IRC log of social on 2015-04-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:40 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:58:40 [RRSAgent]
logging to
16:58:42 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:42 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:58:44 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:58:44 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:45 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:58:45 [trackbot]
Date: 07 April 2015
16:59:11 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
16:59:19 [Zakim]
16:59:25 [Zakim]
16:59:50 [Zakim]
16:59:55 [Zakim]
16:59:57 [Zakim]
17:00:03 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:00:07 [akuckartz]
AnnB++ for "I have not written code. Therefore my opinion is for naught. Therefore why do battle with you."
17:00:10 [Loqi]
AnnB has 16 karma
17:00:31 [Zakim]
17:00:32 [elf-pavlik]
18:59Zakim T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
17:00:39 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #social
17:00:46 [tantek]
ackuckartz URL?
17:00:56 [Zakim]
17:00:58 [tantek]
zakim, ??p6 is me
17:00:58 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:01:06 [Zakim]
17:01:12 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:01:12 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:01:27 [Zakim]
17:02:25 [Zakim]
17:02:28 [wilkie]
Zakim, IPcaller is me
17:02:28 [Zakim]
+wilkie; got it
17:02:33 [dret]
dret has joined #social
17:02:48 [harry]
harry has joined #social
17:02:51 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #social
17:02:59 [harry]
Zakim, code?
17:02:59 [Zakim]
the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200, harry
17:03:00 [akuckartz]
tantek: URL for what?
17:03:06 [tantek]
that quote
17:03:16 [Zakim]
17:03:21 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
17:03:21 [Zakim]
+ShaneHudson; got it
17:03:22 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, mute me
17:03:22 [Zakim]
ShaneHudson should now be muted
17:03:28 [Zakim]
17:03:29 [harry]
Zakim, mute harry
17:03:29 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
17:03:30 [rhiaro]
I can scribe
17:03:31 [wilkie]
I could scribe
17:03:34 [rhiaro]
If my connection holds
17:03:38 [tantek]
thanks rhiaro
17:03:41 [elf-pavlik]
17:03:43 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 49 karma
17:03:44 [rhiaro]
wilkie: fight you for it :p
17:03:44 [wilkie]
I'll scribe next week??
17:03:49 [ShaneHudson]
I'm fine to scribe if you want
17:03:55 [tantek]
welcome back harry
17:03:57 [wilkie]
17:03:58 [rhiaro]
wilkie: back me up if my connection drops
17:04:00 [wilkie]
17:04:06 [elf-pavlik]
17:04:08 [Loqi]
wilkie has 7 karma
17:04:18 [Zakim]
17:04:27 [Zakim]
17:04:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
17:04:28 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:04:30 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Approval of minutes
17:04:33 [Zakim]
17:04:38 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: any objections?
17:04:42 [tantek]
they're not there?
17:04:48 [tantek]
no minutes!
17:04:48 [rhiaro]
... Hearing none, minutes approved March 31st
17:04:50 [dret]
zakim, IPcaller is me
17:04:50 [Zakim]
+dret; got it
17:05:03 [rhiaro]
... Still missing minutes from f2f and March 10th
17:05:04 [tantek]
on n.m. found
17:05:11 [Zakim]
17:05:15 [rhiaro]
... Saw a note from aaronpk about the bot failing to generate the minutes to get started
17:05:17 [rhiaro]
... we need harry's help
17:05:18 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P14 is me
17:05:18 [Zakim]
+Tsyesika; got it
17:05:18 [harry]
Zakim, unmute me
17:05:19 [Zakim]
Harry should no longer be muted
17:05:22 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:05:22 [Zakim]
Tsyesika should now be muted
17:05:25 [rhiaro]
harry: I'll look at it, will do by end of call
17:05:32 [aaronpk]
Zakim, mute me
17:05:32 [Zakim]
aaronpk should now be muted
17:05:34 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: f2f minutes are back together?
17:05:40 [rhiaro]
harry: wil double check, need to reprocess everything
17:05:47 [harry]
we have all the IRC logs - don't nothing is missing
17:05:49 [rhiaro]
... we have all the irc logs, just needs formatting
17:05:53 [tantek]
we are doing 1.5hrs today right?
17:05:55 [harry]
don't worry there, but I'll try to format by end of the call.
17:05:59 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Next telecon is next week
17:06:16 [rhiaro]
... Today we have 1.5 hours, we can see how that goes and see if we should do it more often or every week, or keep it as a one off
17:06:30 [rhiaro]
... Next week default is to go back to an hour
17:06:31 [tantek]
Arnaud, back to me chairing next week?
17:06:39 [rhiaro]
... There is a f2f meeting, only 8 people reigstered as participants
17:06:40 [harry]
tsk tsk that's not enough
17:06:54 [rhiaro]
... Not many people have registered as regrets or remote, please take a moment to answer one way or another
17:07:00 [tantek]
17:07:01 [rhiaro]
... Also a question about TPAC 2015
17:07:02 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
17:07:02 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
17:07:03 [melvster]
could someone provide a pointer to the f2f?
17:07:05 [harry]
Zakim, mute me
17:07:05 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
17:07:19 [rhiaro]
... We agreed we'd meet at TPAC, Sapporo, Japan end of October, but it's a whole week event. Which days of the week do we want to meet?
17:07:23 [aaronpk]
f2f meeting
17:07:27 [ShaneHudson]
I might be able to make it, but no company is financing me so not sure if I will be able to afford it yet.
17:07:29 [rhiaro]
... tantek has a conflict M/T
17:07:36 [rhiaro]
... Proposal is for us to meet Th/F
17:07:40 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Meet 2015-10-29…30 (ThF) at TPAC2015
17:07:47 [harry]
Thursday and Friday is fine with me. Anyone have another WG conflicts?
17:07:51 [elf-pavlik]
17:07:58 [rhiaro]
... The earlier we set the date, the better
17:08:05 [rhiaro]
... Then other groups can work around us
17:08:10 [rhiaro]
... Any objections to Th/F?
17:08:20 [elf-pavlik]
+0 I will not come to TPAC
17:08:20 [rhiaro]
... No objects, approved!
17:08:33 [rhiaro]
APPROVED: Meet 2015-10-29…30 (ThF) at TPAC2015
17:08:47 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: We'll set up a wiki page for registration again
17:08:52 [aaronpk]
I probably won't be able to go to TPAC
17:08:54 [rhiaro]
... Be aware that you have to register at TPAC itself
17:09:04 [rhiaro]
... and ther'es a small fee for food etc
17:09:24 [rhiaro]
... Anything else?
17:09:36 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Tracking of actions and issues
17:09:40 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: not going to spend too much time
17:09:43 [rhiaro]
... Open actions
17:09:45 [Arnaud]
17:09:50 [rhiaro]
... Anyone wnat to declare victory on anything?
17:09:54 [harry]
I would not iterate through them by name, that takes up a lot of time
17:10:03 [Loqi]
Shudson made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]
17:10:04 [Loqi]
Pelf made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-04-07]]
17:10:05 [Loqi]
Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]
17:10:09 [jasnell]
17:10:23 [rhiaro]
... Don't want to go through, just let us know if anyone has anything to close
17:10:24 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:10:27 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: did you hear back about the opensocial database yet?
17:10:32 [rhiaro]
jasnell: Don't have completed, do have progress
17:10:33 [elf-pavlik]
I updated deadlines for my overdue actions
17:10:45 [rhiaro]
... Hopefully we'll have basic test (?) to show off by next week
17:10:48 [harry]
ACTION-51: Rigo does not want to fund my travel despite there being a 5K travel budget from the EC for this WG.
17:10:48 [trackbot]
Notes added to ACTION-51 Discuss with rigo travel budget to see if more funding can be found for a paris event.
17:11:01 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: harry: could we have a repo set up for that?
17:11:10 [harry]
Zakim, unmute me
17:11:10 [Zakim]
Harry should no longer be muted
17:11:27 [rhiaro]
harry: shouldn't be a big deal. elf-pavlik created a large number of documents, want to migrate everything?
17:11:32 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
17:11:37 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re 1 repo or many repos
17:11:41 [harry]
My question - migrate the somewhat excessive number of documents in elf's repo aren't standards track
17:11:49 [tantek]
URLs for what people are talking about?
17:11:50 [rhiaro]
... Some of the documents aren't standards track
17:11:53 [tantek]
"large documents" ?!?
17:11:58 [harry]
Do we just restrict the repo to standards-track?
17:12:02 [harry]
Or do we add everything in there?
17:12:06 [harry]
I'm OK either way
17:12:13 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I don't think we should just make it an open dump for anyone with any document
17:12:33 [rhiaro]
harry: maybe the clear division of labour is that we use the w3c repo for rec track stuff, and for everything else we use elf's repo
17:12:35 [tantek]
17:12:35 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: reasonable
17:12:37 [Loqi]
harry has 8 karma
17:12:42 [rhiaro]
harry: I'll do it by the end of the day
17:12:43 [elf-pavlik]
17:12:45 [rhiaro]
... Anyone disagree?
17:12:55 [tantek]
17:12:59 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:12:59 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss 1 repo or many repos
17:13:36 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: want to clarify that we have team in w3c organisation, and we have social organisation separately, so should we have 1 repo or multiple repos? 1 in w3c organisation or multiple repos in w3c? So it's not a question about dumping everything in one repo
17:13:56 [rhiaro]
... and it's not 'elf's repo' it's an organisation with multiple repos
17:14:11 [harry]
Repos that are standards-track or related to standards-track documents goes to W3C repo
17:14:12 [rhiaro]
harry: repos that are standards track or related to standards track documents go to w3c repo
17:14:23 [tantek]
or *required* for standards track documents - e.g. test suite is required
17:14:23 [rhiaro]
... and everything else goes to social group of repos
17:14:33 [tantek]
lots of things could be "related"
17:14:35 [rhiaro]
... the repos in the w3c group are structured so other wgs can see what's going on
17:14:36 [elf-pavlik]
17:14:40 [harry]
and everything else, goes to w3c-social group of repos set-up by Elf
17:14:49 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Anyone else? reports on progress/completion?
