IRC log of social on 2015-06-09

Timestamps are in UTC.

16:58:03 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
16:58:03 [RRSAgent]
logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-social-irc
16:58:05 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
16:58:05 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
16:58:07 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:58:07 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
16:58:08 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:58:08 [trackbot]
Date: 09 June 2015
16:58:20 [Arnaud]
agenda: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-09
16:58:25 [Arnaud]
chair: Arnaud
16:59:18 [Arnaud]
regrets: evanpro, hhalpin, elf-pavlik
16:59:29 [Zakim]
T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has now started
16:59:34 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
16:59:36 [Zakim]
+jasnell
16:59:51 [Zakim]
+Arnaud
17:00:04 [Zakim]
+Sandro
17:00:10 [aaronpk]
just when I finally have the Zakim number memorized we're gonna stop using it :(
17:00:22 [Arnaud]
indeed...
17:00:24 [Zakim]
+ +1.773.614.aaaa
17:00:30 [Zakim]
+aaronpk
17:00:58 [Zakim]
+??P5
17:01:04 [tantek]
zakim, ??p5 is me
17:01:04 [Zakim]
+tantek; got it
17:01:08 [tantek]
zakim, mute me
17:01:08 [Zakim]
tantek should now be muted
17:01:19 [Zakim]
+Wendy
17:01:57 [Zakim]
+Ann
17:02:31 [cwebber2]
zakim, aaaa is me
17:02:31 [Zakim]
+cwebber2; got it
17:02:34 [Zakim]
+ +1.401.305.aabb
17:02:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, aabb is me
17:02:44 [Zakim]
+ben_thatmustbeme; got it
17:02:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, mute me
17:02:47 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should now be muted
17:03:53 [cwebber2]
I can do it
17:04:16 [wseltzer]
scribenick: cwebber2
17:04:28 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: thanks wseltzer, I always forget how to do that ;)
17:04:56 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I propose to approve the minutes, but I must note that we had a resolution w/ regard to the microformats examples in the AS specification, and as expected
17:05:02 [cwebber2]
... jasnell has objected to this resolution
17:05:15 [cwebber2]
... we agreed to this process to allow people who aren't on calls to object via email
17:05:21 [cwebber2]
... so this is a case where it's not confirmed
17:05:31 [tantek]
I don't remember that process but ok
17:05:55 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Approve Minutes of 2 June 2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-02-minutes with the caveat that the resolution about AS 2.0 microformats was objected by James Snell
17:05:56 [tantek]
in practice an editing resolution that the editor disagrees with is problematic anyway, and no amount of process will fix that
17:05:58 [Zakim]
+??P9
17:06:02 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P9 isme
17:06:02 [Zakim]
I don't understand '??P9 isme', tsyesika
17:06:07 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
17:06:07 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:06:08 [Zakim]
+??P10
17:06:10 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:06:10 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:06:12 [AnnB]
+1
17:06:12 [cwebber2]
... I think we can approve the minutes otherwise, any objections?
17:06:17 [jasnell]
no objection to approving the minutes
17:06:24 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Approve Minutes of 2 June 2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-02-minutes with the caveat that the resolution about AS 2.0 microformats was objected by James Snell
17:06:26 [cwebber2]
... then we can get back to the question of the AS 2 matter
17:06:27 [AnnB]
(on minutes)
17:06:30 [cwebber2]
... hearing no objections, approved
17:06:34 [tantek]
+1 on minutes
17:06:43 [cwebber2]
... okay, tracking the issues, nothing is marked review
17:06:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.503.688.aacc
17:07:01 [bret]
Zakim, 1.503.688.aacc is me
17:07:01 [Zakim]
sorry, bret, I do not recognize a party named '1.503.688.aacc'
17:07:05 [cwebber2]
... I know this part of the process is boring to everyone, so to experiment we move on proceeding to addressing issues as relate to the agenda itmes
17:07:16 [cwebber2]
... make sure it's on the agenda if you want it recognized and discussed
17:07:29 [cwebber2]
... otherwise let's minimize the time on it. Otherwise everyone's like "aaaaugh"
17:07:32 [bret]
Zakim, aacc is me
17:07:32 [Zakim]
+bret; got it
17:07:36 [tantek]
ignoring them won't make them go away though
17:07:37 [cwebber2]
... I don't enjoy it myself, so maybe we can minimize time on it
17:07:47 [cwebber2]
... let's move forward on the agenda, talk about social syntax
17:07:50 [Zakim]
+ +1.408.335.aadd
17:07:59 [tantek]
it's good minimize incentive to add actions/issues that don't need attention of the whole group
17:08:03 [cwebber2]
... what this also means: chairs have job of keeping an eye on the actions when things seem missing
17:08:14 [cwebber2]
... otherwise it might be able to move faster that way
17:08:21 [KevinMarks]
zakim aadd is me
17:08:23 [jasnell]
just fyi... I'm technically on vacation this week. I can only be on the call until 10:30am.
