IRC log of social on 2016-09-23

Timestamps are in UTC.

08:01:54 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #social
08:01:54 [RRSAgent]
logging to
08:01:56 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
08:01:58 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
08:01:58 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
08:01:59 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
08:01:59 [trackbot]
Date: 23 September 2016
08:02:58 [aaronpk]
08:02:59 [rhiaro]
08:02:59 [tantek]
08:03:01 [csarven]
08:03:03 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #social
08:03:30 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
08:03:41 [tantek]
present+ AnnBass
08:03:46 [tantek]
present+ Arnaud
08:04:10 [tantek]
scribenick: AnnBass
08:04:25 [AnnBass]
Tantek: begin with agenda scheduling
08:04:58 [AnnBass]
cwebber2 shows mediagoblin video
08:06:51 [AnnBass]
applicable to social web concepts
08:07:21 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
08:09:04 [cwebber2]
08:09:23 [AnnBass]
decentralized ... federated ...
08:10:41 [AnnBass]
<discussion about the MediaGoblin fundraising campaign>
08:13:46 [AnnBass]
tantek: <agenda review>
08:14:11 [AnnBass]
... assuming we get through the agenda as listed, afternoon is open
08:14:30 [cwebber2]
08:14:31 [Loqi]
Social Web WG Face to Face Meeting in Lisbon (F2F7)
08:14:51 [AnnBass]
..... any other suggestions / edits / ?
08:15:09 [AnnBass]
sandro: <timing for Evan to come online>
08:15:53 [AnnBass]
... we had scheduled for 1:00pm Lisbon, 8:00am ? Evan's time ... may want an hour later
08:16:19 [AnnBass]
... hoping Evan will let us know before we go to lunch
08:16:36 [AnnBass]
tantek: left off with ActivityPub open issues
08:16:56 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: "source" field 107
08:17:27 [AnnBass]
... sugg putting a note in there
08:17:44 [AnnBass]
... your source has warning that if you edit this, you'll lose your previous source
08:18:49 [AnnBass]
rhiaro: yesterday it felt like blocking the user, but this seems like a warning
08:19:10 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: adds source, provides info for user to know what to do
08:19:52 [AnnBass]
tantek: what about server choosing what's canonical?
08:20:00 [AnnBass]
aaronpk: seems OK
08:20:19 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: I'd like to use this period to try this out, see if we can figure it out
08:20:37 [AnnBass]
tantek: you have implementation experience?
08:20:43 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: partially ...
08:21:14 [rhiaro]
s/partially/we've seen other pumpio implementations
08:21:27 [aaronpk]
s/seems OK/I wouldn't do it that way, but i'm not going to try to convince you to change to the other model. however this doesn't feel like it's been fully thought out all the way through
08:21:45 [AnnBass]
... tsyesika sugg we include history, but now we think that makes it too complicated
08:22:14 [AnnBass]
sandro: I'm hesitant about the Note only being informative .. esp if user is going to lose source
08:22:38 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: I'm hesitant to specify a UI when it might be improved
08:22:59 [AnnBass]
sandro: is there an idea about ActivityPub UI?
08:23:46 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: partially, "conformant client" ... could do this as "should"; don't think it should be "must"
08:23:56 [AnnBass]
rhiaro: what about doing something on server?
08:24:04 [AnnBass]
sandro: I"m cool with "should"
08:24:37 [AnnBass]
cwebber2: <edits comment in github>
08:25:02 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
08:25:37 [rhiaro]
RESOLUTION: Add source field to AP as at risk per proposal in activitypub/issues/107
08:25:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: There were no objections
08:26:04 [rhiaro]
arnaud: You sai dyesterday from a process point of view you can do the resolution liek this which is fine, I still think it's good to have the proposal listed in IRC before you do that
08:26:11 [rhiaro]
tantek: I called for objections, didn't get minuted..
08:26:14 [rhiaro]
sandro: for people who are remote
08:26:37 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> TODO: add proposal to minute above ^^^^^^^^
08:26:51 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: 106 is something I could do on my own but i wanted to get some clarity about testing requirements
08:26:57 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
08:27:02 [rhiaro]
... Testing servers is pretty clear to me. I can write a client that hits a bunch of URLs and does things
08:27:04 [rhiaro]
... Testing clients is a lot trickier
08:27:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: is that a validator?
08:27:16 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm trying to figure it out..
