18:00:04 RRSAgent has joined #social 18:00:04 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/27-social-irc 18:00:06 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:00:06 Zakim has joined #social 18:00:08 Zakim, this will be SOCL 18:00:08 ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now 18:00:09 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:00:09 Date: 27 January 2015 18:00:32 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:00:32 T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom 18:00:33 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 ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer 18:00:39 Hmm 18:00:45 hm, did I dial in too early? 18:00:52 Apparently by like 30 seconds 18:00:56 hi there 18:00:59 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:00:59 T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom 18:01:00 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 ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer 18:01:16 Hmm 18:01:22 Did I miss something in my incantation? 18:01:53 I have 13:01 on my clock 18:02:02 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:02:02 T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom 18:02:03 hey... not calling in, but GNU social got a ton more users thanks to Twitter banning a user. 18:02:04 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 ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer 18:02:14 zakim, this is socl 18:02:14 ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM 18:02:18 hm. hearing beeps on the call 18:02:20 AH 18:02:23 There we go 18:02:26 Thanks Arnaud 18:02:27 eprodrom: if you have the db of the old StatusNet wiki, it would be great to get a copy :) 18:02:28 mattl: ... what user? 18:02:29 it should have been unnecessary 18:02:35 mattl: OK, I can try and get that to you 18:02:36 whoa now there's music 18:02:38 +Ann 18:02:40 but for some reason it doesn't happen automatically 18:02:41 +[IPcaller] 18:02:43 -??P5 18:02:46 Zakim, IPcaller is me 18:02:46 +wilkie; got it 18:02:49 Zakim, who is on the call? 18:02:49 On the phone I see eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, wilkie 18:02:49 already reported to sysreq 18:02:51 Great 18:02:53 aw, I was just starting to dance around a little 18:03:04 +bblfish 18:03:10 wilkie: https://twitter.com/Barbijaputa 18:03:13 do we have a scribe? I can scribe. 18:03:21 eprodrom: thanks man :) 18:03:29 we need adactio to come along and play us some folk 18:03:30 yay 18:03:31 wilkie wins by 3 seconds 18:03:31 +??P5 18:03:38 Zakim, ??P5 is me 18:03:38 +bret; got it 18:03:39 fyi: I'm officially on paternity leave for 2 weeks :-) 18:03:42 Zakim, mute me 18:03:42 bret should now be muted 18:03:52 scribe: wilkie 18:03:57 I can't even hear ringing 18:04:01 yes, really! 18:04:19 rude :( 18:04:19 Arnaud: Congrats! :) 18:04:37 holy smokes 18:05:06 Arnaud++ 18:05:08 Arnaud has 2 karma 18:05:15 +1 18:05:17 +1 18:05:18 +??P8 18:05:23 PROPOSED: Alec Le Hors becomes youngest honorary member 18:05:24 :-) 18:05:27 :) 18:05:28 +1 18:05:32 +1 18:05:34 +1 18:05:37 we have a girl here 18:05:44 she is 4 months old 18:05:44 RESOLVED: extend honorary membership to youngest ever member 18:05:51 +Sandro 18:06:25 eprodrom: if we are ready to go, unless we are waiting for somebody in particular. tantek will be joining shortly 18:06:32 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-01-20-minutes 18:06:33 eprodrom: first step: approval of our minutes from last week 18:06:46 TOPIC: approval of minutes from last week 18:06:56 eprodrom: any objections to approving these minutes? 18:07:23 resolved: minutes approved from last week 18:07:46 eprodrom: next meeting is Feb. 3rd, there's no reason to not have this meeting unless any objections? 18:08:10 Topic: Actions and Issues 18:08:18 eprodrom: we have a few that have sitting on the queue for a while 18:08:37 q+ 18:08:39 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 ack jasnell 18:08:45 eprodrom: don't see harry on the call 18:09:08 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 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 eprodrom: can harry help out? 18:09:34 +Lloyd_Fassett 18:09:37 jasnell: harry doesn't know the incantation 18:10:09 eprodrom: another action on the list is to look at social apis 18:10:26 he said he would do it next week 18:10:51 eprodrom: we should add talking about this to next week so we can mark that one off 18:11:32 harry has joined #social 18:11:33 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 eprodrom: we'll leave it open 18:11:46 Zakim, what's the code? 18:11:46 the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry 18:12:36 jasnell: (wrt speaking out to people) still getting a list and reaching out to people, some may need IE status 18:12:46 +??P12 18:12:50 Zakim, ??P12 is me 18:12:50 +ShaneHudson; got it 18:12:59 Zakim, mute me 18:12:59 ShaneHudson should now be muted 18:13:17 eprodrom: other open actions... "archiving osf blog posts" that may be open for some time 18:13:37 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 +[IPcaller] 18:13:59 Zakim, IPcaller is hhalpin 18:13:59 +hhalpin; got it 18:14:07 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 Note that the archives are available as a SQL dump from drupal 18:14:28 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 so someone would have to 1) reset-up drupal and 2) snapshot the blogs as HTML. 18:15:05 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 vkontakte? 