18:02:08 RRSAgent has joined #social 18:02:08 logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/11/24-social-irc 18:02:09 Present+ Rob_Sanderson 18:02:10 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:02:12 Zakim, this will be SOCL 18:02:12 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 18:02:13 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:02:13 Date: 24 November 2015 18:02:18 present+ 18:02:24 present+ 18:02:37 trackbot, start meeting 18:02:39 RRSAgent, make logs public 18:02:41 Zakim, this will be SOCL 18:02:41 I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot 18:02:42 Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference 18:02:42 Date: 24 November 2015 18:02:46 present+ 18:02:49 present+ 18:02:51 Present+ Rob_Sanderson 18:02:58 present+ 18:02:59 present+ 18:03:15 there are only 5 people dialed in 18:03:25 Zakim, who is here 18:03:25 tantek, you need to end that query with '?' 18:03:30 present+ 18:03:37 ScribeNick: azaroth 18:03:41 azaroth++ 18:03:42 Scribe: Rob_Sanderson 18:03:43 azaroth has 1 karma 18:03:48 Zakim, who is here? 18:03:48 Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, 18:03:48 scribe: azaroth 18:03:48 cwebber2 has joined #social 18:03:52 ... wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young 18:03:52 On IRC I see RRSAgent, bengo, eprodrom, tantek, azaroth, bblfish_, the_frey, melvster, bigbluehat, bitbear, dwhly, shepazu, Arnaud, csarven, kevinmarks, wilkie, oshepherd, raucao, 18:03:52 ... ben_thatmustbeme, tommorris_, tessierashpool_, ElijahLynn, bret, tsyesika, jet, aaronpk, Loqi, rhiaro_, rrika, Zakim, pdurbin, rhiaro, sandro, trackbot, wseltzer 18:03:52 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-11-10-minutes 18:03:53 whoops, calling in! 18:03:59 Tantek: Approval of minutes. Last week's called cancelled, so the week before. 18:04:09 +1 18:04:14 +1 18:04:22 ... +1s? 18:04:27 present+ 18:04:31 +1 18:04:52 ... Resolved 18:05:09 ... Next on the agenda, next week we'll be meeting face to face in San Francisco 18:05:12 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01 18:05:24 ... Dec 1,2 at Mozilla San Francisco 18:05:35 ... Enter on the first floor and will get a badge and directions 18:05:37 the_frey has joined #social 18:05:46 ... Calling out the required reading section. Everyone who's participating is expected to read it 18:05:58 ... We'll discuss those docs directly, and will not summarize them 18:06:05 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Required_Reading 18:06:10 I just got in 18:06:10 ... If there's anything you want to resolve / approve / etc, then please read them first 18:06:20 ... We'll be linking them up soon 18:06:22 present+ cwebber2 18:06:26 ... (Or anyone else can too) 18:06:35 ... Questions? 18:07:06 ... Will try to be on IRC, but of course have Thanksgiving Thursday/Friday 18:07:21 ... So those two days probably not, so any questions please send them in sooner rather than later 18:07:21 I am flying Thanksgiving night to SF. thank goodness for cheap flights. 18:07:30 Topic: Technical items for discussion 18:07:34 thanks aaronpk 18:07:48 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-11-24#Technical_Items 18:07:48 Tantek: James sent his regrets, so propose we defer discussion of AS items until the F2F 18:08:05 ... If there's specific items that people here think they can make progress on without James, please say? 18:08:14 ... Any items we can move forward on? 18:08:33 ... tumbleweed ... 18:08:41 :) 18:08:52 ... Silence as acceptance to defer 18:08:52 was there anything in the queue from last time? 18:09:15 ... Please Q+ anything that comes up. Most were in the queue from last time. 18:09:23 Federation protocol: Webmention ready as editor's draft 18:09:36 ... Next area ... aaronpk has added WebMention. 