16:57:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #social
16:57:18 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-social-irc
16:57:20 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
16:57:20 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #social
16:57:22 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SOCL
16:57:22 <Zakim> I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot
16:57:23 <trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
16:57:23 <trackbot> Date: 06 October 2015
16:58:37 <csarven> csarven has joined #social
16:59:05 <Arnaud> present+ Arnaud
16:59:09 <csarven> present+ csarven
16:59:12 <rhiaro_> present+ rhiaro
16:59:16 <tantek> on IRC only for now
16:59:45 <eprodrom> eprodrom has joined #social
16:59:47 <aaronpk> present+ aaronpk
16:59:59 <Shane_> present+ shanehudson
17:00:02 <Arnaud> present+ sandro
17:00:09 <Arnaud> present+ elf-pavlik
17:00:21 <KevinMarks_> present+ kevinmarks
17:00:58 <cwebber2> hi
17:01:09 <cwebber2> uhoh
17:01:12 <cwebber2> my phone is dead
17:01:22 <cwebber2> I'm text only till it has enough juice to turn on
17:01:28 <KevinMarks_> all phoens are dead, now we have web calling ;)
17:01:32 <tantek> cwebber2 what a coincidence, mine is refusing to connect to wifi
17:01:58 <cwebber2> tantek: time for conspiracy theories!
17:02:07 <sandro> I'd say we should just meet F2F, but at the F2F we'll probably spend all our time trying to get the speakerphone to work right.
17:02:28 <elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/WebExBestPractices#Google_Hangouts
17:02:35 <elf-pavlik> rhiaro++
17:02:38 <Loqi> rhiaro has 166 karma
17:02:52 <tantek> sandro that's why we'll use talky
17:02:53 <hhalpin> hhalpin has joined #social
17:03:34 <cwebber2> elf-pavlik: I don't use google hangouts because I don't want to run the proprietary plugin
17:03:42 <elf-pavlik> cwebber2++
17:03:43 <wilkie> present+ wilkie
17:03:45 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 45 karma
17:03:45 <tantek> cwebber2 indeed
17:03:57 <eprodrom> present+ eprodrom
17:03:59 <Arnaud> zakim, who's here?
17:03:59 <Zakim> Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom
17:04:01 <Zakim> On IRC I see hhalpin, eprodrom, csarven, Zakim, RRSAgent, Shane_, tantek, bblfish, jasnell_, the_frey, elf-pavlik, KevinMarks_, shepazu, Arnaud, wilkie, tommorris_, Loqi, bret,
17:04:01 <Zakim> ... ben_thatmustbeme, ElijahLynn, tessierashpool_, bigbluehat, rhiaro_, cwebber2, wavis, dwhly, pdurbin, oshepherd, rhiaro, slvrbckt, aaronpk, tsyesika, raucao, sandro, trackbot,
17:04:01 <Zakim> ... wseltzer
17:04:17 <jasnell_> present+ jasnell
17:04:29 <cwebber2> ok trying to dial in, I have some things to update on when it comes to the social api conversation, but may be via text
17:04:31 <rhiaro_> scribenick rhiaro_
17:04:38 <rhiaro_> scribenick: rhiaro_
17:04:52 <rhiaro_> TOPIC: Approval of minutes from last week
17:04:59 <Arnaud> Approval of Minutes of 2015-09-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29-minutes
17:05:01 <ben_thatmustbeme> present+ ben_thatmustbeme
17:05:02 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: any concerns or objections?
17:05:11 <tantek> +1 on minutes
17:05:17 <cwebber2> +1
17:05:17 <aaronpk> had a moment of panic that I forgot to post those last week
17:05:18 <Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approval of Minutes of 2015-09-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-09-29-minutes
17:05:23 <eprodrom> +1
17:05:27 <rhiaro_> ... hearing no objections, resolved approval of minutes
17:05:41 <tantek> Arnaud, if possible, please postpone my agenda items to second half of call - am going to switch locations to get on a landline.
17:05:43 <rhiaro_> ... We have changed our plans for next f2f, initially scheduled for TPAC but it is now in SF beginning of december
17:05:45 <tantek> thank you
17:05:50 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01
17:05:55 <rhiaro_> ... There is a wiki page for this. Despite announcing this last week not many people have responded
17:06:00 <rhiaro_> ... Please indicate on wiki if you plan to participate
17:06:04 <rhiaro_> ... This will help with logistics
17:06:11 <rhiaro_> ... The expectation is that tantek will host at Mozilla office in SF
17:06:19 <rhiaro_> ... I understand there is a room for 12 people
17:06:24 <rhiaro_> ... It's important to know if we will fit in there
17:06:28 <rhiaro_> ... or if other plans need to be made
17:06:32 <rhiaro_> ... so please do respond
17:06:37 <rhiaro_> ... If you do'nt know for sure, say that on the wiki page
17:06:41 <rhiaro_> ... Information is better than silence
17:07:03 <rhiaro_> ... We should talk about WebEx. There have been issues, people have been having trouble calling in
17:07:08 <eprodrom> q+
17:07:08 <eprodrom> q-
17:07:16 <rhiaro_> ... Evan mentioned that webex has a whole bunch of local numbers that peopel should be able to use in other parts of the world
17:07:23 <elf-pavlik> that sounds incorect https://www.w3.org/2006/tools/wiki/WebExFAQ#Can_we_use_international_phone_numbers_for_WebEx.3F
17:07:31 <rhiaro_> ... We are going to try to get you the link with the call in number
17:07:41 <rhiaro_> ... elf has managed to join today using Hangouts. There are options, we just need to document them
17:07:44 <elf-pavlik> "The only call-in number supported by the MIT/WebEx instance is the one with the +1 country code: +1.617.324.0000"
17:07:54 <rhiaro_> ... Anything else anyone wants to add to this?