17:08:53 [cwebber2]
... let's talk about the social syntax. jasnell made a new draft ready for viewing, as an update it's not in the next stage of the recommendation yet (candidate reccommendation) but gives chance for the committee at large to observe and note the draft
17:09:08 [cwebber2]
... brand new for most people, so we agreed to give everyone a week to give everyone a week to review
17:09:17 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Publish latest Editor's drafts of AS 2.0 Core and Vocab
17:09:22 [cwebber2]
... there are 2 docs, the core and vocab documents. goal is to publish as is
17:09:24 [jasnell]
+1
17:09:26 [tantek]
q+
17:09:29 [cwebber2]
... let'se see if we can aggree to do this
17:09:33 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: +1
17:09:33 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:09:34 [KevinMarks]
zakim, aadd is me
17:09:34 [Zakim]
+KevinMarks; got it
17:09:50 [cwebber2]
tantek: I'm going to object to publishing the draft as is bbecause it goes against the group's resolution
17:10:01 [cwebber2]
... we had consensus to add MF examples back in again
17:10:19 [cwebber2]
... it's odd to reject that and asking for publication with lacking what the rest of the group agreed to
17:10:32 [aaronpk]
whatever happened to the idea of removing everything except the JSON version?
17:10:33 [cwebber2]
... it's a roadblock, I think it's not a good process to go forward with what the group has
17:10:36 [AnnB]
we need to find the process that says someone who was not attending can object to resolution
17:10:48 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: it's not a resolution, since there was an objection from the mailing list
17:10:54 [cwebber2]
... so we don't have consensus from this proposal
17:11:00 [bret]
aaronpk: i think that would be a good solution
17:11:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's now all resolutions work. we had a call and we had a resolution declared
17:11:16 [cwebber2]
... it's revisionist history to say otherwise
17:11:37 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: no, we agreed that we'd allow people to object who didn't attend, otherwise there are other modes to allow for async votes
17:11:46 [cwebber2]
... there are people who can't attend because of thet imes thing
17:11:53 [cwebber2]
... we agreed to this, I'm not trying to revise history
17:12:11 [cwebber2]
... you're entitled to object to this proposal
17:12:13 [Zakim]
+ +33.6.38.32.aaee
17:12:30 [jasnell]
Counter Proposal: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document
17:12:37 [cwebber2]
... along the lines of what elf put on mailing list, not fight on syntax for what's in the doc, proposal is to remove all others from main spec
17:12:45 [cwebber2]
... and have complimentary spec on the side where we put all other formats
17:12:52 [cwebber2]
... including turtle, microformats, etc
17:12:58 [cwebber2]
... I'd like to make this proposal to make that concern
17:13:21 [cwebber2]
jasnell: I put the proposal on irc
17:13:36 [AnnB]
+q
17:13:36 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's easy to make that commitment when nobody has resolved to getting things done
17:13:37 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document.
17:13:45 [cwebber2]
... unless you actually have a split document with the equiv examples
17:13:52 [AnnB]
q-
17:13:59 [cwebber2]
... where you say you'll put them together, refledcting previous content of spec
17:14:05 [cwebber2]
... don't think it makes sense to just publish one
17:14:15 [cwebber2]
... another counter-proposal: publish it right before
17:14:21 [bblfish]
q+
17:14:27 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but there were many other changes made as in terms of editing document
17:14:33 [cwebber2]
... it wouldn't just be an undo on github
17:14:45 [cwebber2]
... examples were broken, I can see why as an editor he did that
17:15:00 [cwebber2]
... I think this proposal is a reasonable one, shows some compromise, not trying to single out MF
17:15:02 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
17:15:02 [jasnell]
q+
17:15:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think it's an empty promise
17:15:17 [tantek]
it's not a reasonable proposal, because the 2nd document doesn't exist
17:15:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
its a fine proposal that it be tasked to someone
17:15:38 [cwebber2]
bblfish: I suppose there's a big difference between... there's an advantage in turtle, you can test isomorphism between two drafts
17:15:43 [tantek]
if we were proposing publishing both simultaneously as an update that would be reasonable
17:15:51 [cwebber2]
... there's a reson to have turtle in there because of that but I won't push for it
17:15:56 [AnnB]
s/two drafts/two graphs/
17:15:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i would -1 and publishing UNTIL such a document is created though, only then can we vote on it
17:15:58 [cwebber2]
... just makes it easier for me to read it
17:16:05 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but if you can't agree on what's there...