17:14:54 [harry]
So, when experimental stuff goes Rec-track, we move to W3C repo
17:15:02 [elf-pavlik]
github orga
17:15:04 [rhiaro]
... Otherwise, we have a bunch of raise issued later on agenda
17:15:11 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Activity Streams 2.0
17:15:13 [harry]
The main thing is also to make sure the rest of the WGs can distinguish between experimental and Rec-track stuff
17:15:24 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: issues on the agenda..
17:15:34 [rhiaro]
... elf-pavlik will talk about issue 16 to get started
17:15:36 [rhiaro]
17:15:36 [trackbot]
issue-16 -- better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure -- open
17:15:36 [trackbot]
17:16:01 [Zakim]
17:16:11 [bret]
Zakim, ??P16 is me
17:16:11 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:16:13 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:16:13 [Zakim]
bret should now be muted
17:16:16 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: this issue is raised by dret who is on the call, and talk about how we talk about how we separate the core grammar, and extended vocab terms, which fits the vocabulary task force in social ig
17:16:30 [rhiaro]
... which is why we should discuss this before, because some other issues are very specific to vocabulary issues
17:16:34 [harry]
Zakim, mute me
17:16:34 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
17:16:40 [rhiaro]
... we can delegate between IG and WG to reduce pressure
17:16:54 [rhiaro]
... We don't have to answer some issues if we have clear extensibility mechanisms
17:17:09 [rhiaro]
... issue-36, json-ld context helps allow people see the rdf view
17:17:13 [rhiaro]
... maybe erik can explain
17:17:15 [tantek]
17:17:29 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
17:17:44 [rhiaro]
dret: the idea was basically that it would be helpful if there was a strict separation between the AS grammar, fundamental mechanisms, and the specific vocabulary you're using in some application
17:17:51 [rhiaro]
... I think there's consensus that there should be some kind of base vocabulary
17:17:56 [rhiaro]
... the issue is saying there should be better separation
17:18:09 [rhiaro]
... in the end I think the goal of that would be to force ourselves to have a well-defined extension model in the core spec
17:18:22 [rhiaro]
... that says 'this is what vocabularies can do' and to use our own vocabularies as just one way of using that extension model
17:18:45 [rhiaro]
... to say here are activities and object types etc, as a blue print, so if someone comes up with more vocabularies they can start with the base and use the same mechanism how to define their own vocabularies
17:18:52 [rhiaro]
... the big question is 'how do we define vocabularies'?
17:19:07 [rhiaro]
... do you have to do it in rdf/owl form, or can you do it in rdf/owl, or what's the expectation for someone working on vocabularies
17:19:23 [rhiaro]
... we will force ourselves to answer that question if we have a separation between activitystreams core and vocabularies used in core to serialize concepts
17:19:25 [elf-pavlik]
17:19:27 [Loqi]
dret has 2 karma
17:19:32 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: okay, jasnell?
17:19:58 [rhiaro]
jasnell: going back to the original restructuring that happened; it was decided before we published the 1pwd, to simplify the document
17:20:02 [Loqi]
Aboyet made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]
17:20:04 [rhiaro]
... we don't have the extended vocabulary stuff there yet
17:20:15 [rhiaro]
... it would simplify it if it was split into two where the vocab was in one and the syntax was in another
17:20:21 [akuckartz]
17:20:23 [Loqi]
dret has 3 karma
17:20:27 [rhiaro]
... the extended vocabulary was added because it was felt that we needed the base schema
17:20:39 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:20:39 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:20:40 [rhiaro]
... in AS1 we had a base schema that defined all the verbs and object types that were used commonly with 1.0
17:20:50 [rhiaro]
... It was felt that we needed to have those concepts brought into the vocabulary for interop purposes
17:20:51 [melvster]
let me just note that a base social web vocab exists ... SIOC and SIOCT ... means "Socially Inter connected communities" -- and it's in use
17:20:53 [dret]
i think ideally we should have one RDF-based vocabulary as a demo, and one non-RDF-based one, to demonstrate how those two ways of defining vocabularies are working.
17:21:10 [akuckartz]
rhiaro++ for scribing
17:21:12 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 50 karma
17:21:13 [rhiaro]
... THe idea of having the extended vocabulary is to take the most commonly used verbs and object types and have a common understanding and definition of what those are, so they are consisten between implementations
17:21:22 [rhiaro]
... It makes sense ot have a definition in the core vocab of those commonly used things
17:21:33 [rhiaro]
... What has not happened is a reconciliation of the objects in there from 1.0 base schema, and use cases
17:21:42 [rhiaro]
... have not been reconciled with critical user stories
17:21:48 [tantek]
melvster - what sites use SIOC on the public web? URLs? Permalinks?
17:21:54 [rhiaro]
... So I imagine that there are some set of activity types and object types that we can remove
17:21:58 [rhiaro]
... because the aren't as critical as others
17:21:59 [elf-pavlik]
q+ how people define new domain specific terms and how they discover existing one already defined by others?
17:22:01 [rhiaro]
... or widely used
17:22:04 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re how people define new domain specific terms and how they discover existing one already defined by others?
17:22:08 [rhiaro]
... And a couple of the issues I've opened suggest removing some of those
17:22:09 [dret]
jasnell, i am not at all saying we shouldn't have a core. we absolutely should. but the question is how to define them, and how to cleanly separate the core, and the base vocabulary. i really liked the way AS1 did it.
17:22:16 [rhiaro]
... What we really need are proposals ot remove specific ones
17:22:25 [rhiaro]
... I have no problem removing items, just need to know which and make sure there's consensus
17:22:28 [tantek]
I encourage jasnell to remove terms at his editor's discretion and just note it as FYI in the changes section in the spec
17:22:40 [rhiaro]
... We've talked about this a number of times, but haven't been any concrete proposals for changes to make to document
17:22:40 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
17:22:40 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
17:22:42 [harry]
Agreed concrete set of chagnes would be good
17:22:43 [tantek]
17:22:51 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:22:53 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss how people define new domain specific terms and how they discover existing one already defined by others?
17:22:55 [rhiaro]
... instead of having a high level discussion, be great to propose changes
17:22:59 [dret]
http://localhost/github/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html was a first attempt to start with the AS1 base schema, and move it over to the AS2 world.
17:23:33 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: of course we can't capture all terms in default vocabulary, some people want to add domain specific terms, at this moment I understand we have a default vocab that doesn't need rdf
17:23:35 [dret]
i think we should strictly separate the dsicussion on *how* we better separate core and the base vocabulary, and *what* the base vocabulary should be. very different issues.
17:23:39 [rhiaro]
... If you want to use your own, you're on your own
17:23:49 [rhiaro]
... It would be better to have a clear pattern to define domain-specific vocabularies
17:23:53 [rhiaro]
... IG can help with coordinating
17:23:53 [dret]
17:23:59 [rhiaro]
... And also a way to discover what other people have defined
17:24:03 [rhiaro]
... eg. xAPI
17:24:07 [rhiaro]
... Can create extensions
17:24:18 [rhiaro]
... There is also a extension mechanism
17:24:28 [Arnaud]
ack dret
17:24:29 [rhiaro]
... I think we need more guideance about how to extend with domian specific terms
17:24:29 [tantek]
17:24:46 [melvster]
tantek: implementations and applications of SIOC (though there's a few more now such as from this group)
17:25:19 [rhiaro]
dret: All I want to add is that I think we should strictly separate what the core terms should be. The issue right now is not what those terms should be, but how we separate them and how we should go forward to rec track indepedant of base terms which then maybe should be managed by the IG
17:25:23 [elf-pavlik]
melvster John Breslin (SIOC) wants to coordinate work with us
17:25:25 [tantek]
melvster: was looking for specific URLs I could view source on - should I just go down that list?
17:25:29 [harry]
17:25:44 [rhiaro]
... And also this interface between the WG and the IG is that our job is to create an extension model, and the IG doesn't want to use it, we have to do a better job of defining it so the IG can use it to deifne the base vocab
17:25:44 [tantek]
melvster: wikipedia "social web" or "social network" documentation is horribly out of date
17:25:49 [Arnaud]
ack harry
17:25:51 [harry]
Zakim, unmute
17:25:51 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'unmute', harry
17:25:51 [rhiaro]
... We should separate issues about how to define base schema
17:25:52 [tantek]
e.g. sites with feeds, feed readers etc.
17:26:10 [rhiaro]
harry: From w3c perspective we would prefer a cleanly defined base schema
17:26:18 [rhiaro]
... And the IG had control over extension mechanisms
17:26:19 [jasnell]
17:26:23 [tantek]
melvster: I have had some good online back/forth with John Breslin - perhaps we can invite him as an invited expert?
17:26:28 [rhiaro]
... But I do agree the WG can define extension mechaism
17:26:38 [melvster]
17:26:41 [Loqi]
tantek has 174 karma
17:26:46 [AnnB]
17:26:49 [Loqi]
tantek has 175 karma
17:26:52 [rhiaro]
... Some people say don't worry, it's rdf it has extension, but some people want to use json. Just going to be delicate figuring it out technically but I'm sure we can find consensus
17:26:53 [AnnB]
can he come to F2F in Paris?
17:27:03 [rhiaro]
... There's probably not massive overlap with (?)
17:27:07 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:27:14 [harry]
We would prefer not to have overlap
17:27:19 [rhiaro]
jasnell: there is a fairly basic extensibility model already defined
17:27:20 [tantek]
how can you NOT overlap with it has nearly the whole world in it ;)
17:27:20 [harry]
with at this point
17:27:21 [rhiaro]
... not fleshed out
17:27:23 [rhiaro]
... not clear how it will be used
17:27:35 [harry]
Zakim, mute me
17:27:35 [Zakim]
Harry should now be muted
17:27:43 [rhiaro]
... we need to go through the AS document itself and define the extensibility model from applications using it
17:27:48 [melvster]
tantek: best asking john, but take a look at,, ... all my work also uses sioc
17:27:56 [rhiaro]
... but if w3c wants to write a note saying this is how we define extended vocab for specific domains
17:27:58 [tantek]
melvster - thanks! will do.