17:08:25 <cwebber2> present+
17:08:27 <cwebber2> now on call
17:08:27 <rhiaro_> ... We'll gather all the information and update the wiki page and copy it into future agendas so it's readily available
17:08:30 <aaronpk> elf-pavlik, it looks like the webex client can call you at any international number once you connect via the web client
17:08:40 <rhiaro_> TOPIC: AS 2.0
17:08:50 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: First one, update on publication
17:09:11 <rhiaro_> ... We agreed to publish spec with a new license, unfotunately this has been a pain for james, the tooling has not been updated completely yet
17:09:30 <rhiaro_> ... We have been working to get the publication tool updated to accommodate the new license. It's a chain of things, things keep breaking
17:09:43 <rhiaro_> ... We're still working on it, it's not published yet, even though the document itself is read
17:09:54 <rhiaro_> jasnell: The core draft is published, I'm working on the vocabulary draft right now
17:09:58 <rhiaro_> ... Hopefully that goes in the next minutes
17:10:02 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-10-06]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85874&oldid=85867
17:10:03 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85876&oldid=85875
17:10:04 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Link to the published one?
17:10:04 <Loqi> Shudson made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85875&oldid=85872
17:10:08 <tsyesika> I'm finding the webex client isn't working for me either FWIW
17:10:14 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/
17:10:25 <Arnaud> http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-activitystreams-core-20151006/
17:10:26 <rhiaro_> jasnell: I'm working on the vocabulary one now, I'm getting some weird errors, trying to figure out now
17:10:46 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: I can confirm the core spec has been published, just put a link ^
17:10:52 <rhiaro_> ... That's good news. Good chance we'll get the rest out.
17:11:20 <rhiaro_> ... Any questions or comments?
17:11:42 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: Are we going to ahve any further problems, or will we do more monthly drafts as expected?
17:12:07 <rhiaro_> jasnell: assuming we get the process down it should be fine. The tools have been getting in the way. Once we've got through it once, then it should be much more regular
17:12:09 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: Great!
17:12:19 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: In fact, we're pioneering for everybody
17:12:30 <rhiaro_> ... Once the tools are fixed, every other group can use that
17:12:34 <eprodrom> Great
17:12:37 <elf-pavlik> oh, true! in my case i need someone else to call me since i can't run webex client
17:12:41 <rhiaro_> ... We should talk about what's next for the specification
17:12:53 <rhiaro_> ... Pushing towards CR
17:13:13 <rhiaro_> ... There has been discussion and progress with text, but we require more than just a text document
17:13:21 <rhiaro_> ... We need test suites and implementation plans
17:13:25 <rhiaro_> ... People committing to implement the spec
17:13:43 <rhiaro_> ... There is an exit criteria for CR, we invite the world to implement and gather implementation reports, usually using the test suite
17:14:05 <rhiaro_> ... People can generate reports using the test suites against their implementation, send reports back, someone cosolidates the reports and we use this to justify that the spec can got to proposed rec
17:14:19 <eprodrom> q+
17:14:19 <rhiaro_> ... So the two aspects here that are important are the test suite and the plans to implement
17:14:47 <rhiaro_> ... Everybody knows we have had an effort made by IBM to start a test suite, but I was hoping there would be peopel who can help out and take it to the next step. We haven't seen that happen. It's unclear at this point who is planning to implement it
17:14:58 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:15:01 <rhiaro_> ... We have been having discussion, we are starting to be uncomfortable with the situation
17:15:26 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_agenda_items
17:15:38 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: I'd like to discuss the timeframe that we're in right now. We've been discussing among chairs, but I put it on the proposed agenda items for f2f, that we'll be discussing the progress of AS2.0 and what our way forward is
17:15:50 <rhiaro_> ... We'll need to make a decision if we've had enough progress with that by the f2f to justify going to CR
17:15:56 <rhiaro_> ... If we can't justify it, we need to discuss alternatives
17:16:10 <rhiaro_> ... Do we continue to work on it after the f2f, if ther'es progress we can postpone and make the decision later.