18:15:26 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 +??P14 18:15:44 eprodrom: the idea was to see if there were significant patterns in these APIs not found in Western social networks 18:15:46 zakim, ??p14 is me 18:15:47 +tantek; got it 18:16:18 Note that Jeff is going to discuss Social with Weibo in two weeks 18:16:19 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 historically, several of them adopted opensocial and had some mapping; the differences were often about payment 18:16:51 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 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List 18:17:02 Worth looking at Orkut? 18:17:06 (defunct I know) 18:17:10 eprodrom: here is the list. part of this may be to reach out to these organizations. 18:17:20 eprodrom: any other issues we have not captured? any actions we should cover? 18:17:21 Note that minor HTML issues have delayed publication of AS 2.0 till Thursday. 18:17:33 eprodrom: new stuff for the tracker? 18:17:36 Tracker: http://www.w3.org/Social/track 18:17:38 s/is there a diff/ I wondered if there is a diff/ 18:17:46 eprodrom: time to move on to the next agenda item 18:18:05 orkut's api was opensocial 18:18:06 Topic: Review List of Requirements 18:18:08 Tsyesika has joined #social 18:18:17 hmm, Harry .. re: Weibo .. that's interesting 18:18:22 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 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API 18:18:28 yes, its a f2f meeting, we'll see what happens 18:18:29 zakim, mute me 18:18:29 tantek should now be muted 18:18:34 eprodrom: we identified a number of APIs throughout the web and we've looked at what they do 18:19:07 eprodrom: we've looked at twitter, facebook, etc and open source pump.io, etc and some from non-specific standardization e.g. linked data platform 18:19:27 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 q+ to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves" 18:20:01 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 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 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements 18:21:16 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 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 eprodrom: my goal is to move the process further 18:22:23 ack tantek 18:22:24 tantek, you wanted to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves" 18:22:30 eprodrom: it would be fantastic to have looked at proposals before the face to face 18:22:38 eprodrom: tantek? 18:22:43 yes can hear you 18:22:44 +1 can hear you 18:22:54 Lloyd_Fassett has joined #social 18:22:57 tantek: there are many ways to pick features and requirements. 18:23:15 tantek: on the lower end of the spectrum to just decide politically: go through a list and vote on each point 18:23:18 +??P15 18:23:24 elf-pavlik_ has joined #social 18:23:29 tantek: we've taken a slightly better approach so far; we've researched existing APIs 18:23:33 Zakim, who's making noise? 18:23:35 Zakim, who's making noise? 18:23:50 eprodrom, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: aaronpk (8%), tantek (80%), ??P15 (76%) 18:23:56 Zakim, mute ??P15 18:23:56 ??P15 should now be muted 18:23:56 drowed out by static 18:23:57 zakim, who is making noise? 18:24:05 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 harry, listening for 19 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (77%), ??P15 (25%) 18:24:15 tantek: right now we don't know which requirements are based on an example or not 18:24:30 tantek: there is still a better method: basing requirements on use cases 18:24:31 bblfish, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (59%) 18:24:34 ah where are the use cases? 18:24:37 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Use_Cases 18:24:52 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 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 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 q+ 18:26:42 +Harry 18:26:45 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 -Harry 18:27:02 eprodrom: SWAT0 is not intended to be a social API usecase, it is a federation usecase. 18:27:07 where are the usecases from the IG?? 18:27:22 was there not an IG doing use cases? 18:27:23 tantek: it's the only usecase we have 18:27:27 q+ 18:27:28 +Harry 18:27:46 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 q+ 18:28:01 ack bblfish 18:28:04 The IG though... they are doing use-cases. that was the point of us NOT DOING THEM 18:28:29 bblfish: I like swat0, but don't we have an IG that builds up use cases? some kind of community group? 