, who's making noise?
18:23:35 [harry]
Zakim, who's making noise?
18:23:50 [Zakim]
eprodrom, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: aaronpk (8%), tantek (80%), ??P15 (76%)
18:23:56 [harry]
Zakim, mute ??P15
18:23:56 [Zakim]
??P15 should now be muted
18:23:56 [bret]
drowed out by static
18:23:57 [bblfish]
zakim, who is making noise?
18:24:05 [wilkie]
tantek: what would be better than that would be to annotate which requirements belong to what existing examples and what don't
18:24:11 [Zakim]
harry, listening for 19 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (77%), ??P15 (25%)
18:24:15 [wilkie]
tantek: right now we don't know which requirements are based on an example or not
18:24:30 [wilkie]
tantek: there is still a better method: basing requirements on use cases
18:24:31 [Zakim]
bblfish, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (59%)
18:24:34 [bblfish]
ah where are the use cases?
18:24:37 [tantek]
18:24:52 [wilkie]
tantek: looking at use cases we have already chosen to adopt there are only one so far. the only one we have resolved to adopt is SWAT0
18:25:15 [wilkie]
tantek: therefore, all requirements should be adopted to follow ONLY what SWAT0 needs and all else is pushed to nice-to-have
18:26:19 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I understand the point, but that is not the procedure we agreed upon and have been doing for the last many weeks
18:26:26 [bblfish]
18:26:42 [Zakim]
18:26:45 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we have done reviews to take requirements from those reviews. if SWAT0 is all we want, we could have saved ourselves a lot of work
18:26:53 [Zakim]
18:27:02 [wilkie]
eprodrom: SWAT0 is not intended to be a social API usecase, it is a federation usecase.
18:27:07 [wilkie]
where are the usecases from the IG??
18:27:22 [bblfish]
was there not an IG doing use cases?
18:27:23 [wilkie]
tantek: it's the only usecase we have
18:27:27 [harry]
18:27:28 [Zakim]
18:27:46 [wilkie]
tantek: there is nothing wrong with research and documentation, but the current set of requirements is too big for a first draft
18:27:53 [bblfish]
18:28:01 [eprodrom]
ack bblfish
18:28:04 [wilkie]
The IG though... they are doing use-cases. that was the point of us NOT DOING THEM
18:28:29 [wilkie]
bblfish: I like swat0, but don't we have an IG that builds up use cases? some kind of community group?
18:28:35 [tantek]
no the point is we only one have use case WE HAVE APPROVED
18:28:45 [wilkie]
bblfish: I don't really think, if I look at the requirements, I don't think they are difficult to do.
18:28:46 [AnnB]
yes, socialIG ... has lots of use cases, just not in common template format
18:28:54 [harry]
The IG had a slowdown due to chair changing.
18:29:03 [tantek]
there are lots of use-cases. there is only one use case that Social Web WG has formally adopted.
18:29:09 [tantek]
and that is SWAT0
18:29:40 [jasnell]
running through the list of requirements... I've gone through and checked off the cases that are implemented by IBM's connections product (shipping currently)...
18:29:41 [tantek]
I don't believe any claims of "don't think they are difficult" unless you have it already running
18:29:45 [tantek]
e.g. on your own website
18:29:52 [wilkie]
bblfish: the idea is to have an API that has all of them, and it may not be necessary for the WG to list all cases, but seeing all features together would be nice
18:29:55 [jasnell]
would recommend that others match the requirements up against their existing implementations as well
18:30:14 [tantek]
18:30:17 [wilkie]
bblfish: you can add audio, video, all kinds of things, in similar fashion
18:30:32 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:30:35 [wilkie]
who is this?
18:30:37 [tantek]
with all due respect, I don't think anyone is qualified to say something is "easy" unless they've already *SHIPPED* it, e.g. on their own website
18:30:48 [sandro]
wilkie, this is harry
18:30:57 [Loqi]
sandro: ben_thatmustbeme left you a message on 1/20 at 12:26pm: i'll be co-organizing IWC Cambridge 2015, can you confirm that we have a venue for those dates? 2015-03-19/20?