17:28:02 [dret]
proposal: write up two short "extension vocabularies", one in RDF, one in non-RDF, and take those as test cases for how well AS2 defines its own extensibility.
17:28:05 [rhiaro]
... I don't think we sohuld put that in AS doc itself
17:28:10 [rhiaro]
... Happy to take things out
17:28:11 [cwebber2]
Zakim, mute me
17:28:11 [Zakim]
cwebber2 should now be muted
17:28:19 [tantek]
17:28:21 [rhiaro]
... Happy to put things in external vocab, and let IG do it
17:28:28 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: let's see if we can converge
17:28:34 [rhiaro]
... we need to figure out how to close issue-16
17:28:45 [tantek]
I'd like to encourage jasnell to drop non-core terms in his opinion
17:28:45 [rhiaro]
... A notion of core vocabulary and what falls into it is a separate issue
17:29:00 [rhiaro]
... Question is whether spec provides for extension mechanism that is well defined to allow people to define vocabs elsewhere or not
17:29:07 [rhiaro]
... james says we should wait to see what that would mean
17:29:08 [dret]
from my perspective to close ISSUE-16 is to cleanly separate, on a document level, the core spec, and the base schema.
17:29:12 [rhiaro]
... erik says we should define it now
17:29:18 [dret]
17:29:21 [rhiaro]
... so we have a well established framework
17:29:27 [rhiaro]
... these are the two opposing positions
17:29:29 [rhiaro]
... is that right?
17:29:29 [Arnaud]
ack dret
17:29:30 [tantek]
q+ to note that dropping terms is important too
17:29:33 [cwebber2]
I'm not sure, doesn't json-ld already provide the extension framework?
17:29:43 [cwebber2]
I'm confused as to what other extension framework is needed?
17:29:49 [rhiaro]
dret: yes that's right. From my pov I have a hard time imagining how we can define AS without defining extension model
17:29:53 [wilkie]
yes, AS would be rather perfect if it were a base core + extension/extensible-discovery mechanism
17:29:57 [rhiaro]
... It's not something we can do later and say by the way this is how you extend it
17:30:07 [sandro]
+1 dret: I have a hard time seeing how we can define AS without an extension model
17:30:08 [rhiaro]
... Implementations need to be aware of the extension model so they know how to deal with data that uses it
17:30:12 [rhiaro]
... So we need to tackle it somehow
17:30:16 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re WG focuses on how to extend and IG focuses on vocabulary details
17:30:16 [rhiaro]
... I cannot imagine how you would do it without
17:30:18 [akuckartz]
A good extension model/architecture/framework is more important than a large core.
17:30:22 [tantek]
q+ to also note that being forward-compat only requires a "must ignore" rule
17:30:24 [jasnell]
there is an extension model. you can add new things to it, if you see something you don't understand, you can choose to ignore it
17:30:27 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:30:27 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note that dropping terms is important too and to also note that being forward-compat only requires a "must ignore" rule
17:30:30 [dret]
17:30:32 [Loqi]
akuckartz has 1 karma
17:30:46 [melvster]
yes, json ld is extensible by design
17:30:49 [rhiaro]
tantek: two pieces of issue. one is what can we drop from core?
17:30:57 [rhiaro]
... Heard james call for concrete prposoals of things to drop
17:31:09 [rhiaro]
... I want to encourage james as editor to go ahead and start dropping some terms that in his opinion are not core
17:31:15 [rhiaro]
... And document that he has dropped them
17:31:24 [rhiaro]
... And wait to see who objects, and if they have implementations using those terms
17:31:33 [rhiaro]
... Otherwise, we can trust him to drop terms and shrink the spec
17:31:44 [jasnell]
I have no problem dropping terms and handling those off to the IG to work on if they want
17:31:48 [rhiaro]
... I want james to optimistically drop terms and wait for reaction rather than wait for consensus on every drop
17:31:50 [dret]
yes, tantek, slimming down the base schema is good; http://localhost/github/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html was the first step towards that. let's continue with that.
17:32:16 [dret]
17:32:17 [rhiaro]
... The second point is regarding extensibility mode. I think at a high level I agree with dret that we need some form of extending the vocabulary. As far as what's needed for a v1 sepc, all we need to not paint ourselves into a corner is forward compatibility rules
17:32:23 [rhiaro]
... Typically includes some form of must-ignore
17:32:37 [rhiaro]
... That is, if an AS process encounters something not in spec, it must ignore it
17:32:50 [rhiaro]
... That gives us ability to include ability to define extension mechanism either in first version, or later
17:32:52 [dret]
not really sure that's true, tantek. we also need to say what we expect implementations to expose, and what they can safely drop.
17:32:54 [rhiaro]
... That buys us some time
17:33:04 [rhiaro]
... As to whether v1 needs a well defined extension model, I'm on the fence
17:33:15 [rhiaro]
... I don't think it actually needs it, but then again I'm not opposed if people come up with one
17:33:15 [cwebber2]
17:33:19 [rhiaro]
... i wouldn't strongly object to that
17:33:25 [Zakim]
17:33:31 [rhiaro]
... It would provide an opportunity for people to experiment with their own activities
17:33:36 [dret]
that's why i was championing extended activities in the test cases, so that we say if/how they are expected to be reported to applications.
17:33:37 [sandro]
+0.5 (not sure this is all we need) tantek: all we really need is a forward compatibility rule, saying implementations MUST IGNORE certain things (extensions).
17:33:38 [rhiaro]
... and that kind of live experimentaiton with implementations would be useful
17:33:42 [Zakim]
17:33:43 [jasnell]
RSS and Atom used must-ignore without defining a more complete extension model without much difficulty
17:33:46 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: Thanks. I'd like to separate the two issues
17:33:46 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
17:33:46 [Zakim]
+ShaneHudson; got it
17:33:50 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, mute me
17:33:50 [Zakim]
ShaneHudson should now be muted
17:33:54 [rhiaro]
... What's in core is different to whether we have extension mechanism
17:34:02 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:34:03 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss WG focuses on how to extend and IG focuses on vocabulary details
17:34:05 [rhiaro]
... Tantek says the minimum is say implmeenations must ignore
17:34:06 [jasnell]
must ignore is already documented in the spec
17:34:28 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: ++
17:34:40 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: if we agree we need clear way to extend with custom terms, eg. aaronpk demo'd during face to face drink/eat, not in core spec but already in use, less pressure choosing what we want to include or not, because it's more relaxed to say it's not super important so it can go in extension
17:34:47 [tantek]
jasnell - then you're done with the minimum :)
17:34:48 [rhiaro]
... So unless we have clear way to extend, people might want to push things into core
17:34:51 [dret]
concretely: if our AS broker drops everything i does not recognize, is it allowed to do that?
17:34:55 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: good point
17:34:57 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:35:00 [melvster]
extensibility and forward compatibility are baked into the architecture of the web, and into RDF, need a new term, just add a vocab or version, and dont change existing terms (cool URIs dont change)
17:35:04 [cwebber2]
Zakim, unmute me
17:35:04 [Zakim]
cwebber2 was not muted, cwebber2
17:35:27 [tantek]
melvster, that sounds like you're saying we actually don't need to provide an explicit extensibility mechanism ourselves
17:35:33 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I was going to ask what's missing that json-ld doesn't provide, if we're using json-ld as extension, doesn't that provide a way forward to using new/additional terms?
17:35:38 [cwebber2]
17:35:40 [melvster]
17:35:42 [Loqi]
tantek has 176 karma
17:35:43 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re cwebber2 q
17:35:45 [akuckartz]
dropped terms can be used to test extension mechanism
17:35:45 [jasnell]
17:35:46 [akuckartz]
17:35:48 [Loqi]
melvster has 11 karma
17:35:49 [dret]
didn't we say JSON-LD is optional?
17:35:51 [Tsyesika]
17:35:53 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 25 karma
17:35:54 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:35:55 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss cwebber2 q
17:36:03 [dret]
or did that change? sorry if it did...
17:36:08 [tantek]
JSON itself has a custom / history of people adding new terms as needed (extending) anybody else's JSON structure
17:36:22 [hhalpin]
17:36:24 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: didn't we say json-ld optional? So that's why we have extensibility problem. If we say we use this for extensions, people will want to push to core for people who aren't using rdf
17:36:24 [cwebber2]
ah right I forget that it's optional ;p
17:36:26 [rhiaro]
... issue 36
17:36:31 [rhiaro]
... relates to that
17:36:33 [cwebber2]
could we say "optional, unless you add extensions"? :)
17:36:43 [rhiaro]
... problem is that if we don't require json-ld processing, then we cannot recommend directly json-ld as extension
17:36:53 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:37:00 [tantek]
17:37:05 [dret]
cwebber2, optional unless it's not? that's a weird interpretation of optional.
17:37:29 [rhiaro]
jasnell: as far as extensions are concerned, syntax is currently json with json-ld @context. If somebody throws something into that document, if it's not defined in @context, the jsonld expansion mechanism drops it
17:37:32 [rhiaro]
... without throwing any errors
17:37:33 [wilkie]
people are *going* to extend it. ostatus was extended immediately, even by, to add things not in the spec proper
17:37:37 [rhiaro]
... which is consisten with what our existing document does
17:37:51 [rhiaro]
... if an implementation feels that additional bits of information are important, it will do the work necessarily to support those
17:37:54 [dret]
but can intermediaries do that? drop unsupported things because they parse/reserialize?
17:37:59 [rhiaro]
... either by adding an extended version of its own context, or doing some preprocessing
17:38:09 [rhiaro]
... it still fits within the existing definition in the spec that says ignore anything you do not understand
17:38:11 [tantek]
wilkie, agreed. I think the difference is that perhaps we're ok with unofficial / undefined forms of extension
17:38:19 [rhiaro]
... if someone comes up with a new activity type, our exisitng model allows that with no problem
17:38:21 [tantek]
rather than a formal extension mechanism
17:38:26 [dret]
we need clear rules for intermediaries.