17:16:12 [rhiaro]
+1 removing everything but json-ld
17:16:12 [tantek]
q+
17:16:12 [cwebber2]
bblfish: easier to have json-ld now, later others can be added
17:16:13 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:16:37 [cwebber2]
jasnell: regarding the "empty promise", if someone feels that MF examples is important enough, those folks should volunteer to step up to do that
17:16:47 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's not reasonable, you made the counter-proposal
17:16:56 [cwebber2]
jasnell: in all defense, I'm doing what's important enough to get done
17:17:02 [cwebber2]
... those examples have been sitting for 8 months now
17:17:07 [cwebber2]
... some are broken, some are not
17:17:19 [cwebber2]
... number of times the examples are broken, I've only received one pull request to fix them
17:17:26 [cwebber2]
... to me, that says those changes aren't as important
17:17:40 [bblfish]
q+
17:17:47 [cwebber2]
... since this group has never decided that MF is a normative requirement, I think unless someone steps up to provide a complete set of examples
17:17:59 [cwebber2]
... if someone wants to do a pull request that does complete examples, I'll land it
17:18:03 [cwebber2]
... but I don't have time myself
17:18:10 [cwebber2]
... if someone wants to do a separate document, great
17:18:24 [cwebber2]
... is it an empty promise to put it in a separate document? that goes for everything
17:18:37 [cwebber2]
... it doesn't matter if it's broken examples in this spec or
17:18:47 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's a working draft, things are expecdted to be broken
17:18:57 [cwebber2]
jasnell: but we need to get things closer as we move towards real recommendation
17:19:12 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: in all fairness I can understand the argument that this is an empty promise, but
17:19:19 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:19:27 [cwebber2]
... you can say that's an equivalent empty promise that these microformats examples will be fixed
17:19:36 [cwebber2]
tantek: so mark the MF examples as broken, that's a reasonable thing to do
17:19:48 [cwebber2]
... I agree with jasnell concerns of them being broken, I have a problem with that resolution
17:19:55 [AdamB]
AdamB has joined #social
17:19:56 [cwebber2]
.... I feel it's worse to cut things out
17:19:59 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: how long can we wait?
17:20:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
until CR
17:20:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's not a reasonable question to ask, we're not asking how long to a CR
17:20:13 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I am.
17:20:30 [cwebber2]
tantek: we can go to CR with borken examples, so that's an aritificial barrier
17:20:30 [Arnaud]
q?
17:21:02 [cwebber2]
tantek: bblfish brought up turtle examples, I for one in fixing MF examples understood that in ffixing the examples, it made the json-ld examples more readable
17:21:09 [cwebber2]
... turtle is more readable than json-ld
17:21:12 [Zakim]
-tsyesika
17:21:15 [Arnaud]
ack bblfish
17:21:25 [cwebber2]
... looking for a more readable spec, it's better for all the non-json-ld exmaples
17:21:33 [cwebber2]
bblfish: even though you can mark things a broken, this must be automated
17:21:41 [Zakim]
+??P9
17:21:45 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
17:21:45 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:21:47 [cwebber2]
... why not test to see if they're isomorphic
17:21:48 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:21:48 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:21:53 [cwebber2]
... add js so that when it's broken, highlight in read
17:22:03 [cwebber2]
... add isomorphic algorithms to show they're equivalent
17:22:18 [cwebber2]
... I think the danger is that isomorphic mapping might not exist, but then it's needed
17:22:35 [cwebber2]
... b/c a bug might appear, they might not see the original, then there will be a disconnect between understanding and document
17:22:48 [cwebber2]
... I see why it's difficult for jasnell to see if the other formats are documents are correct
17:22:55 [AnnB]
q+
17:22:56 [cwebber2]
... because there's too many documents for any human being
17:23:26 [cwebber2]
... json-ld is not so bad, but I think a simple solution is auto-translation from json-ld->turtle in javascript
17:23:43 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I think making the case (?) for moving things out of the spec, because this sounds like more work
17:23:53 [Arnaud]
ack AnnB
17:24:26 [rhiaro]
having the examples in a separate document would still be helpful for understanding the spec, for people who wanted it, right?