18:31:05 [jasnell]
the requirements list can be simplified and achieve the same result
18:31:06 [wilkie]
harry: tantek is saying take the minimal use case agreed upon and add to that, and evan is about developing the list of potental requirements that we can shave down
18:31:31 [wilkie]
harry: the real issue is that we don't have a draft and it is really hard to whiteboard an API draft from scratch, which is why we have done that research
18:31:46 [AnnB]
Social IG use cases:
18:31:53 [KevinMarks]
instead of the superset, choose the interesection
18:31:58 [tantek]
q+ to point out the process we agreed on does not specify *HOW* to "Assemble functional requirements of a social API" thus I am proposing SWAT0 for that.
18:32:09 [bblfish]
tantek. You can ask 9 implementations from the LDP group, to work out what easy is . I have built one by myself, so if one person can get implement it, that makes it easy. That's what I am basing my statement on.
18:32:19 [wilkie]
harry: it, as a superset, is quite big. to resolve the tension, if somebody wants to whiteboard the draft and looks at the requirements we have made progress and we can say "this is not necessary for swat0" or "hey I'll need this for X"
18:32:34 [AnnB]
with most focus so far on Profile use cases:
18:32:42 [tantek]
bblfish - you were going to make all that work on your own site? have you?
18:32:52 [tantek]
I don't believe the 9 implementations report in the context of Social Web WG
18:32:59 [wilkie]
harry: my proposal is to let evan or whomever else to work on this, do a draft of it, and let tantek criticise it
18:33:01 [AnnB]
mostly only defined in "scenarios" thus far:
18:33:04 [sandro]
ben_thatmust, yes, confirmed
18:33:05 [elf-pavlik]
+1 harry
18:33:06 [bblfish]
18:33:19 [elf-pavlik]
18:33:27 [harry]
They in other words, let's just whiteboard something, as driven by SWAT0 and Evan's empirical work
18:33:29 [tantek]
ack tantek
18:33:29 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to point out the process we agreed on does not specify *HOW* to "Assemble functional requirements of a social API"
18:33:32 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:33:33 [Zakim]
... thus I am proposing SWAT0 for that.
18:33:42 [bblfish]
there are pieces not implemented, but that does not make them difficult tantek to implement. It just requires agreeement
18:33:49 [harry]
and then we can add use-cases as needed.
18:34:03 [wilkie]
tantek: a point to harry's claim the requirements are easy: I'm going to say if you haven't shipped the requirements, you can't say it is easy
18:34:12 [wilkie]
tantek: I won't believe you if you haven't shipped
18:34:15 [tantek]
18:34:44 [harry]
Zakim, mute Harry
18:34:44 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
18:34:48 [jasnell]
getting echo
18:34:54 [Zakim]
18:34:55 [wilkie]
tantek: if you look at the process we agreed on (pasted the url) the first step is the requirements of the social api, and I am suggesting a concrete way of doing that:
18:35:11 [harry]
Zakim, mute KevinMarks
18:35:11 [Zakim]
KevinMarks should now be muted
18:35:24 [harry]
KevinMarks, ping or just type "Zakim, unmute me"
18:35:43 [Zakim]
18:35:45 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
18:35:45 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
18:35:47 [tantek]
Zakim, mute me
18:35:47 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:35:47 [eprodrom]
18:35:48 [KevinMarks]
I'm already muted on my end
18:35:57 [KevinMarks]
18:36:04 [aaronpk]
KevinMarks: that happened to me too. not sure how.