17:38:37 [tantek]
what is an intermediary?
17:38:39 [rhiaro]
... it's specififed with a URI in json or json-ld, and the processing can pick it up, if you odn't understand you ignore, if you understand, great
17:38:43 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
17:38:45 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
17:38:46 [rhiaro]
... We agreed weeks ago that rdf reasoning is not required
17:38:56 [rhiaro]
... You don't need to know that a Like is a kind of Response
17:39:07 [melvster]
FYI: @context is optional in JSON LD, it is just a short hand or those that dont wish to type out full URIs
17:39:09 [rhiaro]
... If someone wants to come up with a new kind of response, they can do high level reasoning if they want, or ignore it
17:39:14 [dret]
tantek, it's something that consumes AS and republishes it to other consumers. same as in RSS/Atom scenarios.
17:39:15 [wilkie]
it would be nice, then, to have at least a recommendation to help identify extensions that are useful
17:39:23 [rhiaro]
... Extensibility in there now is the same as in AS1.0, and in Atom and RSS - very successful
17:39:26 [rhiaro]
... Not sure what the problem is
17:39:30 [cwebber2]
this is why I think we should have a good core, then most people don't need extensions
17:39:33 [cwebber2]
then if they do, hey!
17:39:35 [rhiaro]
... If you find something you don't support, ignore it
17:39:35 [cwebber2]
17:39:43 [dret]
problem is RDF-based implementation that may drop things in the middle. can they?
17:39:45 [rhiaro]
... If you think you have to understand, write your implementation to handle it
17:39:51 [Arnaud]
17:39:52 [tantek]
I agree with jasnell
17:39:56 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: So we could close issue-16 without doing anything?
17:40:04 [tantek]
we don't need need any more of a defined extensibility model
17:40:04 [rhiaro]
jasnell: IMO we don't need anything else unless we get into reasoning
17:40:07 [jasnell_]
jasnell_ has joined #social
17:40:19 [rhiaro]
... If the IG wants to say here's how we do higher level reasoning, the we can have anote
17:40:23 [Arnaud]
ack hhalpin
17:40:23 [melvster]
17:40:25 [AnnB]
the IG will need some additional folks, with diff skills ...
17:40:26 [rhiaro]
... as far as the base is concerned, nothing more
17:40:26 [Loqi]
jasnell has 10 karma
17:40:31 [harry]
Zakim, unmute me
17:40:31 [Zakim]
Harry should no longer be muted
17:40:52 [rhiaro]
harry: we could put the question back to dret, we're clear that rdfs reasoning isn't required, what is jasnell not specify that needs to be clarified?
17:40:58 [rhiaro]
... is it the extension of the name?
17:41:23 [rhiaro]
dret: one scenario is that we have activites that are published, consumed, republished, aggregated, filtered
17:41:29 [rhiaro]
... a whole ecosystem of activities, not just end ot end
17:41:53 [melvster]
17:41:54 [elf-pavlik]
q+ re why we don't use our extension mechanism for AS Extended Vocabulary?
17:41:55 [Loqi]
too much karma!
17:42:06 [harry]
maybe you should write that down and email the list
17:42:06 [tantek]
does AS2 spec says what intermediaries must or should implement?
17:42:09 [rhiaro]
... question is that is someone sees an activity that has extensions they dont' recognise are they allowed to drop those because they're not translated. Can implmeentations silently drop stuff?
17:42:22 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
17:42:23 [rhiaro]
... Or maybe if you don't understand stuff, you need to make sure you don't drop them if you need to republish
17:42:24 [Zakim]
elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss why we don't use our extension mechanism for AS Extended Vocabulary?
17:42:26 [rhiaro]
... things could get lost in the middle
17:42:27 [harry]
The dropping stuff is a good question.
17:42:32 [jasnell_]
yes, extensions can be dropped. just like we have in RSS and Atom
17:42:37 [tantek]
I will note that there are no user-stories about intermediaries
17:42:40 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: if we concede our current mechanism useful, I prose we publish our extended vocabulary ..?..
17:42:54 [rhiaro]
... if it works correctly we should use it?
17:42:56 [cwebber2]
kind of broke up towards the end
17:42:59 [tantek]
q+ to propose intermediaries out of scope for this version
17:43:02 [cwebber2]
elf-pavlik: could you type that?
17:43:05 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:43:05 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to propose intermediaries out of scope for this version
17:43:07 [jasnell_]
if someone wants to create an additional spec that describes how extensions can be supported beyond the core, more power to them. it doesn't need to be in the spec
17:43:11 [jasnell_]
in the core spec that is
17:43:16 [harry]
I recommend we take this to the mailing list...
17:43:19 [elf-pavlik]
PROPOSAL: use our extension mechanism for AS Extended Vocabulary
17:43:23 [harry]
or IRC :)
17:43:25 [elf-pavlik]
similar to sioc: sioct:
17:43:33 [rhiaro]
tantek: we didn't come up with these scenarios in any users stories. it's a useful concept, but for current version of the spec out of scope
17:43:36 [harry]
I have no idea what that proposal means elf.
17:43:40 [rhiaro]
... [intermediate publishing]
17:43:45 [rhiaro]
... reassess including in next version of spec
17:43:48 [harry]
An extension mechanism is different than a vocabulary
17:43:49 [jasnell_]
tantek: +1
17:44:04 [elf-pavlik]
harry don't include extended vocabulary in AS vocab
17:44:05 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: what proposal to close issue 16?
17:44:10 [harry]
I would agree with that.
17:44:11 [elf-pavlik]
but publish it and use it as extension
17:44:14 [rhiaro]
... James said do nothing
17:44:19 [tantek]
agree with jasnell_ proposal +1
17:44:22 [jasnell_]
Proposal: Close Issue-16, we already deal with extensibility in the spec
17:44:22 [rhiaro]
... others say we need to do more
17:44:28 [rhiaro]
... someone would have to draft that
17:44:29 [harry]
Why not dret draft somethng?
17:44:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 for do nothing
17:44:37 [elf-pavlik]
dret let's do it together for next week?
17:44:37 [harry]
+1 dret drafting
17:44:37 [rhiaro]
... burden on you dret, to propose what you want to see in spec
17:44:41 [tantek]
17:44:46 [tantek]
PROPOSAL: explicitly declare intermediaries out of scope for this version of the spec
17:45:01 [rhiaro]
dret: I think I've done that often enough. What I think we should have is a processing model that clearly lays out rules for how implementaitons are supposed to behave
17:45:05 [tantek]
+1 jasnell_ proposal
17:45:07 [rhiaro]
... And have base schema as test case for ourselves
17:45:11 [jasnell_]
An implementation guide that deals with extensibility would be great for the IG to produce
17:45:12 [elf-pavlik]
dret base schema == extended vocabulary ?
17:45:15 [rhiaro]
... I have written that often on mailing list
17:45:23 [rhiaro]
... If nobody agrees, then so it is
17:45:32 [rhiaro]
harry: what is the concerete problem?
17:45:57 [rhiaro]
... whether to drop vocab items? There is a list of questions of this sort. Be good if you turned them into possible changes to spec
17:45:58 [AdamB]
could the intermediaries come in to play during federation conversation
17:46:00 [rhiaro]
... See if group accepts
17:46:05 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: agree
17:46:08 [jasnell_]
17:46:08 [dret]
the problem also is: how do i define i vocabulary? how will this work in an implementation?
17:46:10 [elf-pavlik]
dret let's work on PR together!
17:46:22 [rhiaro]
harry: I can imagine there are many different subsets of question 'what is processing model'
17:46:31 [cwebber2]
I think an extension model on top of json that tries to be pretty clear is going to look a lot like json-ld :)
17:46:33 [harry]
AdamB, I think it could be
17:46:38 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: proposal from tantek declaring it out of scope for this version
17:46:39 [elf-pavlik]
17:46:41 [harry]
I'm not comfortable with it being out of scope quite yet
17:46:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:46:51 [dret]
elf-pavlik, sounds good!
17:46:51 [jasnell_]
I don't think we need to declare them out of scope explicitly
17:46:54 [harry]
However, a concrete proposal is needed.
17:46:54 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we'll leave it at this
17:46:57 [wilkie]
an extension mechanism could be an extension that somebody just does haha
17:46:58 [cwebber2]
I also think if we cut down the vocabulary as much as possible and leave no room for extending the vocabulary simultaneously
17:47:00 [cwebber2]
that's going to be
17:47:03 [rhiaro]
... I want to give erik a chance. Do you want to kee pissue 16 open?
17:47:03 [cwebber2]
a fraught situation
17:47:08 [elf-pavlik]
yes, let's keep it open
17:47:15 [rhiaro]
... You're always free to come up with a proposal anyway
17:47:18 [harry]
I think the 'dropping stuff' issue is interesting
17:47:20 [rhiaro]
... Most people say we should just close it as is
17:47:23 [harry]
and could have ramifications down the road
17:47:27 [rhiaro]
dret: if that's what the majority wants to do, sure
17:47:30 [tantek]
cwebber2: it's a way to get dependable interop - not fraught!
17:47:33 [tantek]
opposite of fraught
17:47:34 [rhiaro]
... from my pov it's not good implementaiton guidence
17:47:36 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Close Issue-16, doing nothing - we already deal with extensibility in the spec
17:47:41 [tantek]
17:47:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:47:46 [jasnell_]
17:47:49 [dret]
17:47:57 [cwebber2]
I'm too confused to vote :)
17:47:59 [elf-pavlik]
-1 unless we use current model for publishing extended vocabulary itself
17:48:06 [harry]
+0 (would prefer to see dret write a concrete change, but am against pointless discussion until we have a change-set)
17:48:24 [wilkie]
I'm a little confused as well. haha. is this about extensible vocabulary or extensible actions??