18:28:35 no the point is we only one have use case WE HAVE APPROVED 18:28:45 bblfish: I don't really think, if I look at the requirements, I don't think they are difficult to do. 18:28:46 yes, socialIG ... has lots of use cases, just not in common template format 18:28:54 The IG had a slowdown due to chair changing. 18:29:03 there are lots of use-cases. there is only one use case that Social Web WG has formally adopted. 18:29:09 and that is SWAT0 18:29:40 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)... https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements/Implementations 18:29:41 I don't believe any claims of "don't think they are difficult" unless you have it already running 18:29:45 e.g. on your own website 18:29:52 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 would recommend that others match the requirements up against their existing implementations as well 18:30:14 q? 18:30:17 bblfish: you can add audio, video, all kinds of things, in similar fashion 18:30:32 ack harry 18:30:35 who is this? 18:30:37 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 wilkie, this is harry 18:30:57 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 the requirements list can be simplified and achieve the same result 18:31:06 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 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 Social IG use cases: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF 18:31:53 instead of the superset, choose the interesection 18:31:58 q+ to point out the process we agreed on does not specify *HOW* to "Assemble functional requirements of a social API" https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API thus I am proposing SWAT0 for that. 18:32:09 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 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 with most focus so far on Profile use cases: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Profile_Use_Cases 18:32:42 bblfish - you were going to make all that work on your own site? have you? 18:32:52 I don't believe the 9 implementations report in the context of Social Web WG 18:32:59 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 mostly only defined in "scenarios" thus far: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/Use_Case_TF/Profile_Scenarios 18:33:04 ben_thatmust, yes, confirmed 18:33:05 +1 harry 18:33:06 yes 18:33:19 q? 18:33:27 They in other words, let's just whiteboard something, as driven by SWAT0 and Evan's empirical work 18:33:29 ack tantek 18:33:29 tantek, you wanted to point out the process we agreed on does not specify *HOW* to "Assemble functional requirements of a social API" https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API 18:33:32 ack tantek 18:33:33 ... thus I am proposing SWAT0 for that. 18:33:42 there are pieces not implemented, but that does not make them difficult tantek to implement. It just requires agreeement 18:33:49 and then we can add use-cases as needed. 18:34:03 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 tantek: I won't believe you if you haven't shipped 18:34:15 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API 18:34:44 Zakim, mute Harry 18:34:44 Harry should now be muted 18:34:48 getting echo 18:34:54 -wilkie 18:34:55 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 Zakim, mute KevinMarks 18:35:11 KevinMarks should now be muted 18:35:24 KevinMarks, ping or just type "Zakim, unmute me" 18:35:43 +[IPcaller] 18:35:45 Zakim, IPcaller is me 18:35:45 +wilkie; got it 18:35:47 Zakim, mute me 18:35:47 tantek should now be muted 18:35:47 q? 18:35:48 I'm already muted on my end 18:35:57 hm 18:36:04 KevinMarks: that happened to me too. not sure how. 18:36:09 eprodrom: another mechanism we could use is to formalize 18:36:16 Zakim, unmute KevinMarks 18:36:16 KevinMarks should no longer be muted 18:36:23 maybe gvoice is using the wrong mic 18:36:25 eprodrom: if we ask the IG to do it, what kind of timeframe would it take 18:36:27 q+ 18:36:31 q+ 18:36:44 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 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 -Harry 18:37:15 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 +Harry 18:37:32 eprodrom: to be frank, SWAT0 is not a social api use-case 18:37:36 Zakim, mute Harry 18:37:36 Harry should now be muted 18:37:43 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 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 Here's an example of a comprehensive existing social api that implements quite a lot of these requirements: http://goo.gl/801jqU 18:38:16 q? 18:38:23 q+ 18:38:24 ack AnnB 18:38:24 zakim, mute me 18:38:25 tantek was already muted, tantek 18:39:06 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 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 +1 AnnB 18:39:49 AnnB: need to read this now :-) Looks good. 18:40:10 -Harry 18:40:13 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 eprodrom: "this proposal doesn't have a way to post content, so this isn't good for this use case" 18:40:39 I actually don't want a checklist - because that's again likely political rather than user-based 18:40:57 AnnB: checklist of what 18:41:09 AnnB, for each use-case, we need a BRIEF summary of the user-interactions. 