18:36:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: another mechanism we could use is to formalize
18:36:16 [harry]
Zakim, unmute KevinMarks
18:36:16 [Zakim]
KevinMarks should no longer be muted
18:36:23 [KevinMarks]
maybe gvoice is using the wrong mic
18:36:25 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if we ask the IG to do it, what kind of timeframe would it take
18:36:27 [AnnB]
18:36:31 [harry]
18:36:44 [tantek]
q+ to note that IG function is to *provide* use-cases, not *approve*. The Social Web WG must approve use-cases explicitly.
18:36:47 [wilkie]
eprodrom: if we cannot go forward without the IG making those use cases, we'll need to ask them what their timeframe is or we do them internally in the WG
18:37:05 [Zakim]
18:37:15 [wilkie]
eprodrom: another option is to take what we have and then look just at what is needed for SWAT0 and everything else is nice-to-have
18:37:31 [Zakim]
18:37:32 [wilkie]
eprodrom: to be frank, SWAT0 is not a social api use-case
18:37:36 [harry]
Zakim, mute Harry
18:37:36 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
18:37:43 [tantek]
q+ to also note that I specifically said we can *start* with accepted use-cases as of today for draft API requirements, and then we can iterate with more use-case driven requirements as we approve them in the future. let's remove dependencies.
18:37:56 [wilkie]
eprodrom: for me, I don't think it is sufficient social api nor reaches the minimum social networking we expect from a social api
18:37:56 [jasnell]
Here's an example of a comprehensive existing social api that implements quite a lot of these requirements:
18:38:16 [eprodrom]
18:38:23 [sandro]
18:38:24 [eprodrom]
ack AnnB
18:38:24 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:38:25 [Zakim]
tantek was already muted, tantek
18:39:06 [wilkie]
AnnB: in regard to the usecases in the IG, which I am chairing, we have many scenarios and we have maybe too much.
18:39:38 [wilkie]
AnnB: question I have for the WG is "what would you want to see and what format would it be in" what would be the most useful way to give you [the usecases]?
18:39:42 [elf-pavlik]
+1 AnnB
18:39:49 [bblfish]
AnnB: need to read this now :-) Looks good.
18:40:10 [Zakim]
18:40:13 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think the use cases you posted are very detailed and there's a lot in here, but I think what we want is a checklist we can compare a proposal against
18:40:33 [wilkie]
eprodrom: "this proposal doesn't have a way to post content, so this isn't good for this use case"
18:40:39 [tantek]
I actually don't want a checklist - because that's again likely political rather than user-based
18:40:57 [wilkie]
AnnB: checklist of what
18:41:09 [tantek]
AnnB, for each use-case, we need a BRIEF summary of the user-interactions.
18:41:10 [wilkie]
AnnB: I think the IG needs guidance on what is useful
18:41:14 [tantek]
just like SWAT0 has
18:41:44 [sandro]
18:41:45 [eprodrom]
18:41:59 [tantek]
AnnB look at how brief the summary is here:
18:42:06 [tantek]
so that's the request back to the IG
18:42:20 [tantek]
all use-cases should have a *brief* user-scenario at the top
18:42:21 [wilkie]
eprodrom: my concern is if we do these whole user scenarios for this kind of API requirements I think that is months of work
18:42:22 [tantek]
just like that
18:42:32 [wilkie]
AnnB: I agree. I think that's where we are stuck and need a new direction
18:42:55 [eprodrom]
18:42:57 [wilkie]
eprodrom: not sure if we can do briefer ones or if there is another way to do this. if we hold out for full user scenarios it is unlikely we can do things promptly.
18:43:00 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:43:01 [KevinMarks]
that's backwards, evan
18:43:04 [Zakim]
18:43:04 [AnnB]
thanks Tantek
18:43:04 [harry]
18:43:18 [bblfish]
18:43:20 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:43:21 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note that IG function is to *provide* use-cases, not *approve*. The Social Web WG must approve use-cases explicitly. and to also note that I specifically said
18:43:21 [Zakim]
... we can *start* with accepted use-cases as of today for draft API requirements, and then we can iterate with more use-case driven requirements as we approve them in the future.