08:27:21 [rhiaro]
tantek: you don't have to figure it out right now
08:27:58 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I think the general plan is since there are a billion different systesm we can't touch UIs. We don't know the platform, we can't touch all those toolkits. What we can do is provide some sort of lightweight server that a client connects to, you get some prompts about the actiosn you were supposed to do and it asks you whether or not the expected behaviour happens
08:28:35 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
08:28:37 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: if it's like micropub where most of the spec is around CUD posts, my plan was to create a reference server that behaves the way that I expect a server to behave and have a bunch of tests that, eg. tell the client to create a post with these properties, to run it however they want to run it no under your control
08:28:43 [rhiaro]
... on the serverside you can check did these properties come through
08:28:56 [rhiaro]
... you tell the user your client needs to blah, and the server can check
08:29:01 [rhiaro]
tantek: can you write that down for micropub
08:29:07 [rhiaro]
... it's in CR, your test suite plan is up but not that level of detail
08:29:21 [rhiaro]
csarven: We're doing this as well, do you throw an error as to where they failed or what they should do?
08:29:38 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I did a lot of error rpeoritng with webmention in very fine detail in a way I would not do in a live implementation
08:29:47 [rhiaro]
... REsponses come back with here is exactly where you failed
08:29:48 [rhiaro]
... I'd do the same with micropub
08:30:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: You said you would have a couple of tests for mp by october 4, canyou include this elvel of detail in your plan for how to do the tests?
08:30:18 [rhiaro]
... Sounds like you have thought about it, I didn't hear chris object to the methodology
08:30:22 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I think it's a good idea
08:30:32 [rhiaro]
... I'm going to record it here
08:30:45 [tantek]
s/You said/aaronpk said
08:30:47 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: sure
08:31:06 [rhiaro]
sandro: so this is to clients
08:31:08 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: yes
08:31:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: when do you think you can have your tes tplan written up?
08:31:26 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: It's not the full test plan...
08:31:29 [rhiaro]
sandro: what do you mean by a test plan?
08:31:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: what is your approach?
08:31:52 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I think I can have a general here's what we're planning on doing?
08:31:58 [rhiaro]
tantek: it can be in or outside the spec, I want a date
08:32:06 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: by next meeting or the one after
08:32:09 [rhiaro]
tantek: so the 4th
08:32:17 [rhiaro]
... for a general plan to the level of
08:32:20 [aaronpk]
08:32:28 [aaronpk]
08:32:47 [rhiaro]
... if you can add more detail like you were just discussing, that's even better
08:32:48 [rhiaro]
... that's not a must have
08:32:56 [rhiaro]
sandro: would be nice if the prompts to the extent possible were the same..
08:33:04 [rhiaro]
tantek: general coodrination sounds like a good thing between cwebber2 and aaronpk
08:33:22 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: and can coordinate with rhiaro and csarven about LDN
08:33:33 [rhiaro]
... That wraps up this whole thing, we can do things closely
08:33:55 [rhiaro]
sandro: the server tests have to have ??
08:34:07 [rhiaro]
sandro: you need another server the server can federate to
08:34:20 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: yes... webmention does that
08:34:37 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: checking another server is behaving correctly was easy to figure it, it was just when you can't touch the client I was struggling with
08:35:04 [aaronpk]
08:35:22 [rhiaro]
sandro: It was nice to imagine micropub and activitypub clients can test both..
08:35:36 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: That's the test *plan*, not the tests?
08:35:39 [rhiaro]
tantek: Correct
08:35:47 [rhiaro]
... So we can have everything in place to go to CR
08:36:00 [rhiaro]
sandro: I always thought you should have at least one test working... we don' thave to do that now. THe bar is technically test plan
08:36:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: He can work on that while we're dealing with transition call stuff
08:36:12 [rhiaro]
... I'd like for us to be able to propose to the group asap
08:36:26 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I know how intesne these few months are gonna be, I'm going to be starting tests as soon as I can
08:36:36 [rhiaro]
... One reason I wrote pubstrate this way was to be the basis for something like this
08:36:58 [rhiaro]
sandro: CR is you're telling the world please try to implement this. If you tell me it's ready to implement I'm gonna say I'll wait til I have the test suite before I implement. I like test driven development.
08:37:12 [rhiaro]
tantek: That's your feedback as a propsective developer
08:37:22 [rhiaro]
... With mp we entered CR with how many implmentations?