18:10:02 aaronpk: We've talked about WebMention in the past. A few of us have been working on cleaning it up to share with the group 18:10:17 ... We have a draft that should be sufficient as an ED for the group 18:10:18 http://webmention.net/ 18:10:45 ... Nothing new from the specification side, but the document is new 18:10:54 ... A start towards the federation protocol 18:11:08 ... It's not tied to microformats, though most implementations use them at the moment 18:11:15 ... should be applicable to other types of documents as well 18:11:17 ... Any questions? 18:11:23 q? 18:11:42 Tantek: Thanks for getting this into ED state, really appreciate that. 18:12:15 ... Lots of time spent on AS as the most mature doc we had coming in. WebMention explicitly mentioned as input in the charter, so good to make progress in multiple areas 18:12:27 ... We can just go ahead and accept it as ED, but a spearate step to publish as FPWD 18:12:49 ... (should we be submitting activitypump to editor's draft status?) 18:12:49 ... Want to ask those on the call if there's objections? Or questions? 18:13:14 q+ 18:13:32 webmention is stated as a *possible* input as is linked data platform 18:13:53 azaroth: Where to send feedback on the doc? github issues? 18:13:55 q+ to ask How soon can Webmention editor's draft be ready for FPWD? 18:13:59 ack azaroth 18:14:00 present+ sandro 18:14:20 aaronpk: Thinking about it :) I like using github for questions, nice threaded view. Will get back to you on that 18:14:21 present+ rhiaro 18:14:34 Tantek: Looking at the header at the top, I see a wiki for open issues. 18:14:51 ... I share the question, and that gh issues could be considered 18:14:58 aaronpk, i'd agree, that github usually works well 18:15:05 ... I created an issues only gh for post-type discovery draft, that could be something to consider 18:15:14 there are two places I see mentioned: http://indiewebcamp.com/Webmention-brainstorming http://indiewebcamp.com/Webmention 18:15:16 aaronpk: Should I make it in the socialWG account? 18:15:21 tantek: Yes, that seems the best 18:15:33 https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery/issues 18:15:42 ... As an example ^^ the post type discovery spec 18:15:51 q? 18:15:52 aaronpk: I'd be happy to do that 18:15:55 azaroth: No problem :) 18:16:01 ack 18:16:05 ack tantek 18:16:05 tantek, you wanted to ask How soon can Webmention editor's draft be ready for FPWD? 18:16:35 tantek: Looks fairly spec like, what do you need to be ready for FPWD? What are you blocked on, or is it ready? 18:16:57 aaronpk: From my perspective it's functional enough to push forwards, however I'd love to get feedback 18:17:05 ... Make sure it's clear enough from an implementation perspective 18:17:24 ... Also just more technical clean up to move things around, but mostly just removing / reorienting text 18:17:35 would that be after accepting as editor's draft though? 18:17:51 tantek: Would like to add to required reading 18:18:12 no objections, but 18:18:13 q+ 18:18:13 ... it looks like it's been through a lot of iterations, we can approve at the f2f 18:18:16 ... objections? 18:18:20 +1 to required reading 18:18:21 q? 18:18:25 ack cwebber2 18:18:31 that sounds good to read it for the f2f 18:18:50 cwebber2: No objections, wondering whether it makes sense to do the same for activity pump? 18:19:25 tantek: To be clear, which area of the charter do you think activity pump comes in? 18:19:32 cwebber2: Under social api and federation api 18:19:38 q? 18:19:41 q+ 18:19:53 tantek: I think that's something we should add. I see no problem adding. Did you have something ready? 18:20:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86893&oldid=86892 18:20:04 ... a separate topic 18:20:06 q- 18:20:09 sorry 18:20:24 ... Adding to agenda. 18:20:25 I did mean to queue it for the next topic but wasn't sure how to do that 18:20:27 in this queue 18:20:28 ;p 18:20:31 q? 18:20:34 q- 18:20:36 ack cwebber2 18:20:37 done 18:20:42 ++ to webmention 18:20:44 q? 18:20:47 ... Did you have a question about webmention? 