18:43:21 [Zakim]
... let's remove dependencies.
18:43:22 [KevinMarks]
defining and implementing things with no use is months of work
18:43:57 [Zakim]
18:44:01 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, ??P12 is me
18:44:01 [Zakim]
+ShaneHudson; got it
18:44:03 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, mute me
18:44:03 [Zakim]
ShaneHudson should now be muted
18:44:15 [wilkie]
tantek: I think I answered Ann's question on what to provide. I do agree that IG use cases are detailed and lengthy, which is good, they need a summary of steps. much like SWAT0 that fits in a tweet
18:44:28 [wilkie]
tantek: goes back to the IG: a summary of steps is what we want
18:44:29 [ShaneHudson]
I do really like how simple SWAT0 is
18:44:45 [eprodrom]
18:44:47 [wilkie]
tantek: I also agree with concerns about not a complete API and that it may take months of work to come up with usecases.
18:45:22 [wilkie]
tantek: this is why we should not wait for the IG usecases but just immediately go forward with even just a small draft with the usecases we have and extend with new cases later
18:45:35 [KevinMarks]
the assumption that completeness is necessary is how we end in the weeds
18:45:46 [wilkie]
tantek: so when people come and say "I need this feature" they can make a claim upon the draft we have
18:46:08 [elf-pavlik]
i'll try to write something on importance of *extensibility* for this API, this way we just provide clear path to add support for all kind of requirements which will come up down the road!
18:46:13 [wilkie]
tantek: my point is that I do believe we can come up with small incremental usecases if we need to. we don't need to wait.
18:46:47 [wilkie]
tantek: the IG does the work, but does not approve them. the WG approves and accepts them one at a time.
18:46:54 [eprodrom]
18:47:00 [eprodrom]
ack sandro
18:47:10 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:47:18 [wilkie]
sandro: one more vote for tweetable scenarios
18:47:18 [tantek]
sandro: definitely a vote for tweetable scenarios
18:47:27 [harry]
q- harry
18:47:28 [harry]
18:47:49 [wilkie]
sandro: even if we start small with SWAT0, it is hard to go from something that expresses SWAT0 to something larger.
18:48:04 [bblfish]
18:48:05 [KevinMarks]
if it's in your head, you should be abel to write use cases for it
18:48:06 [bblfish]
18:48:09 [wilkie]
sandro: I think it is valuable to have a larger roadmap in mind.
18:48:09 [AnnB]
distilling info to small bits IS necessary (re: suggestions for Social IG) .... and takes time to do! :-)
18:48:14 [tantek]
sandro: "maybe we don't all build that all at once"
18:48:16 [tantek]
18:48:31 [Zakim]
18:48:40 [wilkie]
sandro: evan, what process do you want for editing
18:48:41 [harry]
Zakim, mute Harry
18:48:41 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
18:48:46 [tantek]
"don't build that all at once" = minimal requirements at first, and grow (build) more incrementally
18:48:47 [Zakim]
18:48:50 [wilkie]
eprodrom: the wiki is the next step
18:48:52 [AnnB]
time better spend, though, than moving our scenarios to common template format
18:48:52 [tantek]
I think I'm agreed with sandro
18:49:02 [jasnell]
I am muted. no idea why it's saying me
18:49:24 [wilkie]
eprodrom: look at each of the apis we reviewed and pull out relevant parts. lots of work and hopefully we have volunteers.
18:49:35 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think adding questions on discussion page or mailing list are good
18:49:45 [Zakim]
18:49:48 [bret]
Zakim, who's on the call?
