See also: IRC log
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<cwebber2> oops
<cwebber2> :)
<eprodrom> Arnaud, are you here? We're about to start. I'm going to take over as chair.
<eprodrom> PROPOSED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-07-12-minutes as minutes for 2016-07-12 meeting
+1
<eprodrom> +1
<annbass> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<aaronpk> +1
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
<sandro> +1
<melvster> +1
<eprodrom> RESOLVED approve https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-07-12-minutes as minutes for 2016-07-12 meeting
eprodrom: I don't think we have any other admin besides minutes
eprodrom: Best process is to have sarven and amy give us an update on status of the document so far and sounds like they want to move to FPWD, we discussed last week and decided to give people time to review
<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
<sandro> https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html
rhiaro: last week we sent an
email saying we want to go to FPWD this week and asked for
people to raise major issues by this week
... we resolved a lot of issues up to last week
... a lot of the changes to the document were explainig things
better, editorial and stuff
... we still have some ongoing threads with people from various
linked data communities participating
... some of the issues we've called out in the spec
itself
... since the editor's draft, we've clarified a bunch of stuff
and we think it's in a stable enough state and we have a more
iplementations since last week
... we think it's in a good enough state to move it to FPWD
eprodrom: I realized that LDN is more general than activitypub but there is a close relationship. has there been a discussion between amy and sarven and jessica and chris about the overlap?
rhiaro: we've had a little bit of
discussion, we've also got some ongoing stuff on github about
that
... we should have a call to tlak about that
... i've started adding stuff to SWP to explain things
... there's an issue on SWP where i detailed all the alignment
between the two to either bridge or align them
<rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/36
rhiaro: we need to work through these with chris and jessica to see which are major and which we can rough out
eprodrom: i think that we've had
mixed theories about what FPWD means, whether it's putting
something on rec track or just putting it out for discussion,
i'm leaning towards the second
... we have the microformats stack which is very different from
activitystreams, and we're saying they're two totally different
things
... but here we're talking about more similar stacks so i'd
want to see us come to a convergence on that
rhiaro: i'm working on that in SWP, where the brainstorming and working things out is taking place
<sandro> +1 converging activitysub and LDN would be really, really good
eprodrom: okay that makes sense
cwebber2: i agree that there's a
lot of similarities. amy and i have been talking, trying to
figure out how to bridge things, because we'd like to make them
as compatible as possible
... the fundamental difference between the two is LDN is a lot
more general, in that it doesn't assume as much about
vocabulary used, which is nice in some ways
... but also there's a tradeoff, it does assume that you're
probably working with Linked Data toolkit.
... currently the main convergence is that activitypub is kind
of linked data under the hood but you don't need to know
... hopefully we can find out how to hit the intersection
rhiaro: things we can do if
you're an LDN implementation and you want to support
activitypub, then you have to serve your JSON as compacted
JSON-LD so any consumer can read it as plain JSON
... so either it's activitystreams, or if it has other vocab
then it's like dealing with an extended activitystreams
object
... which might happen anyway. so things like that we can align
on i think we can work things out so that LDN can serve stuff
that plain activitypub implementations can handle and vice
versa
<sandro> +1 activity sub as a restriction on ldn, so you can just use an ldn inbox for activitysub
rhiaro: that also means you can use an LDN inbox to receive stuff from your friends
eprodrom: okay that sounds
reasonable to me
... i'm going to be pretty concerned if these two specs go very
far into the REC world without having some level of integration
between them
<cwebber2> I agree, it would be worrying if we ggot there without integration
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask about prescriptive (spec first) vs descriptive (code first) approaches
tantek: the biggest concern i have is that it's a methodological difference between descriptive vs prescriptive approaches
<annbass> mind
<eprodrom> I think!
tantek: one of the things this
group has tried to do is that there's a lot of existing work,
running code, how can we find common specs between those
... there's running code with people publishing stuff and
running servers and tha'ts helped drive our spec
development.