17:16:17 <cwebber2> q+
17:16:27 <rhiaro_> ... Another is to decide not to publish AS2.0 as a CR. That would mean we could either not publish it at all, or we could publish it as a Note
17:16:42 <rhiaro_> ... Means that it's kind of a suggestion/idea/best practice, but hasn't been throught he rigorous process a CR goes through
17:17:02 <rhiaro_> ... I think that the things we're looking for by f2f are fluid, not a checklist:
17:17:06 <rhiaro_> ... First is implementations
17:17:17 <rhiaro_> ... We have two implementations, both by jasnell, JS and Java implementations
17:17:30 <rhiaro_> ... Both open source implementations, but we need to have a few implemenations in order to go to CR
17:17:39 <rhiaro_> ... The second thing is expressions of intent to implement
17:17:49 <rhiaro_> ... Companies or existing projects that say yes we've reviewed the document and we intend to implement this
17:17:59 <rhiaro_> ... Ideally it will be folks who have already AS1.0, they're the most likely to got o AS2.0
17:18:05 <rhiaro_> ... And then the last thing that we need is a test suite
17:18:20 <rhiaro_> ... This would ideally be something we could let implementors use on their own, that they could use to publish their implementation report
17:18:26 <rhiaro_> ... Things to let peopel go forward
17:18:30 <jasnell> Vocabulary spec is published now as well... http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-vocabulary/
17:18:33 <rhiaro_> ... We do have the test tool, the validator for producers
17:18:39 <elf-pavlik> jasnell++
17:18:40 <rhiaro_> ... IBM did that
17:18:42 <Loqi> jasnell has 30 karma
17:18:51 <rhiaro_> ... We need to define what the steps are with consumers
17:18:58 <rhiaro_> ... How do we validate a consumer of activitystreams?]
17:19:03 <rhiaro_> ... THat said, I think we have a lot to do
17:19:13 <rhiaro_> ... There are some philosophical differences
17:19:36 <rhiaro_> ... Some are of the opinion we are documenting the state of the industry. If we get to the f2f and there haven't been changes outside our group, our job is to represent that external reality and make our decision based on that
17:19:53 <rhiaro_> ... There are others who feel that as a WG we can be pushing this forward and it seems that we have a few clear paths to go forward
17:20:00 <rhiaro_> ... I think the test suite is something we can bring to the table
17:20:15 <rhiaro_> ... Those who are planning to implement, free open source implenenations, will definitely move us forward
17:20:20 <rhiaro_> ... And outreach to existing implemenations
17:20:29 <rhiaro_> ... We have 2 months to go forward. For those interested in seeing it get to CR, we have work to do
17:20:36 <rhiaro_> ... THis is my call to action to get us starting to do this work
17:21:13 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: What we're tryign to tell everybody is that we are concerned we don't see much activity on those axis. We need to look at this seroiusly and come to the f2f with expression of support or not
17:21:13 <eprodrom> q?
17:21:21 <Arnaud> ack cwebber
17:21:26 <rhiaro_> ... So we know if we are moving forward or not, or what the alternatives are
17:21:48 <eprodrom> ?
17:21:59 <rhiaro_> cwebber: I was working on an AS2.0 representation library, and having worked on it it made me think that the most technical aspect of it is the optional requirement of JSON-LD. Otherwise mostly it's just a serialisation in JSON
17:22:06 <rhiaro_> ... So that really makes me wonder what a test suite would look like
17:22:12 <rhiaro_> ... We've discussed this before, nobody gave a clear answer
17:22:14 <elf-pavlik> q+ to ask cwebber2 if he used AS 2.0 extensibility
17:22:21 <rhiaro_> ... There's not much to test unless you actually do something with it
17:22:24 <eprodrom> q+
17:22:25 <rhiaro_> ... unless you submit it to some API or something
17:22:29 <Arnaud> ack elf-pavlik
17:22:29 <Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to ask cwebber2 if he used AS 2.0 extensibility
17:22:36 <rhiaro_> ... otherwise i'ts just json objects structured in a specific way. What is there to actually test?
17:23:04 <rhiaro_> elf-pavlik: Question for chris: I wonder if you use some accessibility? You just use provided context, or you use other terms not in AS2 vocab?
17:23:17 <elf-pavlik> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#extensibility
17:23:36 <rhiaro_> cwebber: I'm not interested in talking about my own implementation for this part of the call. But I ended up hitting the point where I wanted to implement types, and if we did have the option to extend with JSON-LD I needed to write a JSON-LD expander, so I did
17:23:38 <elf-pavlik> cwebber2++
17:23:41 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 46 karma
17:23:47 <rhiaro_> ... Is extension the thign that we're testing? What are we writing the test suit efor?
17:23:51 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:23:52 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: This is a valid question
17:24:05 <eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Activity_Streams_test_suite
17:24:10 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: I want to answer that. I'm not sure if we want to go into that in depth in thsi call. Maybe we could start developing a wiki page here ^
17:24:13 <hhalpin> Apologies guys, was getting the deal re WebEx from Wendy and W3C Management - have a brief update. TL;DR If group has consensus, moving to Mumble is OK if there is group consensus
17:24:14 <rhiaro_> ... for what we want
17:24:25 <rhiaro_> ... Two sides to testing, one is to see if producers are producing valid output
17:24:31 <elf-pavlik> hhalpin++
17:24:34 <Loqi> hhalpin has 7 karma
17:24:35 <rhiaro_> ... THe second is to make sure consumers are 'understanding' what the input is
17:24:46 <rhiaro_> ... I've been trying to look into some of the other test suites for other document formats
17:24:59 <rhiaro_> ... I'd like to see us produce something ideally.. soem sort of test driver that produces correct output
17:25:24 <rhiaro_> ... So we can test consumers. Somtehing like a commandline test driver so you can fire it at a library and let it parse a document and produce certain output
17:25:26 <cwebber2> q+
17:25:27 <elf-pavlik> possibly relevant: https://www.w3.org/community/rdf-tests/
17:25:28 <hhalpin> agenda?