18:49:48 [Zakim]
On the phone I see eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, bblfish, bret (muted), rhiaro (muted), Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, hhalpin, tantek (muted), elf-pavlik (muted),
18:49:51 [Zakim]
... wilkie, ShaneHudson (muted), Harry
18:50:09 [bret]
jasnell, local mute dosnt get everything, only trust Zakim mute
18:50:28 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'd like to point out that maybe 60% of these requirements are covered by the open social activity streams api
18:50:33 [jasnell]
Zakim, mute me
18:50:33 [Zakim]
jasnell should now be muted
18:50:35 [tantek]
I greatly prefer "collection" or "set" for a user-facing "thing" that users put other things into
18:50:39 [tantek]
rather than "container"
18:50:44 [AnnB]
18:50:45 [tantek]
"container" sounds too abstract / programmery
18:50:45 [eprodrom]
18:50:46 [harry]
I think my proposal is we let Evan and whoever else is interested draft an API that fits at least SWAT0
18:50:47 [wilkie]
eprodrom: it's really when we get down to endpoints that aren't those 5 major endpoints that it gets strange
18:50:48 [AnnB]
18:50:51 [eprodrom]
ack harry
18:51:03 [bret]
collection is a flickr term
18:51:26 [wilkie]
harry: we are at an impasse. tantek's fear is legitimate and we shouldn't have a monster api with no implementors.
18:51:37 [KevinMarks]
container is also an opensocial term of art
18:51:38 [tantek]
jasnell - and I say users do care, and thus it matters
18:51:55 [wilkie]
harry: at the same time, evan's fear that SWAT0 is not sufficient is legitimate
18:52:03 [jasnell]
tantek: and I'm saying that right now's it's not critically important that we decide what to call it.
18:52:16 [tantek]
jasnell - if you don't care, then change it to "collection"
18:52:18 [wilkie]
harry: so, let's make a draft with requirements, and mark those that are good for swat0, mark the others as such, and use that as a place for discussion
18:52:35 [tantek]
jasnell from our experience in indiewebcamp - that term resonates / explains much better
18:52:42 [wilkie]
harry: we need a place to add/subtract features and discuss these features
18:52:43 [eprodrom]
18:52:46 [tantek]
jasnell: see
18:52:46 [eprodrom]
ack bblfish
18:53:03 [KevinMarks]
i think the noise is on your end , elf-pavlik
18:53:04 [bret]
can we mute Harry?
18:53:05 [aaronpk]
Zakim, mute Harry
18:53:05 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
18:53:06 [harry]
Zakim, mute Harry
18:53:06 [Zakim]
Harry was already muted, harry
18:53:09 [AnnB]
it's helpful to start with SOMEthing, which gives something to focus on, discuss, edit, improve
18:53:10 [wilkie]
bblfish: I think the problem that things that seem complicated may in fact be simple
18:53:23 [tantek]
I'll point out that "SWAT0" seeming "light" is flawed, because we don't even have any SWAT0 interop yet.
18:53:34 [tantek]
again this is the same problem as the use of "easy"
18:53:44 [harry]
Yes, SWAT0 is quite large
18:53:45 [tantek]
don't say something is "light" or "simple" unless you've shipped it.
18:53:58 [nicolagreco]
nicolagreco has joined #social
18:54:10 [harry]
so we should just clearly demarcate in any API what parts are necessary for SWAT0 and what isn't, as tantek said
18:54:20 [wilkie]
bblfish: I think one or many could present how they would do things with a base api and that would allow us to make a case that one way is simpler than another
18:54:33 [tantek]
harry - exactly - thus we start the requirements bar at "necessary for SWAT0"
18:54:42 [tantek]
and then we list more requirements later
18:54:47 [harry]
yes, so I think we agree :)
18:54:48 [tantek]
or rather *candidate* requirements
18:54:59 [tantek]
they aren't *actual* requirements, because they're not *required*
18:55:07 [wilkie]
bblfish: in a usecase we could specify that is the criteria of what should be allowed
18:55:08 [harry]
I'm just suggesting that if Evan or someone else is drafting an API, they can go with functional requirements greater than SWAT0, just clearly mark those
18:55:20 [harry]
should be pretty straightforward, i.e. contacts are needed for SWAT0
18:55:20 [elf-pavlik]
+1 URI opacity!