18:41:10 AnnB: I think the IG needs guidance on what is useful 18:41:14 just like SWAT0 has 18:41:44 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements 18:41:45 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements 18:41:59 AnnB look at how brief the summary is here: http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0#The_use_case 18:42:06 so that's the request back to the IG 18:42:20 all use-cases should have a *brief* user-scenario at the top 18:42:21 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 just like that 18:42:32 AnnB: I agree. I think that's where we are stuck and need a new direction 18:42:55 q? 18:42:57 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 ack harry 18:43:01 that's backwards, evan 18:43:04 -ShaneHudson 18:43:04 thanks Tantek 18:43:04 q+ 18:43:18 q+ 18:43:20 ack tantek 18:43:21 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 ... 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 ... let's remove dependencies. 18:43:22 defining and implementing things with no use is months of work 18:43:57 +??P12 18:44:01 Zakim, ??P12 is me 18:44:01 +ShaneHudson; got it 18:44:03 Zakim, mute me 18:44:03 ShaneHudson should now be muted 18:44:15 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 tantek: goes back to the IG: a summary of steps is what we want 18:44:29 I do really like how simple SWAT0 is 18:44:45 q? 18:44:47 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 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 the assumption that completeness is necessary is how we end in the weeds 18:45:46 tantek: so when people come and say "I need this feature" they can make a claim upon the draft we have 18:46:08 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 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 tantek: the IG does the work, but does not approve them. the WG approves and accepts them one at a time. 18:46:54 q? 18:47:00 ack sandro 18:47:10 zakim, mute me 18:47:18 sandro: one more vote for tweetable scenarios 18:47:18 sandro: definitely a vote for tweetable scenarios 18:47:27 q- harry 18:47:28 q+ 18:47:49 sandro: even if we start small with SWAT0, it is hard to go from something that expresses SWAT0 to something larger. 18:48:04 q- 18:48:05 if it's in your head, you should be abel to write use cases for it 18:48:06 q+ 18:48:09 sandro: I think it is valuable to have a larger roadmap in mind. 18:48:09 distilling info to small bits IS necessary (re: suggestions for Social IG) .... and takes time to do! :-) 18:48:14 sandro: "maybe we don't all build that all at once" 18:48:16 agreed 18:48:31 +Harry 18:48:40 sandro: evan, what process do you want for editing 18:48:41 Zakim, mute Harry 18:48:41 Harry should now be muted 18:48:46 "don't build that all at once" = minimal requirements at first, and grow (build) more incrementally 18:48:47 -Harry 18:48:50 eprodrom: the wiki is the next step 18:48:52 time better spend, though, than moving our scenarios to common template format 18:48:52 I think I'm agreed with sandro 18:49:02 I am muted. no idea why it's saying me 18:49:24 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 eprodrom: I think adding questions on discussion page or mailing list are good 18:49:45 +Harry 18:49:48 Zakim, who's on the call? 18:49:48 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 ... wilkie, ShaneHudson (muted), Harry 18:50:09 jasnell, local mute dosnt get everything, only trust Zakim mute 18:50:28 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 Zakim, mute me 18:50:33 jasnell should now be muted 18:50:35 I greatly prefer "collection" or "set" for a user-facing "thing" that users put other things into 18:50:39 rather than "container" 18:50:44 why? 18:50:45 "container" sounds too abstract / programmery 18:50:45 q? 18:50:46 I think my proposal is we let Evan and whoever else is interested draft an API that fits at least SWAT0 18:50:47 eprodrom: it's really when we get down to endpoints that aren't those 5 major endpoints that it gets strange 18:50:48 aha 18:50:51 ack harry 18:51:03 collection is a flickr term 18:51:26 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 container is also an opensocial term of art 18:51:38 jasnell - and I say users do care, and thus it matters 18:51:55 harry: at the same time, evan's fear that SWAT0 is not sufficient is legitimate 18:52:03 tantek: and I'm saying that right now's it's not critically important that we decide what to call it. 18:52:16 jasnell - if you don't care, then change it to "collection" 18:52:18 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 jasnell from our experience in indiewebcamp - that term resonates / explains much better 18:52:42 harry: we need a place to add/subtract features and discuss these features 18:52:43 q? 18:52:46 jasnell: see http://indiewebcamp.com/collection 18:52:46 ack bblfish 18:53:03