17:48:27 [rhiaro]
AnnB: I don't follow very well. Seems like vocal people against not vocal people
17:48:30 [ShaneHudson]
+0 I also don't follow it too well but sounds like a good proposal.
17:48:34 [rhiaro]
... Somebody said it seemed premature to close it
17:48:38 [bret]
+1 close the issue, reopen with concrete changes
17:48:39 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we have objections, we're not going to close it
17:48:41 [tantek]
did we make any progress in this discussion?
17:48:48 [jasnell_]
17:48:50 [rhiaro]
... People who object have concrete proposals about how to change the spec
17:48:57 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
17:48:57 [cwebber2]
I will agree that this conversation is probably not very helpful
17:49:05 [rhiaro]
... Say 'this is the text i want to add to spec'
17:49:05 [elf-pavlik]
we will work on PR :)
17:49:08 [cwebber2]
and I guess since I thought it was implied that you use json-ld for extensions as it is anyway
17:49:10 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:49:14 [elf-pavlik]
PR - Pull Request
17:49:14 [cwebber2]
I guess I'm for closing it????
17:49:29 [rhiaro]
jasnell: whatever change in this area, that should also try to detail why the existing text does not work
17:49:32 [akuckartz_]
akuckartz_ has joined #social
17:49:35 [tantek]
17:49:37 [Loqi]
jasnell has 11 karma
17:49:38 [Tsyesika]
cwebber2: but dind't people say JSON-LD shouldn't be required (even for extensability????)
17:49:40 [harry]
Yep, but I think dret had that use-case - i.e. what if stuff gets dropped?
17:49:41 [Tsyesika]
17:49:42 [rhiaro]
... Put a use case on the table and describe why the existing spec fails, and why the new proposed text passes
17:49:50 [cwebber2]
Tsyesika: I didn't realize it was said "dont' use it *even for* extensibility"
17:49:53 [harry]
in between serializations
17:49:53 [cwebber2]
I misread that whole thing as
17:49:54 [rhiaro]
... At this point, I'm failing to see why the must ignore rule doesn't work
17:49:57 [harry]
17:50:00 [Zakim]
17:50:02 [cwebber2]
"you don't need it probably because the core context will be good enough"
17:50:02 [harry]
q- harry
17:50:07 [cwebber2]
"for most people"
17:50:09 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: fair, let's move on
17:50:10 [cwebber2]
but oh well
17:50:13 [dret]
use case: how am i expected to define extended vocabularies in a way that makes implementation behavior predictable. that's my only concern.
17:50:13 [bret]
Zakim, ??P17 is me
17:50:13 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:50:16 [cwebber2]
apparently I didn't understand
17:50:22 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:50:22 [Zakim]
bret was already muted, bret
17:50:24 [harry]
The use-case is: Ship AS2 to node, process, [MAYBE drop optional stuff], ship back out.
17:50:26 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Open raised issues ISSUE-26-36
17:50:28 [rhiaro]
... Some propsals to get through
17:50:28 [harry]
That will likely happen in federation
17:50:31 [Tsyesika]
cwebber2: i'm not sure i do either given what has been said
17:50:42 [bret]
Zakim, who is on the call?
17:50:42 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aaronpk (muted), Ann, cwebber2, Arnaud, elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro (muted), tantek, jasnell, AdamB, wilkie, Harry, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), Sandro, dret,
17:50:42 [cwebber2]
one thing's for sure, people are confused!
17:50:45 [Zakim]
... Tsyesika (muted), bret (muted), ShaneHudson (muted), bret.a
17:50:55 [bret]
Zakim, mute bret.a
17:50:55 [Zakim]
bret.a should now be muted
17:50:57 [tantek]
I'm ok with opening issues that James raised without analyzing them in detail.
17:50:59 [rhiaro]
... By opening raised issues, we accept burden of having to close them for CR
17:50:59 [jasnell_]
+1 to opening 26-36
17:51:02 [wilkie]
I don't mind dropping explicit conversation about extensibility as long as extensibility is intuitively obvious and possible
17:51:11 [tantek]
(even if I don't agree with some of them on first glance)
17:51:14 [elf-pavlik]
-1 since issues can start popping up like mushrooms after rain
17:51:35 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: just issues 26-36
17:51:45 [rhiaro]
... Instead of going through one by one, lets open them all
17:51:45 [tantek]
elf-pavlik: come now, you've raised more issues than anyone else ;)
17:51:47 [KevinMarks]
nice thing about html classes and json keys is that they are intrinsically extensible by adding new ones
17:52:01 [elf-pavlik]
17:52:06 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: concerned about too many issues... maybe worrying too much ahead
17:52:13 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:52:13 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:52:18 [jasnell_]
are you going to capture the proposal so we can vote?
17:52:19 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we're just discussing these raised issues
17:52:20 [aaronpk]
+1 to opening 26-36
17:52:26 [rhiaro]
... Please vote
17:52:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+0, i'm concerned it will take too long to close them all again
17:52:30 [wilkie]
I'm reading them!! looks ok
17:52:32 [wilkie]
17:52:32 [jasnell_]
oh.. missed it, you already did :-)
17:52:37 [bret]
17:52:49 [rhiaro]
... Closing them is a concern, but we can't ignore them
17:52:52 [jasnell_]
most of the issues should be quick
17:52:54 [elf-pavlik]
we can create them more carefully
17:52:59 [jasnell_]
most of this particular set
17:53:06 [tantek]
jasnell_: re: "ISSUE-4 - Explicit typing or support implicit typing - Already
17:53:07 [tantek]
addressed in current draft" - could you provide URL to place in the draft that addresses it?
17:53:08 [rhiaro]
... The other option is go to them one at a time
17:53:21 [harry]
I recommend that these are all minor issues that the editor can dela with
17:53:29 [elf-pavlik]
17:53:31 [Loqi]
tantek has 177 karma
17:53:37 [harry]
except for 'profiles' i.e. 26-27 issue
17:53:41 [rhiaro]
... If there is a specific one you don't want to open, you can say
17:53:43 [harry]
that we punt to the IG
17:53:46 [rhiaro]
... Not taking any action is not a good option
17:53:55 [jasnell_]
the draft currently uses explicit typing... that's how it addresses it ;-) ... if you want to add implicit typing, I'd need a proposal
17:53:57 [tantek]
I object to closing an issue with "draft addresses it" without a URL to the specific fragment that addresses it.
17:53:57 [harry]
unmute Zakim
17:54:01 [harry]
unmute me
17:54:11 [tantek]
so that any such issues can at least be turned into an FAQ!
17:54:27 [Zakim]
17:54:36 [rhiaro]
harry: looking at these I'm happy for issues of minor status for editor to handle all of them, except 26-27 should go to IG
17:54:41 [jasnell_]
17:54:43 [rhiaro]
... many ways to represent profiles
17:54:53 [rhiaro]
... either use vcard or keep it out of base schema
17:55:03 [Zakim]
17:55:16 [bret]
Zakim, ??P17 is me
17:55:16 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:55:17 [bret]
Zakim, mute me
17:55:17 [Zakim]
bret was already muted, bret
17:55:20 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: in terms of things we can use, all raised by jasnell because he wants input, if we tell him to go ahead and fix it himself, but he needs backing from wg
17:55:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
27 looks more like an issue of activities, not profile
17:55:29 [harry]
My feeling is issue 26-27 re profile means either vCard (the only normative standard in the space) or nothing.
17:55:31 [tantek]
harry, yes - vCard is the only spec here from IETF, however h-card is also an open spec, and based on vCard so h-card is also citable (which maintains vCard compat)
17:55:34 [rhiaro]
... if we open them, james can make a proposal, and we can decide whether to close
17:55:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 to open them all
17:55:42 [rhiaro]
... but people always seem to hesitate and we get stuck
17:55:54 [jasnell_]
17:55:56 [rhiaro]
... we can not just have all the edits happen undocumented without WG input
17:55:57 [harry]
The rest of these are rather minor at best but if James wants to open them, go for it.
17:56:01 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:56:30 [rhiaro]
jasnell: The profile ones: the point of raising them is that we need a WG decision on how to handle profiles. I don't want to not raise the issue just because someone thinks we should just use vcard, that short circuits process
17:56:34 [harry]
vCard is the only normative spec here.
17:56:41 [rhiaro]
... User stories have profiles, but spec doesn't
17:56:49 [rhiaro]
... I need WG decision on this matter
17:56:56 [harry]
It's a separate vocabulary that is well-specified already.
17:56:59 [tantek]
harry - what do you mean by normative spec? per normative reference policy?
17:56:59 [rhiaro]
... user stories are voted on, we have to have some kind of profile support
17:57:06 [harry]
Yep, at current moment.
17:57:12 [rhiaro]
... If all we want to do is use vcard, let's open issue, make decision, I'll get it in spec and we'll close issue
17:57:23 [tantek]
harry - my understanding is that h-card is also referencable - per discussions at MIT during our f2f
17:57:23 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: only a few +1s
17:57:24 [harry]
However, I'd prefer that profile stuff go to IG since people have different profile vocabularies they like for various idiosyncratic reasons
17:57:25 [cwebber2]
+1 sure
17:57:26 [rhiaro]
... Are people confused?
17:57:32 [cwebber2]
let's do it and keep going
17:57:38 [aaronpk]
this is still the 26-36 proposal right?
17:57:38 [rhiaro]
+1 from me, busy scribing to vote
17:57:47 [jasnell_]
The proposal is only to open the issues NOT to decide on any specific one
17:57:50 [harry]
Last time I checked, hCard maps to vCard
17:57:53 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: proposal is to open issues that have been raised, 26-36
17:57:53 [harry]
(I would hope)
17:57:58 [AnnB]
17:58:01 [tantek]
harry - right, it's actually a more useful subset
17:58:01 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Open raised issues ISSUE-26-36
17:58:04 [jasnell_]
by opening the issue we open the issues up for discussion
17:58:09 [tantek]
h-card is simpler than vCard in that regard
17:58:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I think people were not willing to vote so quickly until they reviewed them, thats why the slow voting
17:58:11 [rhiaro]
... Proposal again, please vote
17:58:11 [tantek]
has less hierarchy
17:58:12 [aaronpk]
correct me if i'm wrong but opening them does not mean you're voting on accepting any sort of resolution on them right?