17:25:35 <rhiaro_> ... So for example, ask what's the type of this activity, and it should emit the correct type
17:25:36 <hhalpin> agenda+ WebEx update
17:25:48 <rhiaro_> ... What is the object of this activity, should emit the correct object. I think that might be ag ood way to do this test suite.
17:25:53 <rhiaro_> ... However we should do this on the wiki
17:25:54 <cwebber2> q-
17:26:11 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: james, can you tell peopel what the validator JP developed, what kind of tests does it do?
17:26:21 <rhiaro_> jasnell: THe intent of the tests was basic validation fo the syntax
17:26:38 <rhiaro_> ... Is it valid JSON? Is it valid JSON-LD? Are the values of the activitystreams valid?
17:26:51 <rhiaro_> ... eg. are dates correct. Are the values expected.
17:26:55 <ben_thatmustbeme> i'm sure the validator will probably need to be updated as things have changed since then
17:26:57 <rhiaro_> ... Really just a format validator as opposed to a test suite
17:27:08 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: That's what I expected
17:27:24 <rhiaro_> jasnell: If all we have is the data format, that's all we can test, is if it's valid
17:27:34 <elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams-testing
17:27:44 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Except if there are constraints beyond the syntax that we want to test. But I don't think we have many of those.
17:27:45 <cwebber2> my phone just dropped :\
17:27:50 <cwebber2> stupid phone
17:28:21 <Arnaud> q?
17:28:22 <rhiaro_> jasnell: Evan's point about giving it those scenarios and test if they're valid, eg. Sally uploaded a photo, there are only ac ertain number of ways that can be encoded, we can test if that works properly
17:28:43 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Anything else? Otherwise evan's suggestion is a good one. I inviet everyone who has an interest in this to follow on with a discussion [on the wiki]
17:29:02 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: elf-pavlik, I believe you added this, links broken
17:29:14 <rhiaro_> ... If there is a problem with the links, we don't need to use call time to discuss this
17:29:18 <cwebber2> eprodrom: thanks for that reply
17:29:22 <elf-pavlik> i didn't add it to agenda! i just fixed links after seeing it
17:29:24 <rhiaro_> ... Vocabulary
17:29:36 <rhiaro_> ... elf-pavlik?
17:30:01 <Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Activity Streams test suite]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85877&oldid=0
17:30:14 <eprodrom> q+
17:30:25 <rhiaro_> elf-pavlik: The point I added about relevance to as2.0 vocabulary to social api, I would like to clarify if there's a strict requirement to use vocabulary in social api and federation, or if there will be another vocabulary
17:30:46 <rhiaro_> ... I think we may have to wait to finalise the vocabularly until we know what we will use in the social api and federation
17:31:06 <rhiaro_> ... I would like clarity on the approach. Separate vocabulary for api and federation, or we want to make sure to include everything in AS2.0 vocabulary?
17:31:10 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:31:34 <tantek> tantek has joined #social
17:31:51 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: I think this is a concern that we don't even have consensus that we're going to use JSON in our social api, much less that we're going to use AS2.0 or JSON-LD. I don't think this makes any sense. I think if we're going to use AS2.0 we need to just make it go forward rather than holding off
17:32:06 <rhiaro_> ... I think of the spec that we have, by far the one we have farthest along is AS2.0
17:32:17 <rhiaro_> ... I don't want to wait for social API to get AS2.0 out
17:32:24 <tantek> present+ tantek
17:32:28 <hhalpin> +1 eprodrom
17:32:31 <jasnell> +1 to what evan said
17:32:43 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Any other reactions?
17:32:44 <cwebber2> +1 eprodrom
17:32:52 <tantek> I'm trying to read the IRC scrollback
17:32:55 <hhalpin> In particular, new vocabularies can be sent to an IG to be developed as needed.
17:33:01 <Shane_> +1
17:33:18 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: We were just talking about the challenges we are having with moving AS2.0 forward, if we tie it to something even less defined that makes it even harder
17:33:35 <rhiaro_> sandro: Is the question, are we committing the API to using AS2.0, or is it okay to design the API in such a way that it can use something other than AS2.0?
17:33:36 <hhalpin> q+
17:33:39 <tantek> great question sandro
17:33:40 <KevinMarks_> tantek - this is re https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-10-06#AS_2.0_Vocabulary_relevance_for_terms_required_for_Social_API_and_Federation
17:33:48 <tantek> I agree with sandro
17:33:50 <eprodrom> q+
17:33:54 <Arnaud> ack hhalpin
17:33:57 <rhiaro_> ... Iw ould be uncomfortable with saying the API has to use *only* activitystreams
17:34:13 <tantek> I think AS2 compat is important, but not requiring AS2
17:34:17 <rhiaro_> ... Okay to accept activitystreams, but not *only*
17:34:21 <tantek> assuming we're moving forward with AS2
17:34:29 <ben_thatmustbeme> sandro, i think the original question was only the vocabulary match, not that the API use AS2
17:34:29 <rhiaro_> hhalpin: sandro are you comfortable with AS2?