18:55:24 [wilkie]
bblfish: for instance URI opaqueness to work with certain criteria of privacy etc
18:55:34 [tantek]
I agree to large extent re: use URLs and follow-your-nose discoverability that bblfish is mentioning
18:55:56 [wilkie]
bblfish: this is how we can foster a system that may grow perhaps way beyond the scope of what this group is capable of specifying explicitly
18:56:21 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think that is helpful
18:56:44 [wilkie]
eprodrom: one of the requirements in this list is follow-your-nose semantics
18:57:05 [wilkie]
eprodrom: most of the APIs we reviewed are single implementation APIs which don't have those semantics. but this is a question for another day
18:57:09 [elf-pavlik]
most (all) APIs which we reviewed don't aim at interoperability and extensibility
18:57:11 [bblfish]
true: but most of the apis are centralised, so are not at that level examples of what the social web should be :-)
18:57:13 [tantek]
q+ re: flaws in existing APIs, lack of URLs, lack of follow-your-nose, too many special APIs just copy/pasted for different types
18:57:26 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I think we need to postpone proposing these requirements at this moment
18:57:30 [jasnell]
Zakim, unmute me
18:57:30 [Zakim]
jasnell should no longer be muted
18:57:31 [eprodrom]
ack tantek
18:57:31 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to discuss flaws in existing APIs, lack of URLs, lack of follow-your-nose, too many special APIs just copy/pasted for different types
18:57:38 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we need to talk about activity streams a little bit
18:58:05 [wilkie]
tantek: I want to make a point to agree with bblfish to use URLs and follow-your-nose ideas and use a more minimal API
18:58:34 [wilkie]
tantek: I agree with evan that many services do not have that follow-your-nose idea and it would be horrible to implement a similar system
18:58:55 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I'll put APIs and follow-your-nose up for next week
18:59:03 [jasnell]
18:59:05 [sandro]
+1 tantek avoiding replicating unnecessary complexity
18:59:06 [harry]
18:59:09 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
18:59:09 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
18:59:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: I want jasnell and harry to talk about where we are with AS2.0 and the next version of the working draft
18:59:10 [eprodrom]
ack jasnell
18:59:23 [wilkie]
jasnell: based on the current process, hopefully draft will be published thursday
18:59:36 [wilkie]
jasnell: validation errors and such caused delay. should be good though.
18:59:52 [harry]
Zakim, unmute Harry
18:59:52 [Zakim]
Harry should no longer be muted
18:59:55 [wilkie]
jasnell: we are trying to get the context documents served up with the magic incantation sometime after
19:00:23 [wilkie]
harry: the problem is when there is an html error in a document, no matter how small, the webmaster will push back and we have to fix it before we can publish. that's how the w3c process works.
19:01:00 [KevinMarks]
so w3c is less tolerant of html errors than w3c specs?
19:01:02 [wilkie]
harry: there may be a process change that would make this process easier, but things should be set for thursday unless the webmaster finds something else
19:01:09 [wilkie]
eprodrom: that's good news. very exciting.
19:01:21 [harry]
yes, and no broken links :)
19:01:25 [bblfish]
q+ btw, we did not cover the testing of the current activities stream 2.0
19:01:31 [bblfish]
btw, we did not cover the testing of the current activities stream 2.0
19:01:32 [harry]
jasnell, stay in IRC and I'll check with webmaster to see if everything is OK post-meeting
19:01:41 [jasnell]
harry: +1
19:01:46 [eprodrom]
19:01:47 [wilkie]
eprodrom: we will copy the agenda item for requirements to next week's call
19:01:49 [Zakim]
19:01:50 [harry]
q- harry
19:01:52 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
19:01:52 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
19:01:54 [AnnB]
thanks for good chairing, Evan!
19:02:01 [AnnB]
and for scribing, Wilkie!