08:37:27 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: A dozen clients, handful of servers
08:37:37 [rhiaro]
... Emprirical testing with each other
08:37:57 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: It would be great if we end up doing it
08:38:04 [rhiaro]
sandro: micropub is trivial compared
08:38:22 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: There's one issue left, needs process help
08:38:30 [rhiaro]
... 30 JSON-LD context
08:38:37 [rhiaro]
... I need to test it more to make sure it expands correctly
08:38:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: is this beyond the context for as2?
08:38:48 [sandro]
s/compared to the first W3C spec I implemented (OWL Full) so my perspective may be a bit different/
08:38:54 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: We have a a few additional things
08:39:04 [sandro]
s/compared/compared to the first W3C spec I implemented (OWL Full) so my perspective may be a bit different/
08:39:11 [rhiaro]
... We have an inbox endoint, outbox, followers, following, they're not defined in AS2 because they're applicable to APIs which talk to each other
08:39:19 [rhiaro]
... So ours imports the AS2 context, so you only need to put one on there
08:39:47 [rhiaro]
... Maybe if the namespaces thing turns out we can put it in AS2
08:42:08 [rhiaro]
... I would be totally happy to have it in AS2. I'ts likely to hit rec before AP does
08:42:19 [rhiaro]
... Putting it in the AS2 spec would require another CR
08:42:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: putting in the namespace is different because AS2 is not at rec
08:42:31 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I don't understand how that's different
08:42:40 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: If we can put this in AS2 that would simplify a lot o fthings
08:42:58 [rhiaro]
... I feel I need to talk to Evan and jasnell to find out what their feeling on it is
08:43:06 [rhiaro]
tantek: and you need to talk to sandro about the implications
08:43:18 [rhiaro]
... because there's not a consensus in the community about what adding to namespaces means
08:44:07 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: And it impacts one thing, currently we say the ld+json with profile, but having the as2 profile means it should be AP. It would be great if we didn't have that question, it would make things a lot easier if we could do things in AS2 namespace
08:44:12 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has left #social
08:44:17 [rhiaro]
... I've always felt this way. I just thought it wasn't possible
08:44:37 [rhiaro]
sandro: the whole community issue is about letting a WG defend its territory. Nobody would object if we said the AS2 ns is world writeable
08:44:47 [rhiaro]
... So that we can add to the ns in other specs, but also that other groups can
08:45:02 [rhiaro]
... I almost object to AS2 last december when we discussed CR, saying how to define the extension mechanism
08:45:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: there's no mechanism?
08:45:17 [rhiaro]
sandro: Right. The default is in the spec is use another namespace
08:45:31 [rhiaro]
... But that is totally messy because you have to use a bunch of namespaces, when you could just put them in if you agreed to do that
08:45:51 [rhiaro]
... So something with a community process that says this is okkay put it in the namespace. We couldd o that
08:46:00 [rhiaro]
tantek: we as a WG might not be arround, so we need to define a community process
08:46:06 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I hope we find out soon what that process is
08:46:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: we need a resolution to this before we enter CR
08:46:34 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: If it's possible to get a resolution before CR great, but the reason I used our own namespace is because I thought that was unlikely
08:46:56 [rhiaro]
... I don't want to end up having.. it would be worse to me to be caught up trying to negotiate vocab sutff which seems to be really complex in w3c right now, than to have a separate context
08:47:31 [rhiaro]
... I did write up a separate context file. AP in theory works if we can put this context file somewhere. I would like us ot put it somewhere in the meanwhile, and is it possible to put it out there and then remove it?
08:47:38 [rhiaro]
sandro: let's try to figure this out more through the day
08:47:47 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I really don't want to be blocked on CR by this
08:48:07 [rhiaro]
sandro: from your perspective you can say you'll use your own context..
08:48:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone have a objection to doing it either way?
08:48:22 [rhiaro]
... not preferences, objection
08:48:34 [KjetilK]
KjetilK has joined #social
08:49:12 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: If we are able to define our namespaces as writeable going forward that's awesome
08:49:21 [rhiaro]
arnaud: I agree with the sentiment, I just don't know how you make that happen practically
08:49:28 [tsyesika]
08:49:29 [rhiaro]
sandro: Something like the microformats process or the process
08:49:36 [tantek]
08:49:44 [rhiaro]
... Basically you need some benevolent dictator to manage a community that reviews and objects or doesn't object
08:49:54 [rhiaro]
... Since this is more under w3c... over lunch we'll figure out some..