18:20:57 ... No other questions, move on to next item. 18:20:57 I dont like the idea of source and target variables flying around without namespaces ... id look at semantic pingback : http://www.w3.org/wiki/Pingback#Semantic_Pingback 18:21:04 q? 18:21:12 in general I see this as a non starter 18:21:18 Social API: Micropub for consideration as editor's draft (Aaron) 18:21:20 Topic: Social API - micropub 18:21:32 tantek: Another one for aaronpk 18:21:40 melvster: it's a defined endpoint; it doesn't need namespaces 18:22:00 (please save the arguments about webmention for later, that's not the topic of the call) 18:22:06 ... Noting that micropub wasn't in the initial list of docs when we started the WG, so a bit different context, but provide details for why it should be considered 18:22:15 aaronpk: Going through a lot of iterations based on feedback from the group 18:22:48 ... It's not as mature as webmention, so not ready as ED. Proposal is to consider it as such, knowing that we'll continue to work on it and it'll evolve much more than webmention 18:22:54 http://micropub.net/ 18:22:56 ... Link ^^ 18:23:15 ... The text needs work, lots of cleanup needed before anyone should read through it 18:23:22 Other links that have been mentioned: https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi https://w3c-social.github.io/activitypump/ 18:23:24 ... I'll send a note when it's ready to look at 18:23:31 ... any questions about it? 18:23:38 tantek: What is the specific proposal? 18:23:45 ... Want it considered as ED for the group? 18:23:50 aaronpk: That's correct 18:24:00 ... I think it fulfils the API part of the charter as a self contained building block 18:24:11 ... goes along side webmention but not coupled to any particular aspects 18:24:20 PROPOSED: Accept Micropub as an editor's draft for the Social Web WG as part of the Social API section of the charter 18:24:22 q+ 18:24:32 q? 18:24:42 ack Arnaud 18:24:55 pointer? 18:25:00 Arnaud: I'm a bit confused. I don't see how the document compares to what Amy has been putting together? 18:25:07 +1 to Arnaud's question 18:25:22 aaronpk: This is mostly just existing micropub, but goal is to reconcile with what Amy has been doing 18:25:41 ... to make it work with what we've been working with collectively 18:25:52 Arnaud: But if it was a rec, we wouldn't need Amy's document? 18:25:57 bigbluehat I think https://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi 18:25:59 http://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi 18:26:05 aaronpk: Can we combine them into the same proposal? 18:26:06 bengo: thanks! 18:26:08 ... Amy is here? 18:26:17 tantek: We had that doc accepted as ED from Amy 18:26:29 Mine is an outline with potential spaces for the pieces. Happy to see it dissolve if other modular things can take its place 18:26:46 rhiaro_: What I wrote was an outline of the different pieces 18:26:52 ... would like to see them replaced by individual specs 18:27:00 ... if there's anything left, then we can spec those later 18:27:06 I was assuming amy's document should supersede any other federation api document 18:27:08 Amy's doc refences micropub already 18:27:10 ... So if the doc disappeared to be replaced, that would be fine 18:27:15 Creating content 18:27:19 Sandro: Which piece of your doc does this replace? 18:27:24 Amy :Creating content 18:27:31 sandro: so long as it's one section, that makes sense 18:27:32 q? 18:27:39 azaroth If SocialAPI is editor's draft, should it be listed here? https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Drafts If so, are any other ED missing? 