17:24:30 [the_frey]
the_frey has joined #social
17:24:32 [cwebber2]
AnnB: seems to me that the main issue jasnell added is that the MF examples were wrong and turtle (?) but it seems like if tantek and bblfish want to keep them in, they should step up
17:24:50 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: problem is tantek had action for months to fix this, hasn't happened, so I think that's why jasnell removed it
17:24:59 [bblfish]
I am fine to have Turtle out, but would be quite happy with automatic translation from Json-ld to Turtle
17:25:03 [cwebber2]
... I know we don't pay enough to actions, but that action was in January
17:25:25 [cwebber2]
AnnB: it seems to me that the crux of the disucssion, tantek if you argue to keep the MF examples in
17:25:29 [cwebber2]
... could you correct them
17:25:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: I started, but I pointed out it'll take a while
17:25:42 [cwebber2]
... frankly it took jasnell a while to accept it
17:26:05 [cwebber2]
... I found errors with all the HTML examples, whether MF or RDFA or MD
17:26:20 [cwebber2]
... I discovered this was incorrect use of link, rel, href tag...
17:26:31 [cwebber2]
... this happened to both MD and MF and RDFa things
17:26:44 [cwebber2]
... took jasnell a while to fix with my pull request, maybe it's not important to him
17:26:52 [cwebber2]
... but that work got solved, I think it's unreasonable to say nothing was done
17:26:58 [cwebber2]
... something was done, but it took a while
17:27:16 [cwebber2]
... there was no "here's my plan to do it"
17:27:27 [cwebber2]
... that's disingenuous as an editor
17:27:35 [cwebber2]
... there's RC for a reason
17:27:39 [cwebber2]
... that excuse holds no water
17:27:45 [jasnell]
q+
17:27:50 [cwebber2]
AnnB: without casting blame, what can we do to move forward
17:27:56 [cwebber2]
tantek: wait till we both have documents
17:28:08 [cwebber2]
... other counter proposal, show version before they got dropped
17:28:15 [cwebber2]
... both of these let us move forward
17:28:22 [cwebber2]
... keep the intent of rest of resolution
17:28:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1 to wait until we have both documents
17:28:29 [cwebber2]
AnnB: say again your counter proposal
17:28:45 [cwebber2]
tantek: first was, wait for the external one
17:28:51 [cwebber2]
... second, mark the ones are wrong
17:28:59 [cwebber2]
... would keep intent to keep all examples
17:29:05 [cwebber2]
... to keep moving forward
17:29:16 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I think you have a fair point that jasnell could have given a warning
17:29:26 [cwebber2]
... at same time, what you just said before w/r/t of other examples
17:29:32 [cwebber2]
... to me, talks in favor of removing those
17:29:39 [cwebber2]
... the leaner the spec is, the better
17:29:43 [cwebber2]
... easier in going to CR
17:29:50 [cwebber2]
... jasnell is not interested maintianing all of them
17:29:58 [cwebber2]
... so problem is, we don't have an editor for those
17:30:05 [cwebber2]
... not reasonable to force the editor to do this
17:30:15 [cwebber2]
... what we're risking is jasnell will say I'm out of here
17:30:21 [cwebber2]
... he has limited time, other tasks at IBM
17:30:32 [cwebber2]
... my question is counter-proposal is to get other doc and wait for it
17:30:37 [cwebber2]
tantek: we all have limited time
17:30:44 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: could you pelase let me speak
17:30:53 [cwebber2]
... do we have a volunteer for editor of other document
17:30:53 [jasnell]
I have to drop. I will repeat: I do not have the time to create a complete set of correct microformats examples
17:31:04 [cwebber2]
... if there's no editor, it's an empty promise
17:31:22 [jasnell]
it's not too difficult, but it would take me *months* because microformats examples are nowhere near a priority for me
17:31:33 [cwebber2]
... I feel this is why it's reasonable, if someone wants to step up, great
17:31:34 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document.