17:58:15 [Tsyesika]
+1 sure
17:58:18 [harry]
Agreed vCard has lots of legacy
17:58:20 [aaronpk]
s/sort of/particular
17:58:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
but I think we have a pretty good list of +1s
17:58:27 [harry]
but I don't want us to roll another vocabulary
17:58:27 [rhiaro]
17:58:28 [jasnell_]
17:58:29 [AdamB]
17:58:35 [tantek]
harry, by adopting h-card, it's easy to directly map to vCard
17:58:35 [elf-pavlik]
aaronpk, correct just formally opening them
17:58:55 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: communication doesn't seem to be working well here..
17:59:00 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Open raised issues ISSUE-26-36
17:59:03 [rhiaro]
... No -1, resolved
17:59:24 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Close the following issues: ISSUE-4, ISSUE-7, ISSUE-12, ISSUE-14, ISSUE-15, ISSUE-20
17:59:25 [rhiaro]
... James proposed to close some issues with explaination of why
17:59:33 [elf-pavlik]
-1 not resolved
17:59:38 [tantek]
ok with closing the issues except 4
17:59:39 [rhiaro]
... This doesn't have to take very long if people look at the proposal before the meeting
17:59:44 [tantek]
stated my objection above
17:59:55 [cwebber2]
+1 on closing
17:59:58 [rhiaro]
... You can object to one, name it and we can remove it from list and close the others
17:59:59 [tantek]
+1 on closing all but issue-4
18:00:04 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:00:20 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: issue 14 should not be closed
18:00:28 [rhiaro]
... not sure about 20
18:00:38 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: any others?
18:00:48 [Arnaud]
PROPOSAL: Close the following issues: ISSUE-7, ISSUE-12, ISSUE-15, ISSUE-20
18:00:49 [ShaneHudson]
18:00:50 [jasnell_]
18:00:54 [elf-pavlik]
18:00:54 [trackbot]
issue-12 -- Action Types Structure and Processing Model -- open
18:00:54 [trackbot]
18:00:55 [elf-pavlik]
dret ?
18:01:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:01:03 [rhiaro]
18:01:08 [jasnell_]
for Issue-4, tantek: I'd need a concrete proposal on spec language changes
18:01:10 [tantek]
18:01:17 [wilkie]
18:01:27 [tantek]
jasnell - agreed that's why there's an open action on it! but that keeps the issue open.
18:01:32 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: anyone else?
18:01:32 [cwebber2]
18:01:37 [elf-pavlik]
-1 issue-15
18:01:41 [AnnB]
18:01:47 [tantek]
to *close* it with the "spec already handles it" claim - you need to provide a URL to that specific "handling" of it
18:01:55 [jasnell_]
tantek: it's been open for a while so the idea of closing was to either prompt a proposal to keep it open or close to see if anyone complained :-)
18:02:02 [rhiaro]
... Remove issue 15 and close the rest. Better than none
18:02:07 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Close the following issues: ISSUE-7, ISSUE-12, ISSUE-20
18:02:22 [rhiaro]
... My hope is we can do this every week
18:02:29 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:02:31 [rhiaro]
... Some require discussion, which could take place elsewhere
18:02:44 [rhiaro]
... We can narrow down discussion to what is controversial
18:02:49 [rhiaro]
... Does require prep work for everyone
18:02:53 [jasnell_]
for Issue-14, a concrete proposal on spec language and a clear explanation as to why the current text doesn't work would be most helpful
18:02:54 [rhiaro]
... Let's move on
18:02:58 [rhiaro]
... 30 minutes
18:03:10 [rhiaro]
... I bet if you drop of the call now you won't be able to call back
18:03:15 [rhiaro]
... the way Zakim works
18:03:21 [harry]
The reservation is for 2 hours
18:03:22 [rhiaro]
18:03:30 [harry]
So people should be able to dial back in
18:03:55 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: issue-10 about candidates. Would be useful to clarify if we can use Micropub wiki page as formal dependency
18:04:06 [tantek]
aside, jasnell for that issue 4 / action 35 - the best I have so far is working notes on
18:04:08 [rhiaro]
... I don't think we can use it
18:04:16 [tantek]
why not?
18:04:16 [rhiaro]
18:04:30 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
18:04:30 [Zakim]
tantek should no longer be muted
18:04:53 [rhiaro]
tantek: What's the issue?
18:05:13 [bret]
sounds like a normative reference issue
18:05:33 [Zakim]
18:05:46 [rhiaro]
... We've discussed this, and had this approved with timbl during f2f at Cambridge. If you have a spec with open licensing that's compatible with w3c IP policy, and some statement of stability, we can normatively reference it
18:05:56 [jasnell_]
tantek: without a concrete proposal on modified spec language it's going to be difficult for me to come up with a resolution for Issue-4.
18:06:07 [rhiaro]
... Unless there's a specific reason this can't be done, I understand we can reference micropub or microformats specs
18:06:07 [jasnell_]
18:06:09 [Loqi]
ben_thatmustbeme has 62 karma
18:06:18 [rhiaro]
... If there's the question of stability, please raise and editors of specs can improve
18:06:23 [elf-pavlik]
18:06:46 [jasnell_]
tantek: would you want to create an official mapping of the AS2 vocabulary to microformats in a note or rec?
18:06:48 [Arnaud]
18:06:54 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: not about technical feasiblity, just formal. Would like harry to confirm we can safely reference
18:07:02 [harry]
18:07:02 [harry]
Zakim, unmute me
18:07:03 [Zakim]
Harry should no longer be muted
18:07:04 [tantek]
jasnell - I think that would be useful, figuring fixing the examples in AS2 is a good step towards that.
18:07:14 [Arnaud]
ack harry
18:07:23 [tantek]
hence I was working on fixing the microformats examples in AS2 - hoping that helps
18:07:27 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
18:08:06 [rhiaro]
harry: I think it came to resolution that it's okay, I can double check. I don't think it's a problem. The real question is for the API we have a separate - referencing microformats normatively is okay - but as the working group we need a separate spec
18:08:08 [elf-pavlik]
18:08:13 [Arnaud]
ack elf-pavlik
18:08:16 [rhiaro]
... We're expected to produce a w3c rec on this, not just reference something else
18:08:20 [tantek]
we could produce a spec that incorporated the necessary parts of micropub and microformats to make a Social API
18:08:26 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: so we can't just spec that has two lines and links to wiki page of micropub
18:08:29 [rhiaro]
harry: no, ipr is very different
18:08:43 [jasnell_]
18:08:46 [rhiaro]
... would appreciate if the working group focused on technical quesitons and stopped wasting time on process questoins
18:09:03 [cwebber2]
18:09:05 [Loqi]
harry has 9 karma
18:09:06 [rhiaro]
... Real question is what are technical differences between micropub and LDP and activitystreams
18:09:13 [rhiaro]
tantek: that was a strawman, no-one proposed that
18:09:29 [harry]
From a formal perspective, we need a spec that has the text written out
18:09:37 [rhiaro]
... the point was that rather than having to fork micropub, we can normatively reference them and pick and choose what this wg needs for our user stories, rather than taking them wholesale
18:09:41 [rhiaro]
... without having to duplicate everything
18:10:02 [rhiaro]
harry: it is fine formally to take an API from somewhere else and use it as a base for new work
18:10:14 [jasnell_]
18:10:16 [rhiaro]
... The question is not can we do this with micropub, but does the group have consensus on the approach
18:10:19 [rhiaro]
tantek: yes, different question
18:10:24 [rhiaro]
... would rather have that discussion
18:10:29 [rhiaro]
harry: will double check
18:10:45 [rhiaro]
... if wendy said yes and tim said yes, answer is yes
18:10:47 [elf-pavlik]
18:10:52 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we need to focus on technical aspects
18:10:58 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:11:15 [harry]
*if* the IPR is fine, we can put it in as a candidate
18:11:24 [harry]
But we saw no blocks at least on early discussion between Tantek and TimBL on this, I can make sure Wendy Seltzer is fine with the result.
18:11:32 [harry]
ACTION: hhalpin to discuss with wseltzer to make sure this is fine
18:11:32 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-59 - Discuss with wseltzer to make sure this is fine [on Harry Halpin - due 2015-04-14].
18:11:35 [tantek]
thanks harry
18:11:43 [rhiaro]
jasnell: If we could get a proposal for a draft (note, rec track, whatever) of a microformat binding for AS vocabulary - a normative mapping - if that needs to include some micropub stuff, great, let's have someone produce an initial draft
18:11:51 [rhiaro]
... that we can use to inform the rest of this discussion
18:11:51 [harry]
s/this/micropub to w3c
18:11:54 [rhiaro]
... please somebody write something down
18:11:58 [tantek]
totally reasonable request jasnell
18:11:59 [cwebber2]
speaking of, next topic is about a candidate :)
18:12:06 [cwebber2]
so we can talk about candidates!
18:12:07 [harry]
I think some sort of base that we modify is usuall a pretty good method :)
18:12:08 [tantek]
I'm just hoping to avoid duplicating spec text
18:12:16 [rhiaro]
jasnell: Can we get this as a proposal and assign an action?
18:12:30 [rhiaro]
tantek: at the f2f that was the conclusion
18:12:34 [jasnell_]
so who is going to write that
18:12:54 [rhiaro]
... that was the concrete request for *all* candidate APIs, to produce a draft, even if just minimal, to say here are the pieces for a social API
18:12:58 [jasnell_]
then can we table the conversation until those drafts are actually available
18:13:02 [rhiaro]
... That call for proposal drafts was made at f2f
18:13:06 [rhiaro]
... We already agree on that
18:13:09 [AnnB]
Tantek: check the minutes from F2F ... AnnB adds: we NEED those minutes!