... that's why we've been okay with multiple approaches, is
that there's multiple running implementations
... it's great that amy has done some implementations of LDN
already. where i start to get concerned is when we talk about
how we could converge specs that isn't based on implementation
experience. where we start having specs make compromises that
break existing impls, but don't have any actual value
... just because we have people on a phone call agree, doesn't
actually make someone's code on their website work
... i want to call that out as a concern. while i agree that
the general trend towards convergence is good, but premature
convergence where people in a room agree on spec-first
convergence that isn't followed up with implementation
... if we are proceeding with the assumption that these are rec
track, then we'll be implementation testing them. if we want to
relax that assumption then we should do so explicitly and up
front
... that's one cautionary point i want to make
... we're still waiting on implementations to update on
activitypub itself, i'm a little worried about that
disconnect
<tantek> s/mythological/methodological
rhiaro: chris said he was working
on an activitypub implementaiton, so please post stuff to my
inbox
... the implementations we have of LDN are not just me by the
way
... getting actual code interop between LDN and activitypub is
super important and way more fun than just spec interop
eprodrom: iT sounds like amy and sarven are ready to go to FPWD so i think what i will propose is that we approve this document
<eprodrom> PROPOSED publish https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html as FPWD of LDN
<melvster> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<sandro> +1
<rhiaro> wait
<csarven> +1
<rhiaro> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/
<rhiaro> yeah
<ben_thatmustbeme> that was going to be my question, which URL
<eprodrom> +PROPOSED publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
<melvster> +1
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
<melvster> +1
<csarven> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<annbass> +1
<tsyesika> +1
<sandro> +1
<dmitriz> +1
<eprodrom> +0
<cwebber2> +1
<tantek> +1 with a link to Social Web Protocols somewhere up top like Status etc. to set context
+1 what tantek said
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
<sandro> (yes, agreed that link is important)
<annbass> yes on the caveats from tantek and evan
<rhiaro> yep
<ben_thatmustbeme> btw, https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ and https://rawgit.com/csarven/ldn/master/index.html do have some minor differences
RESOLUTION: publish https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/ as FPWD of LDN
<ben_thatmustbeme> looks to be just editorial
<rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: that's weird, they're both reading from github
<csarven> ben_thatmustbeme: You are correct. Apparently I didn't git pull last
<csarven> Should be up to date now.
eprodrom: i would like to move on to our next topic
<ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, one is last modified the 17th, the other was the 9th
sure
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<ben_thatmustbeme> ahh, okay
eprodrom: Taking AS2 to CR with a
couple of caveats around marking at risk sectionw as agreed.
Immeidately afterwards we had i18n input
... We decided to hold of on CR until we had resolved i18n
issues
... and largely we did
... As of right now we have for i18n 2 normative issues and 1
editorial
... Which are both interesting
... One is waiting for the original poster to give comment, I
believe they were going to bring it up at i18n telecon last
Thursday so looking for some feedback on that
... That question is about using markup in the name
property
... I guess this has some i18n implications in terms of being
able to set character sets and direction using html
... For activitystreams historically that title or displayName
or name has not had markup in so that you can show it directly
without having to worry about markup
... I think that james and I both want to keep that
... So we're trying to figure out if the fallback of using some
other properties is sufficient
... The other issue is around using the map terms
... We had a long discussion about this last week
<eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/341
eprodrom: I don't want to againt
his week. There is a discussion on the github issue
... It's a normative change, roughly about how we format
language in the documents
... but as a courtesy last week because jasnell was on vacation
we decided not to resolve it without him. He's back but still
on vacation and hasn't commented yet
... What we have right now does not have this normative change
in it
... The proposed change I think is unnecessary and a bad
solution. We're waiting on jasnell for that.
... We also had 3 editorial issues come up since last
week
... (not i18n ones)
... One posted by me about how we're using URLs
... At this point I'm getting concerned about where we are with
the CR process. I would like to get some guidence from the
group about what we do next
tantek: The challenge here with
getting to CR is that we're supposed to take things to CR when
we don't know any outstanding substantitive issues, that would
alter implementations
... And clearly with the i18n issues you're working on making
those happen
... Even once the spec enters CR it's still goign to get
issues, substantitive ones
... What I've seen groups do is just draw a line at some point
and say we think we have resolved our substantitive issues that
we understand
... Going to acknowedlge that there may be other ones filed
that would cause the spec to change, which may mean there's a
new CR, but tha'ts okay
... That's one way to get the spec to CR whilst allowing new
issues to show up
... And that's a judgement call of the editors and the
group
... To how you keep hitting 0 issues
... So Evan, the issues that you've seen come in that are not
i18n related.. how impactful are they to implementations?