17:31:40 [cwebber2]
... otherwise we're stalling the group
17:31:46 [jasnell]
+1 to removing all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents
17:31:52 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: +1 for separate document
17:31:55 [jasnell]
-1 to tantek's counter proposal
17:32:11 [AnnB]
tantek, could you please type your counter-proposal into IRC, so we can compare them?
17:32:16 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: the counter proposal to go back to before he removed it is unreasonable, that means throwing out all the work he did after that
17:32:17 [bblfish]
+1 to keeping things simple.
17:32:23 [cwebber2]
sandro: maybe we should take a straw poll on each
17:32:25 [rhiaro]
+1 to separate document
17:32:31 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: we can do that
17:32:35 [cwebber2]
... we don't even know we're voting on
17:32:47 [cwebber2]
... I don't even know what this doc looks like
17:32:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: then give us a week to review
17:32:55 [jasnell]
I will not be on the call next week
17:33:43 [cwebber2]
went silent fo rme
17:33:49 [Arnaud]
PROPOSED: a) Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document. b) go back to the revision before microformats was removed - take a week to review this and figure out what we lose - c) wait for a second doc
17:33:49 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: you dropped or muted
17:33:52 [cwebber2]
ah
17:33:59 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: thanks :)
17:34:11 [jasnell]
(a) +1, (b) -1 , (c) -0
17:34:24 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: (a) +1 (b) -1 (c) -0
17:34:31 [tantek]
(a) -1, (b) +1, ( c) +1
17:34:36 [rhiaro]
a) +1 b) -1 c) 0
17:34:52 [tsyesika]
a) +1 b) -1 c) 0
17:34:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
a -1, b +1, c +1
17:35:32 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: I will point out that this requires someone to step up to do it
17:35:38 [cwebber2]
... otherwise, it's a moot proposal
17:35:42 [cwebber2]
AnnB: which, the second?
17:35:52 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: yes, to draft a document where the alternative syntax for all examples
17:35:57 [bblfish]
(a) +1 (b) 0 (c) 0
17:36:07 [AdamB]
(a) +1, (b) -1 , (c) 0
17:36:11 [bblfish]
mostly because I don't want to do the editing
17:36:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
I am willing to try to revert the change in git, which I think is easier than expected
17:36:21 [AnnB]
s/the second?/the second document?/
17:36:22 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: tantek: AnnB: clarify that referenced was c) was "second document"
17:36:40 [tantek]
note that ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to do the edit for option (b)
17:36:57 [cwebber2]
sandro: I haven't heard an argument for motivation for waiting for second document is...
17:37:04 [Zakim]
-tsyesika
17:37:18 [jasnell]
Another proposal: let's give it two weeks. If someone steps up in that time to edit the second document with the examples, then great. Otherwise we drop the non JSON-LD examples because they are non-normative.
17:37:26 [cwebber2]
sandro: I heard "it's an empty promise" but I don't see how the industry is helped by waiting for the json-ld for everything else
17:37:29 [Zakim]
+??P9
17:37:34 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P9 is me
17:37:34 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:37:37 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:37:37 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:37:43 [cwebber2]
tantek: what you pointed out was dropping the other examples indicates the other formats are (??)
17:37:51 [cwebber2]
... adds weight to counter proposal to make it real
17:38:01 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but how do we address the editor issue
17:38:14 [cwebber2]
tantek: I've noticed (garbled) before the examples were dropped
17:38:21 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
17:38:21 [cwebber2]
... we have a volunteer for that
17:38:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
Zakim, unmute me
17:38:28 [Zakim]
ben_thatmustbeme should no longer be muted
17:38:34 [cwebber2]
AnnB: ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to try to revert the change
17:38:42 [cwebber2]
... thinks is easier than expected
17:38:45 [jasnell]
it's not just about reverting the change
17:38:49 [jasnell]
it's about making the examples correct
17:39:14 [jasnell]
keeping in mind that there is no mapping between microformats and AS2 that we can use to judge the correctness of the examples
17:39:17 [cwebber2]
AnnB: what about if ben takes this week to explore what's involved in making the change
17:39:39 [jasnell]
btw, I will not be here next week and will not be available to review or land any PR's for at least a week
17:39:40 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but you have to figure out how to revert the MF peices without losing all other pieces
17:39:43 [bret]
reverting the change is pretty easy, fixing the examples is the work
17:40:09 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: -1 on reverting without a fixing plan
17:40:11 [aaronpk]
just to be clear, is part of the proposal to publish the incorrect microformats examples and fix them later?