18:13:12 [AnnB]
they are still messed up
18:13:19 [rhiaro]
... That's open right now, we just need people to bring drafts forward
18:13:29 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: let's move on
18:13:35 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, unmute me
18:13:35 [Zakim]
Tsyesika should no longer be muted
18:13:36 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: ActivityPump call for help
18:13:38 [Tsyesika]
18:13:42 [AnnB]
Harry -- can you pleaaaase figure out those minutes?
18:14:03 [rhiaro]
Tsyesika: call for members of the WG
18:14:19 [cwebber2]
oshepherd's original spec:
18:14:20 [rhiaro]
... I've forked osheherd's ActivityPump spec and I'm going to use that as a base and look at all the user stories
18:14:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
AnnB, I believe he said he would look at what is going on with those at the beginning of the call
18:14:30 [cwebber2] new repo
18:14:33 [rhiaro]
... And try to pull together the people in the WG and come up with a draft that we can propose
18:14:41 [rhiaro]
... for the Social API and federation API
18:14:45 [AnnB]
oh, good .. thanks. I didn't hear that
18:14:46 [rhiaro]
... I'm just asking people to hepl
18:14:51 [rhiaro]
... Unfortunately evan isn't on the call
18:14:58 [AnnB]
18:14:59 [rhiaro]
... that's all I wanted to ask
18:15:26 [rhiaro]
... And also it's currently hosted on the w3c-social organisation, but I believe harry will set it up so we can have it on the main w3c organisation on github, which I don't have access to at the moment
18:15:28 [cwebber2]
18:15:32 [jasnell_]
the test suite should go under the same location
18:15:34 [harry]
yep, we'll mov everything to github and folks should get invites
18:15:36 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
18:15:37 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: So we heard a call for help
18:15:40 [bret]
Zakim, who is on the call?
18:15:40 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aaronpk (muted), Ann, cwebber2, Arnaud, elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro (muted), tantek, jasnell, AdamB, wilkie, Harry, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), Sandro, dret,
18:15:42 [tantek]
hey dret do you run @socialwebwg ?
18:15:44 [Zakim]
... Tsyesika, bret (muted), ShaneHudson (muted), bret.a, elf-pavlik.a
18:15:47 [harry]
However, until we get agreement on API, let's keep it in elf's repo
18:15:54 [bret]
Zakim, mute bret.a
18:15:54 [Zakim]
bret.a should now be muted
18:15:59 [harry]
And we'll just have a blank space in the W3C repo
18:16:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: There are couple of issues we already know we need to go through
18:16:06 [harry]
Sound OK?
18:16:16 [rhiaro]
... probably this is for a future call: now that we're not addressing auth in the WG
18:16:23 [harry]
Note authentication working group is likely to start in fall if people are interested in that topic
18:16:25 [rhiaro]
... There are issues there for peopel interested
18:16:31 [elf-pavlik]
s/elf's repo/w3c-social github organization/
18:16:35 [Tsyesika]
harry: that's fine
18:16:48 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: harry will create repo
18:16:53 [rhiaro]
... Anything else?
18:16:57 [elf-pavlik]
i made PR
18:16:59 [rhiaro]
... Anyone want to volunteer to help?
18:17:00 [tantek]
dret, if you've got the keys for @socialwebwg - mind sharing with the chairs (perhaps on a private channel like email ;) ) so they can tweet from it as well?
18:17:01 [cwebber2]
thanks elf-pavlik :)
18:17:05 [Tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
18:17:05 [Zakim]
Tsyesika should now be muted
18:17:10 [rhiaro]
... Move on
18:17:17 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: WG+IG Workflows
18:17:18 [cwebber2]
damn phone lacks a proximity workflow
18:17:23 [cwebber2]
I apologize about the beeps
18:17:25 [cwebber2]
18:17:26 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: elf has been trying to get us to be more organised
18:17:29 [cwebber2]
proximity sensor is broken
18:17:39 [rhiaro]
... We already had intiially discussed chairs to produce agenda by friday before the call
18:17:42 [rhiaro]
.. Not always easy
18:17:46 [cwebber2]
oh, good AnnB
18:18:03 [rhiaro]
... elf suggests we develop agenda a week before
18:18:11 [tantek]
I don't understand - we already develop the agenda in advance
18:18:14 [rhiaro]
... i saw an email from evan objecting to trying to freeze agenda early
18:18:29 [rhiaro]
... I do agree with elf there is value in people looking at agenda and prepare for call
18:18:45 [rhiaro]
... If people can look through things like proposals before hand we can be much more effective
18:19:00 [rhiaro]
... There always are proposals you can't plan ahead of time, but there are some things people can have an answer ready for
18:19:02 [tantek]
what's the actual problem? if people always add to the end it's unlikely we'll have problems
18:19:04 [rhiaro]
... I don't know what else to say on this
18:19:10 [Zakim]
18:19:12 [Arnaud]
18:19:30 [Zakim]
18:19:34 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, ??P10 is me
18:19:35 [Zakim]
+ShaneHudson; got it
18:19:38 [ShaneHudson]
Zakim, mute me
18:19:38 [Zakim]
ShaneHudson should now be muted
18:19:50 [tantek]
I don't think it discourages anyone
18:19:58 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: just an attempt, comparing to the start, we didn't have so many open issues, but now we have tons of stuff, we have enough to prepare agenda a week before telecon. By freezing them we can add an urgent issue, but it encourages people to look early and follow the links
18:20:03 [tantek]
we don't need more structure for this to work
18:20:11 [rhiaro]
... Not super strictly freeze it, but enough to give people time to prepare
18:20:12 [wilkie]
we need to discuss these issues on the mailing list during the week
18:20:29 [aaronpk]
or irc ;)
18:20:37 [cwebber2]
at least normatively, I think it's a good idea elf-pavlik
18:20:38 [rhiaro]
... We can at least try our best to close on friday to give people time to prepare
18:20:42 [cwebber2]
I'm not sure a hard enforcement is good
18:20:47 [tantek]
zakim, unmute me
18:20:47 [Zakim]
tantek was not muted, tantek
18:20:50 [Tsyesika]
I like the idea
18:20:51 [harry]
I'm pretty neutral here
18:20:51 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: reactions?
18:20:53 [jasnell_]
agree with tantek: we don't need more process, we need to people to read the issues and provide *technical* input with as opposed to process discussions
18:21:06 [cwebber2]
I agree we don't need more processs though yeah
18:21:12 [rhiaro]
tantek: I don't see the problem. If people simply add agenda items to the end, if the agenda gets too long we don't get to items that are added late
18:21:13 [harry]
+1 no more process
18:21:20 [cwebber2]
I feel like there's plenty of process in this group :)
18:21:21 [harry]
+1 more practical preparation
18:21:28 [rhiaro]
... If you read through the agenda by Friday you're probably goign to be ready for it
18:21:34 [rhiaro]
... In practice it's not a problem
18:21:44 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: any other opinions?
18:21:50 [ShaneHudson]
I agree with harry, preperation over process
18:21:51 [cwebber2]
maybe make it into a normative suggestion rather than a workflow
18:21:57 [rhiaro]
... that's it then
18:21:59 [cwebber2]
and that's simple :)
18:22:12 [elf-pavlik]
18:22:13 [tantek]
(~7 minutes left)
18:22:20 [elf-pavlik]
Coordination with IG
18:22:21 [cwebber2]
nope we can move on it sounds like
18:22:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i don't think so
18:22:27 [cwebber2]
+1 to moving on
18:22:29 [cwebber2]
18:22:39 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Coordination with IG
18:22:45 [elf-pavlik]
18:22:47 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: who put that on?
18:23:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: If you put something on the agenda, please add your name on wiki
18:23:15 [cwebber2]
good call tantek
18:23:18 [cwebber2]
will do in the future
18:23:23 [tantek]
thanks cwebber2!
18:23:27 [rhiaro]
elf-pavlik: I can explain
18:23:27 [tantek]
18:23:47 [tantek]
zakim, who is on the call?
18:23:47 [Zakim]
On the phone I see aaronpk (muted), Ann, cwebber2, Arnaud, elf-pavlik, rhiaro (muted), tantek, jasnell, AdamB, wilkie, Harry, ben_thatmustbeme (muted), Sandro, dret, Tsyesika
18:23:51 [Zakim]
... (muted), bret (muted), bret.a (muted), elf-pavlik.a, ShaneHudson (muted)
18:24:06 [rhiaro]
... In IG we have effort to clarify user stories that have minor objections, on github
18:24:15 [rhiaro]
... Everyone adopts one or two and asks people who objected to discuss further
18:24:26 [rhiaro]
... I invite everyone to participate, especially people who objected
18:24:36 [rhiaro]
... Also, Vocabulary TF works on extracting vocab requirements from user stories
18:24:45 [rhiaro]
... There's a wiki page we tried to map all terms used in user stories
18:24:57 [rhiaro]
18:25:01 [rhiaro]
... Invite everyone to participate in that
18:25:14 [rhiaro]
... But especially with use cases, please work with people in IG if you had objections to clarify
18:25:29 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: any comments?
18:25:41 [rhiaro]
... If not, we can close the call on this
18:25:49 [rhiaro]
... One question: extend our weekly calls?
18:25:54 [AnnB]
18:26:01 [AnnB]
(for extending)
18:26:01 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: extend weekly calls by 1/2h moving forward
18:26:02 [cwebber2]
+0 to extending
18:26:06 [elf-pavlik]
18:26:07 [wilkie]
18:26:08 [harry]
18:26:12 [tantek]
-1 for extending next week (I'm chairing :P )
18:26:13 [bret]
18:26:13 [harry]
would prefer not to have lunch
18:26:14 [aaronpk]
18:26:14 [Tsyesika]
18:26:15 [harry]
18:26:15 [jasnell_]
+0 to extending. I'd rather extend as necessary
18:26:15 [rhiaro]
... If we end up using an hour it's okay
18:26:16 [akuckartz]
18:26:22 [wilkie]
rhiaro: aww
18:26:25 [ShaneHudson]
+0 I've not been too useful anyway, but it is now half 7pm so 1 hour was a bit nicer.