08:50:02 [rhiaro]
tantek: is there an existing example of a community at w3c managing a ns that way
08:50:06 [rhiaro]
sandro: I don't think so
08:50:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: I'm hearing from arnaud a soft objection because we don't know if that could work
08:50:21 [rhiaro]
arnaud: I'm not objecting
08:50:36 [rhiaro]
... Look at the example we saw earlier with LDP. Ther'es nobody really around to say yeah sure
08:50:42 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I thought we had a bunch of LDP people in the room..
08:51:02 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Figuring out the extensibility of AS2 in the future is an orthoganal issue
08:51:03 [rhiaro]
tantek: right
08:51:13 [rhiaro]
... The isssue we are considering now is shall we try to add AP terms to AS2 right now
08:51:21 [rhiaro]
... vs shall we have a separate context for AP
08:51:36 [rhiaro]
sandro: Do we add it as a one time special case only we can do this, or do we add it as a first example of how to do an extension
08:51:39 [rhiaro]
... I'd prefer the latter
08:51:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: but that's not required. THere are no objections
08:51:57 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I have a preference for AS2 if it's possible
08:52:01 [rhiaro]
... But an overriding preference to ship
08:52:41 [rhiaro]
... We're going to try to figure this out before we enter CR.
08:52:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: We have to pick a date by which we decide which we're going with
08:52:53 [rhiaro]
... If by then we haven't, you have a way forward
08:53:20 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: So the answer seems to be if we can find out we're going to put things in AS2 namespace by some date (CR date)
08:53:25 [rhiaro]
... Shooting for Oct 11 for CR
08:53:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: no objection for the same date
08:53:53 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: So oct 11 if we can find out by then that we can put these terms in AS2 ns, we'll do that
08:54:02 [rhiaro]
... If we find out then we can't, I'll put AP ns
08:54:31 [rhiaro]
PROPOSAL: We'll wait until October 11 to find out if we can put these in AS2 vocab. If we can do that, we will. If not, I'll use AP's own namespace.
08:54:39 [rhiaro]
08:55:06 [rhiaro]
RESOLVED: We'll give until October 11 to find out if we can put these in AS2 vocab. If we can do that, we will. If not, I'll use AP's own namespace.
08:56:36 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
08:56:42 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: Preference to add to AS2. Preference to make our namespaces extensible according to some sensible process (CG, W3C ns extensibility policy) in the future.
08:56:57 [boris_anthony]
boris_anthony has joined #social
08:57:28 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Preference is to add to AS2
08:57:30 [rhiaro]
sandro: same
08:57:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone else want to indicate a preference on the record?
08:57:38 [sandro]
(as the first extesion!)
08:57:54 [rhiaro]
sandro: My preference is to add it to AS2 as an extension
08:58:06 [rhiaro]
csarven: with an extensibility mechanism?
08:58:07 [rhiaro]
sandro: yes
08:58:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
08:58:21 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: the upside of this is that it puts pressure to resolve this within a certain period of time
08:58:32 [rhiaro]
... Otherwise there's a consequence of AP getting its own namespace
08:59:43 [rhiaro]
tantek: action on sandro to define extensibiilty model that allows AP to add to AS2
08:59:51 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: All issues closed
09:00:12 [rhiaro]
tantek: We have discussion of prototypes, implementations, at risk features
09:00:28 [rhiaro]
... Do you ahve changes to AP, including resolutions during last 2 days, that would benefit from publishing a new WD?
09:00:36 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Someone read through it and helped me find editorial things
09:00:48 [rhiaro]
... fixing authz vs authn
09:01:12 [rhiaro]
... Something I'd like to do, this is pointed out to me with tremendous irony that I'm suggesting this, but I'd like to put the binary data stuff at risk, even though mediagoblin needs that
09:01:23 [rhiaro]
... Becasuse I think it might be the one thing that I'm least comfindent that other implementations that are not mediagoblin might get in on time
09:01:27 [rhiaro]
... I want it to happen
09:01:43 [rhiaro]
... But if it doesn't, it should not throw the rest of AP under the bus, because it will still work without it
09:01:49 [rhiaro]
tantek: There are no objections in the room
09:01:59 [rhiaro]
arnaud: It is good practice to explain why something is at risk in the spec
09:02:17 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'll capture that
09:02:53 [rhiaro]
... I notice that micropub has a much more fleshed out version of the media endpoint than we do. I took a look at ours again, and I'd like to clarify before I publish to new WD that section
09:03:02 [rhiaro]
... I'll look at micropub and what's happening in mediagoblin currently
09:03:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: do you have an issue to track that?