17:40:24 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: it's not on the MF alone, jasnell said the others are broken too
17:40:40 [cwebber2]
AnnB: seems there's two levels of problems, some is that some was deleted and others fixed, making it hard to move back
17:40:48 [cwebber2]
... second problem is correcting all other formats
17:40:56 [Arnaud]
q?
17:40:58 [cwebber2]
sandro: can I ask a technical q related ot that
17:41:15 [cwebber2]
... why are the alternate RDF examples like rdfa and turtle generated by hand
17:41:17 [Arnaud]
ack jasnell
17:41:42 [cwebber2]
jasnell: I need to go, so here's my last thing: 1) I added those examples in the first placed without notifying anyone
17:41:47 [cwebber2]
... they are non-normative
17:41:51 [cwebber2]
... I will notify in the future
17:42:28 [cwebber2]
... 2) part of the challenge with creating correct examples: there is no normative mapping. For RDFa and MicroData, we can create examples that make sense, but incorrectness is what html elements are used, that's a minor issue
17:42:38 [tantek]
q+ to say but even with the supposed mapping to RDFa and microdata, they were wrong. If it was a minor issue, why weren't they fixed for months since the feedback was given?
17:42:47 [cwebber2]
... main challenge with microformats is that there's no mapping back to RDF mapping even to turtle or RDFa let alone to json-ld
17:42:51 [tantek]
there is a canonical mapping from microformats2 to JSON
17:43:02 [cwebber2]
... so what happens is when we try to produce a 1:1 mapping between json-ld an acitvity, we lose fidelity
17:43:08 [cwebber2]
... when moving to MF
17:43:14 [tantek]
there is a 1:1 mapping of mf2 to JSON - not sure what if anything needs to be added to map to JSONLD
17:43:14 [cwebber2]
... because no existing terms
17:43:34 [cwebber2]
... so we can put those examples back in, but we show readers that don't actually exist
17:43:46 [cwebber2]
... tantek argues that we always need to base things on real example sthat people actually deploy
17:43:57 [tantek]
all the fixed examples reflected actual use in real implementations
17:44:00 [cwebber2]
... but there is no example of anythign that people are using in real life
17:44:12 [cwebber2]
... there's no work since 8 months ago on that mapping
17:44:19 [tantek]
when did that pull request get merged? that was much more recent than 8 months ago
17:44:20 [cwebber2]
... if you think it's something we need to have for the MF examples
17:44:25 [cwebber2]
... step up and do the work
17:44:34 [AdamB]
isn't there also a resource constraint issue on the editor if those are in there over the long haul? would having them as a separate document making keeping them correct and up to date easier cause the work load could be spread to others?
17:44:36 [tantek]
I think 8 months ago is being mis-cited - that was when we agred to *start* looking at the examples
17:44:36 [cwebber2]
... it's not something I can do jsut sitting, because I don't have the time
17:44:45 [cwebber2]
... I'm happy to put them back in as long as they are useful to the readers
17:44:48 [Arnaud]
ack tantek
17:44:48 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to say but even with the supposed mapping to RDFa and microdata, they were wrong. If it was a minor issue, why weren't they fixed for months since the feedback
17:44:50 [bblfish]
makes sense to me
17:44:51 [tantek]
useful is anything better than previous draft
17:44:51 [Zakim]
... was given?
17:44:52 [cwebber2]
... the only way they are useful is if they are correct
17:45:04 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think there's confusion about 8 months ago
17:45:09 [cwebber2]
... they were fixed more than 8 months ago
17:45:16 [cwebber2]
... 8 months ago is when we agreed to start fixing
17:45:26 [cwebber2]
... feedback on RDFa and MF stuff happened at same time
17:45:30 [cwebber2]
... those didn't get fixed either
17:45:35 [cwebber2]
... it's not major vs minor work
17:45:42 [cwebber2]
... did we make it better than a previous version?
17:45:48 [cwebber2]
... dropping the examples makes it worse
17:46:14 [cwebber2]
... asking for all examples fixed before moving up
17:46:28 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: but you're missing that jasnell is not willing to maintain them, someone needs to fix them
17:46:38 [cwebber2]
... honestly? I feel like we should all agree
17:46:46 [jasnell]
I'm +1 on removing all non JSON-LD examples so that there are no incorrect rdfa, microdata or microformats examples in the spec
17:46:52 [cwebber2]
... it's the editor's responsibility to do this, if the editor isn't willing to do it but nobody steps up
17:46:58 [cwebber2]
... it's his responsibility to drop it
17:47:04 [cwebber2]
... everyone seems to say it's a lot of work
17:47:10 [cwebber2]
... of course everyone wants to have it
17:47:16 [cwebber2]
... jasnell showed good intention by putting them there
17:47:22 [cwebber2]
... but if it's impractical to maintain them
17:47:24 [cwebber2]
... what can we do?