18:27:40 rhiaro_: micropub is creating content, webmention is mentioning 18:27:47 http://w3c-social.github.io/SocialAPI/socialapi#Creating%20content 18:27:52 tantek: Amy's doc on the required reading list 18:28:08 ... also an ED for the WG. My preference would be to see both docs move forwards. Premature to say one could replace the other 18:28:19 ... Trust that the editors of the docs will work together to explain the relationships 18:28:22 ... an action on both? 18:28:32 ... That something that rhiaro_ and aaronpk can take on? 18:28:40 Both: Yes happy to do that 18:28:48 tantek: Lets make an action then 18:28:56 q? 18:28:58 Amy's draft already does mention it 18:29:08 melvster: since semantic pingback defines source and target, you could default to that namespace if you wanted to namespace received webmentions yourself 18:29:09 ACTION rhiaro_ to explain relationship to aaronpk's document 18:29:09 Error finding 'rhiaro_'. You can review and register nicknames at . 18:29:15 ACTION rhiaro to explain relationship to aaronpk's document 18:29:15 Created ACTION-74 - Explain relationship to aaronpk's document [on Amy Guy - due 2015-12-01]. 18:29:27 ACTION aaronpk to explain relationship to rhiaro's document 18:29:27 Created ACTION-75 - Explain relationship to rhiaro's document [on Aaron Parecki - due 2015-12-01]. 18:29:37 PROPOSED: Accept Micropub as an editor's draft for the Social Web WG as part of the Social API section of the charter 18:29:38 tantek: Not seeing any questions .... 18:30:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-11-24]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86894&oldid=86881 18:30:03 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86895&oldid=86893 18:30:10 Arnaud: I think it's premature before we understand how they relate 18:30:14 ... I'd like the decision to be deferred 18:30:22 q+ 18:30:27 tantek: I think Amy and aaronpk answered that? 18:30:28 q? 18:30:42 aaronpk: We accepted we'd clarify, but it hasn't yet been clarified 18:30:45 Arnaud: Exactly :) 18:30:51 it's already clear in Amy's draft, just needs backref in micropub 18:30:54 tantek: Your preference is to wait for that 18:30:55 +1 to clarity 18:30:57 Arnaud: Indeed 18:31:03 +1 clarify 18:31:04 tantek: aaronpk are you okay with that? 18:31:07 q+ 18:31:11 +1 to clarify first 18:31:12 I agree with that 18:31:15 tantek: Amy? 18:31:15 ack rhiaro 18:31:27 rhiaro: A process question, can someone point me to ED definition? 18:31:27 yes please re: editor's draft 18:31:35 ... not even a commitment to publishing 18:31:39 tantek: Your understanding is correct 18:31:45 okay, if that's true, then I think activitypump is ready for editor's draft 18:31:55 ... a new doc that has not been mentioned in the charter, so we need to explicitly accept it or not 18:32:16 ... my understanding from Arnaud is that before deciding he would need to know the relationship. I think that's a reasonable request 18:32:20 rhiaro "Working Groups and Interest Groups may make available "Editor's drafts". Editor's drafts have no official standing whatsoever, and do not necessarily imply consensus of a Working Group or Interest Group, nor are their contents endorsed in any way by W3C." http://www.w3.org/2015/Process-20150901/ 18:32:21 ... so no argument regarding next steps 18:32:40 q? 18:32:42 thanks bengo 18:32:57 Arnaud: For the record, I don't vote in WGs that I chair, so feel free to ignore if you want. I'd answer Amy's question a little differently, when we accept it as ED it's the first step on putting it in REC track 18:33:08 ... no guarantee that any document gets there, but it's an important first step 18:33:15 ack sandro 18:33:34 sandro: I think it makes sense for aaron to write a proposal in the syntax and style of a draft for what could go in creating content section 18:33:52 ... if the WG accepts the proposal, then that could go in to be a spec, but we haven't started looking at it at all 18:34:04 ... labeling it as ED would communicate that we had decided to go in that direction 18:34:10 ... so better to call it a proposal 18:34:21 ... no decision here, just communication issues 18:34:34 tantek: I didn't hear from aaron or anyone an assertion of direction. Can raise for the WG? 18:34:36 Good to maintain a coherant front as a WG :) 18:34:53 sandro: Could be okay with ED if it's clearly labeled as not necessarily the direction of WG 18:34:57 arnaud: what