eprodrom: Right now they are
negligible. Making sure that the list of properties in one
section is exactly the same as in another
... Obviously yes if you're using the document for a reference
that needs to be accurate, but in terms of normative stuff
they're almost entirely editorial
tantek: editorial things we don't
need to worry about
... The way that we solve the multiple list of properties
problem is typically by making one normative and the others
non-normative and point back to where they are normatively
defined
... That way if there's a doubt you can say here's the
normative list
sandro: issue 341 is not
editorial, that's a major imlementation change
... not really major, but..
eprodrom: 341 and 338 are both normative
tantek: these are i18n issues right?
eprodrom: yes
tantek: to handle this properly
we should resolve these before CR
... Especially since they came in from horizontal review
... The other option is that if we honestly believe these are
not going to affect implementatiosn we have to make a very
strong case to the director to say we have these outstanding
issues but we still think the document should go to CR and here
is our case. Hard but not impossible
... If you decide you want to pursue it it's an option
eprodrom: I think that my main
concern is that we went through a process that we resolved all
the issues and decided to go to CR and did the transiton
request and that from start to finish took about 4-6
weeks
... From the time we finished up the issues and got approval to
go to CR
... I'm wondering if we would be restarting the clock ont hat
or if we can just say we resolve these issues then go to CR
without th emeeting again?
sandro: Ralph said if we resolve
them by consensus including with the commentor we don't need
another transition meeting
... so if Richard and James and you are all cool with solving
these within in the next few days e can publsih at that
point
eprodrom: great
sandro: I thought you were cced on an email from Ralph saying that
eprodrom: I may have just missed
that
... Is our date still this week?
sandro: whenever you get it done, the next tuesday or thursday
tantek: waiting on the consensus and edits to happen
eprodrom: great. That's good
news. I'm going to let james know that we are waiting on
publication for him and then also double check with Richard
that we've satisfied him on 338
... and we would publish without another meeting of this
group
sandro: yep
tantek: Evan I think all you have
to do is make sure Richard is happy with the edits
... Once you've got the draft edited to resolve the issue
Richard needs to take another look to check those sections
align with his understanding
... Once you get that thumbs up you can publish. Assuming we're
not making other changes to the draft
... We're responding to a specific issue, nto affecting other
issues
eprodrom: I will take care of the editorial issues in the meantime
tantek: if anyone else in the group is concerned about this issue or wants to follow it just go ahead and comment on the issue
<eprodrom> https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams/issues/338
tantek: You'll be notified as
evan updates the issue with resolutions and that will be your
opportunity to offer your opinion or objection
... To be clear none of this is trying to sidestep the groups
ability to participate in this decision. Just tryign to
streamline
... So if you do want to keep participating in this particular
issue you can comment directly there. We're not taking it back
to a resolution vote in the group
... make sense?
eprodrom: if we don't have any further questions on AS2 I'll put my chair hat back on
cwebber2: I'm working on AP
implementation, mostly done but not publicly demonstrable.
Should be up by next week
... It's mostly in place now
eprodrom: Any other updates?
<ben_thatmustbeme> JF2 is just waiting for when we decide to publish them all
eprodrom: If no other issues or
actions to address time to wrap up
... tantek down for next week's chair
... Thanks everyone
<eprodrom> Thanks all
<annbass> thanks Evan, Amy and Aaron!
<tantek> aaronpk++
<Loqi_> aaronpk has 1068 karma (59 in this channel)
<tantek> rhiaro++
<Loqi_> rhiaro has 230 karma (120 in this channel)
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/:/,/ Succeeded: s/mythological/methodological/ FAILED: s/mythological/methodological/ Succeeded: s/PROPOSED/PROPOSED:/ Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: aaronpk Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Inferring Scribes: rhiaro, aaronpk Scribes: rhiaro, aaronpk ScribeNicks: rhiaro, aaronpk Default Present: rhiaro, annbass, eprodrom, dmitriz, aaronpk, sandro, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tsyesika, tantek Present: rhiaro annbass eprodrom dmitriz aaronpk sandro csarven ben_thatmustbeme cwebber tsyesika tantek Found Date: 19 Jul 2016 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2016/07/19-social-minutes.html People with action items:[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]