09:03:11 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'll add that
09:03:19 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: if it' snot changing the behaviour you can change the text
09:03:27 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm not sure, I need to check it's specified enough
09:03:31 [rhiaro]
tantek: if it might be normative change, file an issue
09:04:01 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: *files issues*
09:04:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: Given discussion about namespaces, and that breakout yesterday, I think it would be prudent to highlight that issue inline in the spec
09:04:47 [rhiaro]
... where it talks about the context and the namespace
09:04:49 [rhiaro]
... (editorial suggestion)
09:06:13 [bigbluehat]
Present+ Benjamin_Young
09:06:46 [newton]
newton has joined #social
09:07:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: We have next steps for you to publish a new revision
09:07:13 [rhiaro]
... We can continue WD to CR discussion later
09:07:17 [rhiaro]
... or in a future telecon
09:07:18 [rhiaro]
... Move on to LDN
09:07:24 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: break?
09:07:26 [rhiaro]
... coffee??
09:07:32 [rhiaro]
... *twitches*
09:07:47 [rhiaro]
various: it has started
09:08:07 [rhiaro]
tantek: coffee?
09:08:15 [rhiaro]
09:08:19 [rhiaro]
*break for 20 minutes*
09:08:23 [rhiaro]
1030 reconvene
09:10:13 [KjetilK]
csarven, I started a quickhack of LDN on the plane home last night: I had hoped to finish it on the plane, but the offline situation impeded the progress somewhat due to the lack of some documentation
09:11:18 [KjetilK]
now, I'm back to proposal writing, so I don't know when I'll more hacking time
09:14:32 [dan]
dan has joined #social
09:16:27 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
09:27:36 [rhiaro]
09:27:36 [Loqi]
kjetlk has 1 karma
09:30:38 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
09:33:24 [csarven]
KjetilK: ++ Please PR to
09:33:24 [Loqi]
kjetilk has 1 karma
09:33:38 [KjetilK]
09:33:42 [sandro]
issue before break:
09:34:17 [aaronpk]
scribenick: aaronpk
09:35:09 [aaronpk]
09:35:18 [aaronpk]
csarven: KjetilK who was here yesterday built an LDN receiver on the plane yesterday
09:35:31 [aaronpk]
... this is probably the more complicated part of the spec
09:35:46 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: the receiver has all the MUSTs, whereas the sender has a couple options
09:35:49 [aaronpk]
tantek: is it open source?
09:36:12 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yes, here
09:36:38 [aaronpk]
... one of my colleagues implemented LDN receiving and sending in a couple days last week in Python
09:36:43 [KjetilK]
it is just the discovery part still
09:37:32 [csarven]
Editor's Draft:
09:38:01 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: at the last meeting we said we'd publish a new WD and freeze this until TPAC
09:38:02 [csarven]
Changes since last WD:
09:38:08 [aaronpk]
... we had some feedback by email and Tim
09:38:19 [aaronpk]
... the current ED has these changes which are largely editorial
09:38:34 [aaronpk]
tantek: these look great. would you like to publish this as a new WD today?
09:38:46 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yes but let's do that at the end in case other things come up today
09:40:25 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: summary of LDN. there are three parts to LDN. one is a receiver, this is like a webmention receiver. it's an endpoint that accepts POST requests from senders. it also exposes the stuff it receives so that other things can read it
09:40:42 [aaronpk]
... we have the capacity to add acces control so the receiver can filter what it accepts so it can do spam control for example
09:41:00 [aaronpk]
... the activitypub use case is you'd expect your app to authenticate to read things from the endpoint
09:41:20 [newton]
newton has joined #social
09:42:11 [aaronpk]
... every existing LDP server can act as a receiver
09:42:44 [aaronpk]
sandro: can i try my soundbite version of this?