19:02:04 [Zakim]
19:02:06 [bret]
ty bye
19:02:08 [wilkie]
eprodrom: thank you. appreciate your time. talk to you next week
19:02:08 [Arnaud]
19:02:08 [elf-pavlik]
thanks eprodrom wilkie !
19:02:09 [Zakim]
19:02:11 [Zakim]
19:02:11 [aaronpk]
wilkie++ for scribing!
19:02:12 [Zakim]
19:02:12 [Zakim]
19:02:13 [Loqi]
wilkie has 5 karma
19:02:13 [Zakim]
19:02:14 [Zakim]
19:02:15 [Zakim]
19:02:15 [Zakim]
19:02:16 [Zakim]
19:02:16 [Zakim]
19:02:18 [Zakim]
19:02:19 [elf-pavlik]
19:02:21 [Loqi]
eprodrom has 1 karma
19:02:21 [elf-pavlik]
19:02:24 [Loqi]
wilkie has 6 karma
19:02:27 [Arnaud]
don't forget to get rrsagent to create the minutes
19:02:30 [Zakim]
19:02:32 [Zakim]
19:02:33 [eprodrom]
trackbot, end meeting
19:02:33 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
19:02:33 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, jasnell, KevinMarks, aaronpk, Arnaud, Ann, wilkie, bblfish, bret, rhiaro, Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, ShaneHudson, hhalpin, tantek,
19:02:36 [Zakim]
... elf-pavlik, Harry
19:02:38 [Arnaud]
19:02:41 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
19:02:41 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
19:02:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
19:02:42 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items
19:03:05 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
19:03:05 [RRSAgent]
logging to
19:03:10 [elf-pavlik]
RRSAgent, make mutes public
19:03:10 [RRSAgent]
I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mutes public', elf-pavlik. Try /msg RRSAgent help
19:03:33 [elf-pavlik]
RRSAgent, make records public
19:03:46 [harry]
I believe they are already public -
19:03:58 [harry]
jasnell, give me a few minutes to check in with webmaster and see if we are ready to go
19:04:20 [jasnell]
19:05:38 [eprodrom]
Thanks everyone!
19:06:10 [Zakim]
19:07:25 [tantek]
sandro - still around? can you confirm rooms for IndieWebCamp Cambridge March 19-20?
19:08:10 [harry]
Also, did we confirm those as the f2f dates?
19:08:35 [aaronpk]
i see 17-18 as f2f dates on the wiki
19:08:41 [aaronpk]
is that not actually confirmed?
19:08:48 [harry]
Not sure.
19:08:54 [tantek]
harry - yes it was minuted weeks ago
19:08:56 [rhiaro]
I think it was confirmed a couple of weeks ago
19:09:04 [harry]
the 19-20 or 17-18th?
19:09:07 [tantek]
I'll leave the task of going through past recent minutes up to you Harry
19:09:07 [harry]
Or are we doing these separately?
19:09:08 [rhiaro]
19:09:22 [tantek]
harry - there are two adjacent events
19:09:41 [harry]
OK, that makes sense - just making sure we didn't move the dates. Doing a separate indieweb camp after sounds good to me, although sadly I have to examine a Ph.D. thesis on those dates so I might not be able to make it :(
19:09:45 [Loqi]
it'll be ok
19:09:53 [tantek]
everyone is encouraged to go / stay for both
19:10:03 [harry]
However, will make f2f of course, and would want to see as many people do both as possible.
19:10:09 [harry]
Should be a "social" week :)
19:10:42 [rhiaro]
Then if that wasn't enough, libreplanet is 21-22
19:11:11 [tantek]
harry - great! then add yourself:
19:11:18 [harry]
jasnell, webmaster wants me to do some minor changes, I'll see if I can get them in about 10 minutes
19:11:24 [tantek]
rhiaro: is that in cambridge too?