17:47:38 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's a problem if we can't even as this group maintain equivalent examples
17:47:52 [cwebber2]
... if that's really true we have more problems iwth AS2
17:48:04 [cwebber2]
jasnell: these are the only agreement on what json-ld was only requirement
17:48:11 [cwebber2]
tantek: the only requirement is json, not json-ld
17:48:27 [cwebber2]
jasnell: we never agreed that MF rdfa or even turtle are requirements right?
17:48:30 [cwebber2]
tantek: not in the charter
17:48:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q+ I am willing to try to fix them, but honestly the point was wa
17:48:41 [cwebber2]
jasnell: so unless someone steps up to do correct examples
17:48:45 [cwebber2]
... what can we do?
17:48:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
q-
17:48:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: incremental improvements is all we need
17:49:10 [cwebber2]
jasnell: okay, let's hold off on a working draft until someone has the examples
17:49:13 [cwebber2]
... I'll be out
17:49:15 [bblfish]
sounds fine.
17:49:16 [cwebber2]
tantek: i'll be out also
17:49:36 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: okay so we'll have no resoultion til the next 2 weeks
17:49:42 [cwebber2]
sandro: is anyone willing to do something
17:49:51 [cwebber2]
tantek: the two weeks give someone 2 weeks to step up
17:50:08 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: okay 2 weeks to give them time to do it, then group time to review it... we're talking a month from now to even publish
17:50:16 [cwebber2]
tantek: I don't find that strawman reasoning helpful
17:50:22 [cwebber2]
... when we only have 10 minutes of the call
17:50:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: we don't have a consensus, let's move onto it in 2 weeks
17:50:42 [cwebber2]
... let's move on to other issues in the agenda
17:50:47 [AnnB]
but, what will happen during the next 2 weeks? anything?
17:51:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
also, we will have a month more of changes put in to AS2.0
17:51:09 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: let's see in 2 weeks, if there' no movement we should do it
17:51:16 [Zakim]
-jasnell
17:51:17 [cwebber2]
... that's the most pragmatic thing to do
17:51:33 [cwebber2]
... we need a test suite to go to CR, we need people to help
17:51:46 [cwebber2]
... someone from IBM is putting together a test suite around IBM's stuff
17:51:55 [cwebber2]
... unless we have people volunteering to do some of this work it won't happen
17:52:06 [cwebber2]
... so let's move on to the last important item that tantek brought up
17:52:10 [cwebber2]
... licenses for specs
17:52:18 [cwebber2]
... w3c adopted a new license option
17:52:25 [cwebber2]
... we can revise our charter to use new document license
17:52:30 [cwebber2]
... tantek, want to add somehting?
17:52:46 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's it, let's resolve as a group, many of us worked hard to get this valid
17:52:54 [cwebber2]
... also all new working groups will use this license
17:52:55 [Zakim]
-tsyesika
17:52:58 [wseltzer]
q+ re "new wgs"
17:53:01 [cwebber2]
... so we will likely switch to it if we recharter
17:53:15 [wseltzer]
[It's not the case that all new WGs will be using different doc licenses]
17:53:16 [cwebber2]
sandro: any risk of not sufficient votes to teh charter
17:53:18 [Zakim]
+??P0
17:53:25 [tsyesika]
Zakim, ??P0 is me
17:53:25 [Zakim]
+tsyesika; got it
17:53:28 [tsyesika]
Zakim, is me
17:53:28 [Zakim]
I don't understand 'is me', tsyesika
17:53:32 [tsyesika]
Zakim, mute me
17:53:32 [Zakim]
tsyesika should now be muted
17:53:32 [Arnaud]
ack wseltzer
17:53:33 [Zakim]
wseltzer, you wanted to discuss "new wgs"
17:53:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: the only risk is update is rejected, we keep current charter
17:54:03 [cwebber2]
wseltzer: thanks, we did introduce a new license, an update to the w3c software license which we make available in places where w3c has offered a permissive license
17:54:11 [bengo]
bengo has joined #social
17:54:14 [cwebber2]
... sorry for those who aren't copyright licensing geeks as I am
17:54:36 [cwebber2]
... but our document license now says we're free to copy, modify for any purpose for any purpose except a new specification
17:54:56 [cwebber2]
... we also have a software and document license which is completely permissive which says copy and modify so long as you give attribution
17:55:16 [cwebber2]
... w3c at an organizational level has not said the software license is appropriate for all new groups or even specific new groups
17:55:37 [cwebber2]
... so if you have a reason you'd like to see that license used, that'd spark a broader conversation
17:55:51 [Arnaud]
Proposal: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP.