gain? 18:35:02 tantek: WG is working on it 18:35:10 ... I think the direction concern is valid 18:35:23 sandro: Important part is feedback from the group that we would like a solid proposal 18:35:24 Might as well wait until after F2F to dub new EDs 18:35:29 ... no pun intended :) 18:35:45 q? 18:35:53 micropun 18:36:10 micropun++ 18:36:12 sandro: "It's good to have the activity pumping away at making a solid micropub proposal" #PUNINTENDED 18:36:12 micropun has 1 karma 18:36:13 "I think it's good to have the activity pumping away to have a solid micropub spec" 18:36:19 tantek: Aaron you have a request for next steps. Arnaud's request reasonable. Clarity of direction from Sandro 18:36:21 For the record. 18:36:36 aaronpk: Should I label the page as a proposal? 18:36:51 tantek: Its your draft, so long as you don't claim it from the WG. 18:37:07 aaronpk: Can we clarify sandro's request? 18:37:32 tantek: that the draft explicitly state it's not implying a direction, it's one approach but not claiming a specific direction 18:37:43 sandro: So long as it doesn't go on WG list of EDs 18:37:56 tantek: But to get it on the list, it shouldn't imply direction 18:38:08 Arnaud: On the wiki page, we should have a section for proposals, not items the WG is working on 18:38:20 arnaud++ 18:38:21 tantek: We have a list of things the group is working on 18:38:23 arnaud has 28 karma 18:38:28 +1 put it on a list of proposals, not as a list of drafts 18:38:29 ... will add that section to the home page 18:38:35 +1 to list of proposals 18:38:46 +1 list of proposals 18:38:51 Tantek: By that request, you're saying we should list micropub as a proposal 18:38:55 Arnaud: I think that's reasonable to do 18:39:04 ... that seems the case, there's a proposal that we can acknowledge 18:39:06 tantek: Sandro? 18:39:08 sandro: Yep 18:39:16 tantek: Okay, great. 18:39:35 ACTION tantek to add proposal section to social web WG page, with micropub as first entry 18:39:35 Created ACTION-76 - Add proposal section to social web wg page, with micropub as first entry [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01]. 18:40:35 micropub.net 18:40:36 Tantek: Can you put the URL? micropub.net? 18:40:46 ... Thank you 18:40:56 q? 18:41:13 ... No one on the queue ... any other questions? 18:41:26 please could additions to proposals list also be announced publicly? 18:41:29 ... We agreed to list as a proposal. Aaron, do you intend to discuss at the F2F? 18:41:34 aaronpk: That'd be great if we have time for that 18:41:48 tantek: Objections to adding micropub to required readings? 18:41:52 sandro: How long to read? 18:42:01 everyone should be reading these specs anay 18:42:03 anyway 18:42:17 aaronpk: I don't know 15 minutes? The syntax part is the important part 18:42:24 sandro: Can we say that on the reading list? 18:42:24 yeah, it should be expected to read these possible apis 18:42:31 can we read AS2 in 15 minutes? 18:42:34 q? 18:42:39 tantek: Other questions? 18:42:45 -1 there's dozens of specs to read 18:43:00 ACTION tantek to add micropub to required reading list 18:43:00 add to proposals, not required reading 18:43:00 Created ACTION-77 - Add micropub to required reading list [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01]. 18:43:00 I think most of the problems in the group comes from people objecting to things without actually having read the spec they're objecting to 18:43:04 -1 18:43:10 +1 18:43:15 +1 to reading :P 18:43:20 +1 to reading 18:43:21 add to proposals not required reading, announce publically 18:43:34 I find this document (micropub) confusing 18:43:35 the reason micropub is so long is that it has a list of implemntations in it 18:43:46 q 18:43:47 q? 18:43:48 q? 18:43:49 the structure isn't obvious 18:44:00 tantek: No other questions, moving on 18:44:03 aaronpk: kevinmarks: maybe the list of implementations could be moved to an appendix? 