18:26:27 [Loqi]
18:26:30 [rhiaro]
AnnB: we need people to sign up to f2f in paris
18:26:40 [rhiaro]
tantek: do we have minimum count?
18:26:45 [rhiaro]
harry: we had more people say yes on the poll
18:26:47 [elf-pavlik]
18:26:59 [rhiaro]
... it would be nice ot have some kind of quorum
18:27:00 [wilkie]
rhiaro: one of the most disappointing things for a grad student to miss
18:27:05 [elf-pavlik]
18:27:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
0, i hope it was just needed this week, I likely can't stay the full 90 minuts most weeks
18:27:13 [Tsyesika]
i prefer not having an hour and a half meeting as it's evening in europe
18:27:14 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: can we close call extension
18:27:19 [ShaneHudson]
Are there any options for funding for f2f?
18:27:26 [rhiaro]
... It feels like it's been more productive
18:27:28 [Tsyesika]
I also wonder if we've just cleared the backlog
18:27:36 [jasnell_]
18:27:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: now we've done 1.5, see if we're okay at 1 hour again
18:27:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i hope it was 1 hour just to catch up
18:27:46 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: let's go back to 1 hour for now
18:27:47 [AdamB]
what about alternating between 1 hr and 1.5 hrs
18:27:51 [rhiaro]
... We can reconsider
18:27:53 [jasnell_]
18:27:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i hope it was 90 minutes just to catch up
18:28:02 [rhiaro]
tantek: I promise to move things along as quickly as possible next week
18:28:03 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
18:28:10 [rhiaro]
jasnell: won't be in Paris
18:28:19 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: I have made reservation
18:28:24 [AnnB]
me too
18:28:31 [aaronpk]
same, already got flights and such
18:28:34 [AnnB]
18:28:36 [rhiaro]
... Still worthwile even if there are only 8 people
18:28:41 [rhiaro]
... But people need to sign up
18:29:00 [Arnaud]
ack AnnB
18:29:05 [wilkie]
I couldn't even afford to go to boston lol
18:29:07 [akuckartz]
Yes, 8 people can be very productive!
18:29:13 [jasnell_]
sorry I will not be able to make it. It's a personal conflict, not work. It's not something that I'm able to reschedule.
18:29:18 [rhiaro]
AnnB: harry you said there are other people in Europe interested, can we arrange for them to be there
18:29:22 [rhiaro]
harry: maybe one or two would stop by
18:29:24 [rhiaro]
... I've emailed them
18:29:28 [rhiaro]
... One has put their name on the wii
18:29:31 [rhiaro]
18:29:34 [rhiaro]
Arnaud: we're out of time
18:29:35 [dret]
thanks everybody, especially the chair and the scribe!
18:29:37 [elf-pavlik]
18:29:38 [jasnell_]
I will join remotely as much as possible, even tho the time difference will be painful
18:29:38 [AdamB]
i plan to attend remotely
18:29:39 [Loqi]
Arnaud has 13 karma
18:29:41 [rhiaro]
... Thanks!
18:29:43 [elf-pavlik]
18:29:46 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 51 karma
18:29:47 [cwebber2]
18:29:47 [wilkie]
18:29:47 [jasnell_]
18:29:48 [tantek]
rhiaro++ for scribing 90 minutes!
18:29:50 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 52 karma
18:29:50 [dret]
Arnaud++ rhiaro++
18:29:50 [Tsyesika]
18:29:50 [ShaneHudson]
Thanks Arnaud and rhiaro
18:29:51 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 53 karma
18:29:52 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 53 karma
18:29:53 [Loqi]
rhiaro has 54 karma
18:29:54 [Loqi]
too much karma!
18:29:54 [AnnB]
18:29:55 [Loqi]
Arnaud has 14 karma
18:29:55 [Zakim]
18:29:56 [akuckartz]
18:29:58 [Zakim]
18:29:59 [Zakim]
18:29:59 [Zakim]
18:30:01 [Zakim]
18:30:01 [Zakim]
18:30:02 [Zakim]
18:30:02 [Zakim]
18:30:03 [Loqi]
Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]
18:30:03 [cwebber2]
haha "too much karma"
18:30:04 [Zakim]
18:30:04 [Zakim]
18:30:05 [Zakim]
18:30:05 [Zakim]
18:30:07 [Zakim]
18:30:08 [Zakim]
18:30:10 [Zakim]
18:30:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
haha, rhiaro, you flooded Loqi
18:30:15 [Zakim]
18:30:17 [Zakim]
18:30:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
18:31:38 [rhiaro]
BRB going to check on the pizza situation
18:32:09 [Arnaud]
hey, guys, there is a section for remote participants, regrets are for those who don't plan to participate even remotely
18:33:28 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:35:06 [KevinMarks_]
KevinMarks_ has joined #social
18:37:14 [elf-pavlik]
rhiaro where did you get vegan pizza? :D
18:38:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Arnaud: I put myself in regrets as I don't expect to be able to participate, but *might* be able to
18:38:47 [Arnaud]
that's fine, thanks
18:39:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: you still around?
18:43:40 [elf-pavlik]
tantek++ for replying to
18:43:43 [Loqi]
tantek has 178 karma
18:43:54 [harry]
18:43:58 [harry]
I just talked to timbl and wseltzer
18:44:07 [harry]
I think the answer re microformats is it depends on the stability
18:44:16 [harry]
things marked 'stable' are fine
18:44:18 [harry]
but some of it isn't.
18:44:29 [elf-pavlik]
what about ?
18:44:33 [harry]
I think TimBL is thinking mostly re vocabularies
18:44:46 [tantek]
harry - right - hence a need for more explicit stability markers - which is fine
18:44:56 [bret]
the vocab of micropub is based on mf2, so stable?
18:44:57 [harry]
Re micropub, the question is 1) do you want to reference it?
18:45:01 [tantek]
especially in specs which include stable, in progress, and proposed stuff
18:45:09 [tantek]
harry, re: reference it yes
18:45:09 [harry]
or 2) do you want it as the base of the Social API?
18:45:18 [harry]
I think for 1) we're fine as long as the vocabularies are stable.
18:45:20 [tantek]
and it has the same licenses / stability as microformats specs
18:45:23 [harry]
and are marked explicitly as such
18:45:26 [tantek]
18:45:31 [harry]
TimBL thought some stuff was unstable in some microformats spec
18:45:39 [tantek]
I think we can use some iteration on the stability documentation
18:45:40 [harry]
but he was happy as long as its marked clearly what is stable and what isn't.
18:45:46 [harry]
Now, it's a mildly different question
18:45:49 [tantek]
right - that's my understanding as well
18:45:58 [harry]
is OWFa comptable with W3C RF?
18:46:07 [tantek]
there are both stable portions of vocabulary, and in-progress / proposed portions
18:46:07 [harry]
I think the answer is "in general, it's not as strong, but broadly compatible"
18:46:25 [tantek]
that sounds similar to what I believe Moz lawyers said to me too
18:47:23 [tantek]
harry, however, my understanding from lawyers is also that OWFa *is* stronger than IETF's fairly vague patent non-asserts.
18:47:29 [harry]
18:47:33 [harry]
So, WORSE case
18:47:35 [harry]
we go forward
18:47:38 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:47:43 [tantek]
so as much as W3C is happy to normatively reference IETF, there should be no problems referencing OWFa
18:47:49 [tantek]
.. licensed specs
18:47:50 [harry]
and we get a non-member licesning agreement from whoever is not a W3C member and not member of the WG
18:47:53 [harry]
that has contributed to micropub
18:47:57 [harry]
Who has contributed to micropub?
18:48:33 [tantek]
harry, from my understanding it is nearly all aaronpk (WG member), and some from others most of whome are also WG members (e.g. ben_thatmustbeme )
18:48:43 [tantek]
nice thing is that it's all in the wiki history
18:48:50 [tantek]
for anyone to transparently see
18:49:10 [tantek]
18:50:33 [tantek]
for any normative additions by anyone who is not in Social Web WG (or some other W3C WG), we can request they commit their changes per the license in the spec CC0+OWFa
18:50:44 [tantek]
no need for non-member licensing agreements
18:50:45 [harry]
cool that should make it easy
18:51:01 [tantek]
in fact I'll add that to the spec right now as a contribution requirement
18:51:02 [harry]
yeah, we may have to do that, but that's a pre-CR thing
18:51:03 [cwebber2]
ben_thatmustbeme: I'm around now
18:51:04 [harry]
18:55:27 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
18:56:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
regarding you email about static pages, I think thats fine, we did agree to prefer follow-your-nose over any known-url pattern stuff, if its follow your nose, it basically allows for offloading of things to external services
18:57:37 [harry]
ok, will be up for discussion in a sec, gotta move so will be offline for a bit
18:58:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
basic CUD (read should be able to be done from the site) is done in any way they want, they could use the social API or not (maybe external service rsyncs to the site)
18:58:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
but we have found that useful as a lot of people host on things that don't allow them to set special headers, others host by github pages i believe so their updates are done by git
18:59:27 [elf-pavlik]
re static page, maybe this will help to point to JSON(-LD) content in no content negotiation
18:59:57 [elf-pavlik]
s/in no content/if no content/
19:00:08 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
19:08:45 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
19:16:52 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
19:40:59 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
19:58:04 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
20:01:29 [tilgovi]
tilgovi has joined #social
20:33:16 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
20:40:03 [Loqi]
Abasset made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Github]]
20:50:48 [bengo_]
bengo_ has joined #social
21:35:24 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
21:45:35 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
21:52:09 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
21:56:38 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
21:58:22 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
22:09:11 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
22:17:18 [harry]
harry has joined #social
22:17:35 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #social
22:20:02 [Loqi]
Hhalpin made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]
22:23:11 [harry]
ok, added two invited guests
23:04:19 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
23:39:34 [harry]
harry has joined #social
23:39:37 [hhalpin]
hhalpin has joined #social
23:40:02 [Loqi]
Hhalpin made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-05-04]]