17:55:55 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: we can't agree to adopt it, we can only agree to request a recharter
17:56:00 [cwebber2]
+1
17:56:03 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: +1
17:56:12 [wseltzer]
-> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/doc-license Document License
17:56:14 [tantek]
+1
17:56:24 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: I think if we do that
17:56:27 [wseltzer]
-> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Legal/2015/copyright-software-and-document Software and Document License
17:56:28 [cwebber2]
... it's a big can of worms
17:56:33 [cwebber2]
... a huuuuge can of worms
17:56:36 [cwebber2]
... can we keep this limited
17:56:39 [cwebber2]
... please
17:56:48 [cwebber2]
sandro: should we suggest other adjustments
17:56:53 [cwebber2]
tantek: maybe we should give it a week
17:57:11 [cwebber2]
... my understanding is a charter amendment is easier than a rewrite(?)
17:57:34 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: as w3c rep I can say that if you say "the only change is this" that makes it much easier
17:57:38 [cwebber2]
... it would add a lot more work to everyone down the line
17:57:48 [aaronpk]
+1
17:57:49 [rhiaro]
+1
17:57:59 [AnnB]
+1 if it's only about new doc license
17:58:02 [wseltzer]
q+
17:58:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
what are the advantages of it is my only question
17:58:11 [Arnaud]
ack wseltzer
17:58:16 [AnnB]
concerned about adding other stuff to re-chartering .. but would depend on what "stuff"
17:58:25 [tsyesika]
+1
17:58:28 [cwebber2]
wseltzer: since we have to bring this to various groups to review, is there a use case
17:58:29 [bret]
gotta run sorry!
17:58:33 [AnnB]
bye
17:58:34 [cwebber2]
... or problem the license change would solve
17:58:35 [cwebber2]
+q
17:58:37 [Zakim]
-bret
17:58:51 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think general use case is what this group does comes from outside groups
17:59:00 [cwebber2]
o/
17:59:03 [cwebber2]
I'd like to speak
17:59:20 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
17:59:47 [wseltzer]
cwebber2: this was imprortatn to me: in the library I'm writing, I want to put the doc strings into the code
17:59:55 [wseltzer]
... so the author/user can see the strings
18:00:05 [wseltzer]
... having a GPL-incompatible license is a concern to me
18:00:07 [tantek]
GPL compat is important to me too
18:00:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+1
18:00:19 [Arnaud]
RESOLVED: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP
18:00:22 [cwebber2]
Arnaud: and one thing the new license does is allow spec stuff in code
18:00:29 [cwebber2]
... and we're out of code, so this is timely
18:00:43 [Zakim]
-tsyesika
18:00:44 [tantek]
cwebber2++ thanks for scribing!
18:00:46 [Loqi]
cwebber2 has 37 karma
18:00:47 [wseltzer]
[that's true of both licenses; only the Software license is GPL-compatible]
18:00:47 [Zakim]
- +33.6.38.32.aaee
18:00:49 [Zakim]
-Arnaud
18:00:51 [Zakim]
-aaronpk
18:01:07 [Zakim]
-Ann
18:01:10 [Zakim]
-tantek
18:01:11 [Zakim]
-KevinMarks
18:01:13 [Zakim]
-rhiaro
18:01:15 [cwebber2]
trackbot, end meeting
18:01:15 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
18:01:15 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, Arnaud, Sandro, +1.773.614.aaaa, aaronpk, tantek, Wendy, Ann, cwebber2, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, tsyesika, rhiaro,
18:01:18 [Zakim]
... +1.503.688.aacc, bret, +1.408.335.aadd, KevinMarks, +33.6.38.32.aaee
18:01:18 [Zakim]
-Wendy
18:01:18 [Zakim]
-ben_thatmustbeme
18:01:23 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:23 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/06/09-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:01:24 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
18:01:24 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items