19:11:25 [jasnell]
19:11:34 [rhiaro]
tantek: yep! MIT
19:11:37 [tantek]
reminder to ALL: please add yourselves to for the f2f
19:11:38 [harry]
(silly date stuff)
19:11:40 [rhiaro]
19:12:12 [tantek]
anyone at MIT know if sandro is still around?
19:12:22 [tantek]
as in in this channel watching?
19:12:31 [harry]
not sure, I'm not at MIT right now.
19:26:00 [harry]
jasnell, in your archive
19:26:17 [harry]
where is acivitystreams1-context.jsonld?
19:30:46 [harry]
jasnell, looks good - found it and its in archive. Minor error in vocabulary but I can fix it before publishing
19:32:24 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
19:32:32 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
19:33:20 [jasnell]
harry: I'm back... just email if there are any further issues on the publication. my connectivity is pretty spotty today
19:33:33 [harry]
wait a sec, fixing one or two minor issues
19:33:46 [harry]
link checker is still complaining re broken links
19:33:52 [harry]
trying to figure out what is going on
19:33:59 [harry]
19:34:59 [jasnell]
one sec... running it
19:35:01 [Zakim]
disconnecting the lone participant, KevinMarks, in T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM
19:35:02 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has ended
19:35:02 [Zakim]
Attendees were eprodrom, jasnell, KevinMarks, aaronpk, Arnaud, Ann, wilkie, bblfish, bret, rhiaro, Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, ShaneHudson, hhalpin, tantek, elf-pavlik, Harry
19:37:12 [harry]
tell me if you can figure that out
19:38:05 [jasnell]
harry: do a search'n'replace.... look for "def-displayname" replace with "dfn-displayname"
19:38:10 [jasnell]
no idea how that one got changed
19:40:44 [jasnell]
that's the only one I can spot
19:40:59 [jasnell]
it's at line 1117
19:42:20 [harry]
fixed that and a &llt
19:42:27 [harry]
so lets see if we can get it through linkchecker now
19:43:33 [harry]
ok, looks good
19:43:51 [harry]
so we should be able to send it through to webmaster now without pushback
19:44:15 [harry]
I'll ping if you if I there's any other really minor errors preventing publication
19:44:33 [harry]
BTW, I'm pushing to merge Working Draft and Editors Draft status internally, yet no luck there yet :)
19:44:45 [harry]
This process is a bit heavyweight for just pushing a draft out
19:45:18 [tantek]
you had me at "This process is a bit heavyweight"
19:48:05 [harry]
19:48:32 [harry]
no broken links is good hygiene, but we usually get drafts at no broken fragids.
19:48:56 [harry]
Anyways, the next process revision should change this, you are in AB, so keep us in loop :)
19:49:02 [jasnell]
where's the &llt
19:53:20 [harry]
it was in core but is fixed
19:53:32 [harry]
just check Overview.html into github for both
19:56:33 [harry]
anyways, everything should be fine now - will tell you if any last minute pushback from webmaster tomorrow
20:02:53 [tantek]
Harry do you have a list of the validators you're using?
20:03:04 [harry]
20:03:05 [harry]
the usual
20:03:09 [tantek]
I know there's a length pubrules reference somewhere
20:03:19 [harry]
20:03:20 [tantek]
just HTML and linkcheck?
20:03:21 [harry]
and link checker
20:03:34 [harry]
yep, all specs have to get pass those three.
20:03:52 [tantek]
is there a URL you can provide that does all three? or three separate URLs?
20:04:37 [tantek]
I'm hoping I can document these on the wiki to make it easier for future editors in the WG
20:05:34 [harry]
20:05:40 [harry]
20:05:43 [harry]
20:05:45 [harry]
those are the 3
20:05:53 [harry]
feel free to add to wiki
20:06:00 [harry]
its in W3C process somewhere too
20:12:02 [elf-pavlik]
elf-pavlik has changed the topic to: Social Web WG: - Next meeting agenda: - logs:
20:16:20 [elf-pavlik]
RRSAgent, bye
20:16:20 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items