17:34:31 <elf-pavlik> q+ re: possibility of removing API and Federation related terms from AS2.0 Vocabulary
17:35:04 <rhiaro_> sandro: Are implementations required to accept AS2.0, which I could live with, or required to *only* accept AS2, which I could not live with
17:35:18 <rhiaro_> hhaplin: Not *only*. Reasonable case to say it should accept at least AS2, but could also accept other things
17:35:32 <rhiaro_> ... AS2 in addition to other things, like pure RDF or microformats
17:35:42 <rhiaro_> sandro: If it turns out that AS2 doesn't go to rec, we can't say you MUST accept AS2
17:35:44 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:35:46 <rhiaro_> hhalpin: I would be okay with that
17:35:57 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: Of the 3 candidates we put together, only of them uses AS2
17:36:16 <hhalpin> Just to ask, "Would anyone be uncomfortable to be accepting AS2? *with other syntaxes being possible to accept?"
17:36:29 <rhiaro_> ... I agree with harry that it feels that the charter is we have the social data syntax, and an api that uses that syntax. If we went with an api that does not use that syntax, it would be pretty remarkable, we would have to justify it
17:36:33 <tantek> q+
17:36:34 <rhiaro_> ... I don't think that's a settled decision in this WG
17:36:58 <rhiaro_> ... If we do not take AS2 to CR then we need to look at the purpose of this group and if we have a mandate to go forward with API and federation protocols that do not use an existing syntax
17:37:03 <hhalpin> I would say it should accept AS2 (assuming it is a Rec) and can accept other syntax choices, with the other two being pure unadulterated RDF and another being microformats
17:37:10 <elf-pavlik> q-
17:37:14 <rhiaro_> ... It's not 100% required, it's in not in requirements or user stories, but is strongly suggested yb going to CR with AS2
17:37:25 <Arnaud> ack elf-pavlik
17:37:29 <rhiaro_> ... Not making it exclusive, we want extensibility, but making a strong part of what the API is would be a good architectural decision
17:37:42 <Arnaud> ack tantek
17:38:20 <rhiaro_> tantek: Certainly AS2 is the most mature of all the different technologies and charter areas that we've been pursuing. Like evan, I'm conerned that if we're not going to make progress with AS2 then we need to take a hard look at the purpose of this group
17:38:51 <rhiaro_> ... On the other hand, regarding API candidates, one of the strong candidates which is micropub (strong on the basis of numerous deployed implementations interoperating clients and servers) does not reuqire AS2
17:39:03 <rhiaro_> ... I think there is potential for compatibility with AS2
17:39:14 <rhiaro_> ... One of the reasons I followed up with post-type-discovery is to explore areas for compatibility
17:39:31 <rhiaro_> ... I'm not concerned with being bound to AS2. I'd rather have a working proven API than one that is bound to previous decisions
17:39:37 <rhiaro_> ... But I"d like to see how we can make all these peices work together
17:39:49 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: It seems lik there is agreement that we shouldn't tie the two together
17:39:57 <rhiaro_> ... It's still unclear what the protocol/API is going to be
17:40:06 <rhiaro_> ... Best if it could leverage AS2 somehow, to which degree is less to be defined
17:40:24 <cwebber2> q+
17:40:24 <rhiaro_> ... I think it would help to know more about what is oging on with social api before we go deeper into this
17:40:26 <eprodrom> q+
17:40:33 <cwebber2> I'm queued *for* the social API :)
17:40:46 <rhiaro_> ... We have several people working on the social api
17:40:56 <Arnaud> ack cwebber
17:40:59 <rhiaro_> ... If the compromise really worked, maybe all these questions would be answered
17:41:10 <rhiaro_> cwebber: I think there are several things I'd like to update on that front
17:41:15 <rhiaro_> ... One is about actual implementation
17:41:36 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: I don't want to move off this topic... elf's original proposal is that we hold off on publishing vocabulary until api and federation are better defined
17:41:39 <rhiaro_> ... I'd like to take that to proposal
17:41:44 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:41:47 <tantek> I don't understand elf's proposal?
17:41:48 <rhiaro_> ... can we formalise this?
17:41:49 <tantek> are we stuck on updating AS WD?
17:42:03 <rhiaro_> tantek: what are we talking about not publishing?
17:42:20 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: ActivityVocabulary not published until API and Federation are mature?
17:42:53 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: The question is, if the api is going to align with AS2, do we hold off on publishing AS2 vocab until they're better defined?
17:42:56 <hhalpin> The counter proposal would be
17:43:03 <rhiaro_> tantek: we have a new draft published right? So this is about the next draft?
17:43:05 <cwebber2> -1 on not publishing AS 2.0 until the other things are out
17:43:08 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: THe plan moving forward
17:43:13 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Publish ActivityVocabulary and AS2.0 independently of any progress on Social API and Federation.