18:44:21 Topic: Activity Pump for consideration at F2F 18:44:21 Activity Pump for consideration at F2f (cwebber) 18:44:24 yes, i still have lots of cleanup on the micropub one. webmention was in better shape :) 18:44:42 aaronpk, I think some section numbers would go a long way 18:44:48 cwebber: Didn't mean to interupt earlier. Would like people to read the Acitivty Pump spec for the F2F 18:44:59 Arnaud, any examples of specs with section numbers in that format? 18:45:01 ... some areas that could do with review, but areas that we haven't come to consensus on 18:45:06 ... Structure is pretty well understood 18:45:23 ... Prior version has multiple implementations, could fulfil social and federation APIs 18:45:24 respec would take care of that for you automatically 18:45:24 The prior version being pump.io? 18:45:32 the wiki version has a toc and numbers http://indiewebcamp.com/micropub 18:45:38 ... So would like consideration towards both of those areas 18:45:54 ... Amy has been helping to reshape the docs to make them clearer 18:46:00 ... As is, I think it's readable enough for the F2F 18:46:03 so that is easier to read that the moment, arnaud 18:46:04 tantek: Link please? 18:46:11 sandro: How long? 18:46:26 cwebber: I don;t think it'll take that long. 15-20 minutes probably? 18:46:28 It doesn't take logn to read, but it took me a couple of days of concentrating to really understand it 18:46:34 http://w3c-social.github.io/activitypump/ 18:46:44 if you start here http://indiewebcamp.com/micropub#Methodology 18:47:01 tantek: Thank you Chris. Proposal is to discuss at F2F. And thus add to required reading. 18:47:26 cwebber2: Yes adding to required. Would like to have it move forwards in the same way as micropub etc 18:47:49 tantek: Not one of the documents in the charter, so would take the same route. Need to agree as a group to take it on as ED as the next step, after people have read and discussed 18:47:57 ... soonest would be at teh F2F. 18:48:01 cwebber2: That sounds good 18:48:10 tantek: WebMention is a bit different, as it's in the charter 18:48:22 ... F2F can hopefully discuss whether to publish as FPWD 18:48:29 no, webmention is mentioned as a *possible input* in the charter nothing more 18:48:30 q? 18:48:47 tantek: Propose to accept Pump as required reading? 18:48:51 +1 18:48:58 ... Objections? 18:49:00 +1 unsurprisingly :) 18:49:05 +1 18:49:07 +1 assuming 20 minutes 18:49:07 +1 18:49:07 +1 (also unsuprisingly) 18:49:17 +1 18:49:18 kevinmarks, thanks 18:49:36 ACTION tantek to add Activity Pump to the list of required reading for F2F 18:49:37 Created ACTION-78 - Add activity pump to the list of required reading for f2f [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01]. 18:49:37 (ref micropub wiki) 18:49:56 q? 18:50:02 Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86896&oldid=86858 18:50:03 Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86899&oldid=86897 18:50:04 Kmarks2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=86897&oldid=86895 18:50:18 yeah I think that's right 18:50:20 tantek: Should add it to the proposals section too 18:50:32 ACTION tantek to add activity pump to proposals section of the home page 18:50:32 Created ACTION-79 - Add activity pump to proposals section of the home page [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-12-01]. 18:50:37 sorry, have to step away. see you all in SF 18:51:13 q? 18:51:13 tantek: Okay, that brings us to open issues catch all section 18:51:31 ... Looking at the tracker ... separation of concerns issue? 18:51:33 issue 45 18:51:37 issue-46 18:51:37 issue-46 -- AS2.0 tries to address some Social API responsibilities -- raised 18:51:37 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/46 18:51:51 ... Raised by Elf, are you on the call? 18:52:03 ... Not on the call, so moving on. 18:52:14 issue-40 18:52:14 issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- pending review 18:52:14 http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/40 18:52:17 ... Next is pending review, #40 18:52:36