17:43:26 <hhalpin> q+
17:43:26 <rhiaro_> ... Are we planning to publish vocab on it's own independant of status of API work, or want to work for API to solidify to publish
17:43:29 <hhalpin> q+ cwebber
17:43:37 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: See harry's proposal ^
17:43:37 <cwebber2> +1 to publishing regardless
17:43:42 <tantek> keep publishing AS WDs - I really don't understand the question
17:43:43 <cwebber2> but
17:43:44 <rhiaro_> ... That's the question I'd like to address
17:43:52 <Arnaud> ack hhalpin
17:43:52 <rhiaro_> ... This has come up beofre, I'd like to come a decision on it
17:44:02 <elf-pavlik> -1 if we put API and Federated related terms in AS2.0 Vocabulary
17:44:02 <rhiaro_> hhaplin: Alternate proposal is to wait until we get API and federation more solid
17:44:04 <cwebber2> (+1 to understanding better about the format stuff, however this is a separate topic)
17:44:09 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: one proposal at a time
17:44:17 <rhiaro_> hhaplin: Which do we prefer, negative or positive?
17:44:21 <cwebber2> strongly prefer publishing the second one
17:44:25 <eprodrom> +1
17:44:26 <cwebber2> +1
17:44:28 <jasnell> +1 to hhalpin's
17:44:30 <hhalpin> PROPOSAL: Publish ActivityVocabulary and AS2.0 independently of any progress on Social API and Federation.
17:44:32 <ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to not linking publishing AS2 to progress of vocabulary
17:44:32 <tantek> PROPOSAL: keep publishing AS WDs (at least) once a month as previously agreed in the WG!
17:44:32 <csarven> +1
17:44:32 <hhalpin> +1
17:44:33 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: W're on the second: to publish without waiting
17:44:34 <rhiaro_> +1
17:44:39 <elf-pavlik> -1 if we put API and Federated related terms in AS2.0 Vocabulary
17:44:40 <wilkie> +1
17:44:42 <cwebber2> it would be insane to throw out all that work
17:44:42 <ben_thatmustbeme> s/vocabulary/other parts/
17:44:49 <rhiaro_> tantek: we're still taking working draft here?
17:44:50 <cwebber2> in. sane.
17:44:54 <tsyesika> +1
17:44:57 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: The plan moving forward
17:45:06 <rhiaro_> ... Not talking about publishing anything right now, the plan moving forward
17:45:16 <cwebber2> I do think we should figure out if AS is a *requirement* for the API
17:45:16 <cwebber2> but
17:45:19 <tantek> +1 - this is the existing plan AFAIK!
17:45:21 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: a -1 from elf
17:45:22 <cwebber2> that doesn't stop us from doing activitystreams
17:45:23 <jasnell> the question is about whether or not AS 2.0 can move forward as a Note or CR independently of the API being done
17:45:30 <rhiaro_> ... Can you expand elf-pavlik?
17:45:47 <rhiaro_> elf-pavlik: Some of the terms are related to API and federation. Terms like I've listed on agenda page, like paging and audience targeting
17:46:00 <jasnell> given that we don't even have an API Editor's Draft, it would be insane to tie AS 2.0 progress to API progress.
17:46:10 <rhiaro_> ... I would like to clarify that if some of those terms are part of API or federation, if we want to publish AS2 we should remove terms that are not specific to modelling data
17:46:10 <tantek> q+ re: hypothetical federation concerns
17:46:11 <jasnell> if the API needs additional terms, then it can define those as extensions to AS 2.0
17:46:19 <cwebber2> okay, we can iterate on that as we get closer to understanding that
17:46:21 <cwebber2> but really
17:46:25 <rhiaro_> ... If we want to publish it, I would make an issue about removing terms that are API specific
17:46:34 <Arnaud> ack tantek
17:46:34 <Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss hypothetical federation concerns
17:46:37 <eprodrom> Sorry about interrupting cwebber2
17:46:51 <hhalpin> I'm ok with adding vocabs as extensions later when we get federation and API more mature, but not holding up AS2
17:46:52 <rhiaro_> tantek: I think that without a concrete federation proposal that has something that's workable/working, this discussion doesn't make any sense
17:46:57 <rhiaro_> ... It's just stop-energy against AS2, I object to that
17:47:08 <rhiaro_> ... elf, I think this is premature
17:47:15 <rhiaro_> ... To object to update to AS2 is counterproductive
17:47:33 <rhiaro_> ... If you really believe that federation requires that kind of vocabulary then go work on a federation proposal that uses that vocabularly
17:47:33 <elf-pavlik> I  don't object updates but going to CR with API and Federation terms
17:47:47 <rhiaro_> ... It's a waste of time to say stop this other work because it *might* use this vocabulary
17:47:54 <cwebber2> okay, there's a valid kind of point toward's elf's point, I'll comment a bit towards that
17:47:56 <cwebber2> but
17:47:59 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: I don't think he's saying 'stop', just that we should synchronise work before CR
17:48:00 <cwebber2> I think it mustn't stop AS2
17:48:08 <rhiaro_> tantek: If he believes in that vocabulary requirement he should produce a draft that demonstrates that
17:48:26 <rhiaro_> ... Saying deliverable might use it so lets wait to sync is unreasonable
17:48:36 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: we're very close to consensus, but not going to call it resolved to respect elf's objection
17:48:54 <rhiaro_> ... if we get to a point where we get to CR, we might have t move forward to overrule elf's objection, as most of group is in favour
17:49:02 <rhiaro_> ... Before we run out of time, move to social api
17:49:07 <Arnaud> ack cwebber
17:49:20 <rhiaro_> cwebber: I want to udpate on a couple of things
17:49:51 <rhiaro_> ... The whole conversation about AS2.0 and whether that's linked to standard stuff.. when I was in Boston over the weekend I talked to people in MediaGoblin community and others in this group, and had a lot of thoughts
17:50:02 <tsyesika> I'd also like to see discussed the Webex/mumble issue hhalpin added to the agenda, I am only participating via text as I had WebEx issues
17:50:05 <rhiaro_> ... I think elf is right, we do need to figure out if AS2.0 is linked, but that's a whole call in itself, so lets not do that this week
17:50:31 <rhiaro_> ... But the other side, int erms of implementation, tsyesika is close to landing a massive rearchitecting of MediaGoblin so we can support federation
17:50:44 <elf-pavlik> tsyesika++
17:50:47 <Loqi> tsyesika has 14 karma
17:50:55 <rhiaro_> ... THis has been holding this back, it's nearing actually working. This was all set up from the original plan of working towards pump API server to server stuff happening
17:51:00 <eprodrom> tsyesika++ !
17:51:01 <rhiaro_> ... Confident in this happening by the end of the year
17:51:04 <Loqi> tsyesika has 15 karma
17:51:15 <rhiaro_> ... Then we can move to AS2.0, which is then really not far way from ActivityPump
17:51:23 <rhiaro_> ... That work is starting to get to the point where we're going to see some real results
17:51:42 <rhiaro_> ... There's been some conversations in pump.io community about management, and ActivityPump version
17:51:44 <eprodrom> q+
17:51:57 <wilkie> I'll have to update my mediagoblin instance and play :)
17:51:59 <rhiaro_> ... I've been working on implementaiton this summer, and got caught up yak-shaving, implementing JSON-LD
17:52:17 <rhiaro_> ... Got a lot of interesting audience feedback at FSF talk this weekend
17:52:22 <rhiaro_> ... Which I will email by the end of today
17:52:41 <rhiaro_> ... I also talked to the person from OwnCloud (self hosted filesharing, calendaring, etc) which has a huge userbase
17:52:46 <rhiaro_> ... Head of OwnCLoud wants to join this group
17:53:00 <rhiaro_> ... It would be really big if we got federation working and agreed on a standard
17:53:03 <eprodrom> That's great news!
17:53:12 <rhiaro_> ... He's going to go through the process of joining the group, I endorse him
17:53:20 <hhalpin> Great news re MediaGobliN!
17:53:20 <rhiaro_> ... I did talk to others in the group, and will send an email
17:53:27 <sandro> cwebber2, do you know if the owncloud person was talking about joining as a W3C member or an IE?
17:53:33 <elf-pavlik> cwebber2++
17:53:33 <wilkie> so great
17:53:34 <rhiaro_> ... So just wanted to update about MediaGoblin progress
17:53:35 <tantek> cwebber2++
17:53:35 <Shane_> That sounds great :)
17:53:36 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 47 karma
17:53:38 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 48 karma
17:53:44 <hhalpin> Definitely would support ownCloud joining
17:53:45 <tsyesika> cwebber2++
17:53:49 <Loqi> cwebber2 has 49 karma
17:53:51 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: You've been talking about federation API as if it's different from client API
17:53:59 <rhiaro_> ... People have argued in the past that the distinction is meaningless
17:54:04 <rhiaro_> ... You believe they're two different things?
17:54:25 <rhiaro_> cwebber: For MEdiaGoblin's implementation they have to be different. As an example implementation, there are two different steps
17:54:26 <eprodrom> q+
17:54:30 <eprodrom> I'm already on!
17:54:48 <Arnaud> yes, you are, and I know it :)
17:54:48 <rhiaro_> ... It's true that there is a distinction between client-server and server-server, as we had to re-engineer stuff to do server-server
17:55:01 <rhiaro_> ... However it's false becasue the mechanism of server-server and client-server look basically the same
17:55:09 <hhalpin> This has become a rather dialectical :)
17:55:15 <rhiaro_> ... They're so linked
17:55:32 <hhalpin> Nonetheless, this is very interesting news to get from an implementer that supports the case for keeping one API.
17:55:33 <rhiaro_> ... I think it would be dumb to seperate into two specs; it reads much more coherantly when you describe how these things work together
17:55:39 <rhiaro_> ... Two sections, not two documents
17:55:53 <hhalpin> And one deliverable is *optional* BTW
17:55:55 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: what I think is important - the fact that there are two deliverables on the charter does not meaen we need two different documents
17:55:59 <Arnaud> ack eprodrom
17:56:01 <rhiaro_> ... Not a 1-1 mapping between deliverables and documents
17:56:01 <tsyesika> +1 for NOT splitting it into two documents
17:56:05 <hhalpin> I.e. federation was viewed as optional on purpose.
17:56:16 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: Two questions - you're implementing pump.io API and federation?
17:56:19 <rhiaro_> cwebber: Correct for now
17:56:33 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: Since we don't yet have social api/federation specified, just wanted to clarifiy.
17:56:36 <tantek> Arnaud, I'm hoping we at least have a few minutes to discuss (accept?) https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-10-06#Tracking_of_Actions_and_Issues Post Type Discovery for issue 4 and action 35 (follow-up from last week)
17:56:57 <tsyesika> Arnaud: I'm also hoping we can discuss WebEx issues
17:56:57 <rhiaro_> ... Second question, for implementation, would be useful to have python library that can consume and produce AS2.0. Is that something that's part of these next steps for MediaGoblin, and something youc ould share?
17:57:26 <tsyesika> Arnaud: I and others have struggled joining over the last few months due to the changes
17:57:35 <rhiaro_> cwebber: I think that's possible. Need to talk to tsyesika. I'm optimistic. Was thinking when you said earlier that we do a commandline test suite, it might not be too hard to write that as a little python application. Something like that might end up happening.
17:57:45 <tantek> Arnaud - can we assign the WebEx issues to the chairs to handle offline?
17:57:46 <rhiaro_> ... Let us talk about it and discuss next week
17:57:50 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Defer to later
17:58:03 <rhiaro_> ... Fight for the last few minutes as to waht we should talk about
17:58:17 <hhalpin> q+ calling-in
17:58:21 <hhalpin> q+
17:58:26 <rhiaro_> ... On WebEx, there is additional information we can add. We will take this offline. Look ofr information, we are aware there are challenges
17:58:32 <Arnaud> queue=
17:58:59 <rhiaro_> hhalpin: I was just discussing this with Wendy Seltzer. Other groups have had this issue. No other group has resolved it successfully. But as long as the group has consensus on what software and everyone can use it, it is okay to swtich off webex
17:59:03 <cwebber2> sandro: I sent him an email about the process of Invited Expert
17:59:05 <rhiaro_> ... So if we want to swtich to Mumble, that's fine by w3c
17:59:19 <jasnell> dropping. have another call
17:59:24 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: We should try and make this work, not that I"m opposed to soemthing else, but we have addtional information we can try first
17:59:26 <cwebber2> sandro: if he should do something else, please let me know
17:59:31 <cwebber2> sandro: I'll send him an email and update him
17:59:37 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: tantek, what do you want to update us on?
17:59:54 <tantek> Post Type Discovery https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery
17:59:57 <rhiaro_> tantek: I provided editors draft for review last week. Proposal is to accept post-type-discovery as an editors draft for WG
18:00:06 <rhiaro_> ... You were given a week to review that, so that's the proposal
18:00:17 <rhiaro_> ... If it's accepted, I'll move to w3c wiki and move to github for issues and discussion
18:00:32 <tantek> PROPOSAL accept https://indiewebcamp.com/post-type-discovery as W3C editor's draft and use w3c wiki and github
18:00:36 <rhiaro_> Proposal: Accept post-type-discovery as an Editors draft for this WG
18:00:50 <aaronpk> there was quite a bit of feedback after the call last week, changes have been incorporated
18:00:58 <rhiaro_> tantek: After the call last time people asked for discussion/participation, spec has been updated since then based on feedback
18:01:01 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Any objections?
18:01:04 <aaronpk> +1 to the proposal
18:01:04 <eprodrom> -1
18:01:05 <csarven> Code bloat?
18:01:11 <Shane_> I've not read it fully yet but it definitely sounds useful to me
18:01:17 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: evan?
18:01:17 <hhalpin> +1 but would be good to read it
18:01:26 <KevinMarks_> +1
18:01:28 <rhiaro_> eprodrom: What would be our goal for using this?
18:01:53 <rhiaro_> Arnaud: Next week we need to give this fair amount of time to get to the bottom of this
18:01:55 <elf-pavlik> -1 needs more discussion
18:02:00 <rhiaro_> ... Sorry tantek, we're not going to resolve this now
18:02:06 <rhiaro_> ... Close the call on this
18:02:14 <ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro++
18:02:14 <cwebber2> rhiaro++
18:02:17 <rhiaro_> ... Thanks everyone!
18:02:17 <elf-pavlik> rhiaro++
18:02:17 <Loqi> rhiaro has 167 karma
18:02:17 <wilkie> this makes me feel like an explicit type field is necessary haha
18:02:18 <Loqi> rhiaro has 167 karma
18:02:20 <Loqi> rhiaro has 168 karma
18:02:23 <tsyesika> rhiaro++
18:02:25 <Loqi> rhiaro has 169 karma
18:02:32 <Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting
18:02:32 <trackbot> Zakim, list attendees
18:02:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek
18:02:40 <trackbot> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:02:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2015/10/06-social-minutes.html trackbot
18:02:41 <trackbot> RRSAgent, bye
18:02:41 <RRSAgent> I see no action items