09:42:59 [aaronpk]
... in my mind, this differs from webmention in two ways. this relies on authentication so i can just send the content rather than sending a link to the content
09:43:18 [aaronpk]
... the second is it as the GET so you can see the content from the receiver, whereas webmention is a blind dropbox
09:43:58 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: it's not that it relies on authentication, it's that the verification process is up to the receiver. so you can have a publicly writable endpoint you can post to and do the verification by fetching, or you can do the verification by checking a signature, or whatever. so it handles any kind of notification payload
09:44:28 [aaronpk]
sandro: but if i didn't have any authentication, and if webmention had rel=mentions like ahs been brainstormed, then it seems almost equivalent to webmention
09:44:50 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: webmention requires you publish something at a URL whereas LDN does not
09:45:11 [aaronpk]
sandro: so you can send a notification from a browser, but you can't do that with webmention
09:46:15 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: just to be clear. with webmention, you'd write to some write storage you have and then send that URL to the endpoint, and the endpoint would go fetch that from the URL. with LDN, either the sender can write to the inbox directly, or can still tell you about a URL.
09:46:27 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yes and you can also include other information that the receiver can use to filter things out
09:47:36 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: to clarify the relationship between LDN and activitypub, AP says our delivery mechanism is the same. target->inbox is the same thing.
09:47:59 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: the mechanism is the same, but AP requires you use an activitystreams activity as the notification. LDN says you can use any payload.
09:48:25 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay. issues.
09:48:35 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we closed a bunch of issues last week. there's a couple left open.
09:49:54 [csarven]
09:50:24 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we closed #4 with agreement from sandro who opened it
09:50:34 [csarven]
09:50:38 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: issue 32
09:50:41 [csarven]
Now we discuss
09:50:50 [aaronpk]
... yesterday we talked about a backoff strategy with webmention
09:51:02 [aaronpk]
... webmention resolved to deal with this by adding to the user agent header
09:51:10 [aaronpk]
... so that someone being attacked by webmention discovery can find out what's going on
09:51:24 [aaronpk]
... but we have a bunch of JS considerations, where it's difficult or impossible to change the user agent in JS
09:51:36 [aaronpk]
... so that's not feasible for us
09:52:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: the problem was raised about servers talking to servers, that was the real world thing happening
09:52:09 [paulj]
paulj has joined #social
09:52:17 [aaronpk]
... but the scope of the actual problem was specifically servers talking to servers
09:52:28 [kaorumaeda]
kaorumaeda has joined #social
09:52:32 [aaronpk]
... but don't make the error that discovery is the problem
09:52:47 [aaronpk]
sandro: i think the reason is one server can hammer another without a human having a clue. whereas if a browser is happening something the browser will start being slow
09:53:25 [aaronpk]
csarven: they're both valid, what we're addressing here is one way of getting to it from the client, but from implementation experience it doesn't seem necessary for arbitrary user agents
09:53:53 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: in this case the webmention endpoint can control its user agent, but with this, anything can post to the inbox
09:54:07 [aaronpk]
tantek: i'm saying by doing that you're making an empirical error you're going beyond the bounds of the problem being solved
09:54:25 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: with the annotation protocol we'd like a notification system to publish a notation in the browser and notify arbitrary servers
09:54:41 [aaronpk]
tantek: the problem being describde was one server hammering another server
09:54:59 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: the sender could be another server
09:55:12 [aaronpk]
csarven: we added text to rely on existing cache headers
09:55:51 [bigbluehat]
here's a rawgit URL for the patch being discussed
09:56:01 [aaronpk]
aaronpk: yes this is the same conclusion webmention came to, which is URL-based throttling makes sense to respect cache headers, but that doesn't solve host-based throttling
09:57:38 [aaronpk]
sandro: we're all agreed about respecting cache headers, but we still haven't solved host-level throttling
09:57:56 [aaronpk]
csarven: how do we actually address the problem of getting senders to not hammer a host in the first place
09:58:07 [aaronpk]
... what the receiver should do whether the sender is following that or not is a different issue
09:58:19 [aaronpk]
... adding a requirement that helps the receiver solve its problem in our case is not a requirement we want to introduce
09:58:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: this entire scenario is about naive receivers
09:58:43 [aaronpk]
... so any requirements we put in the spec does not solve this problem
09:59:09 [aaronpk]
sandro: if you are being hammered ,you look at the user agent to discover why you're being hammered, so then you want to find out what you can do to stop being hammered
09:59:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: i made a request of webmention. to add an informative paragraph that says if you are receiving webmention requests and you don't want to handle them, then blank
09:59:52 [aaronpk]
sandro: it seems like whatever the solution there we can do with LDN too
10:00:08 [aaronpk]
sandro: let's say i'm yahoo, and i'm getting all these LDN discovery requests and for some reason it's annoying me
10:00:27 [tantek]
where "blank" is left up to webmention editorial description
10:01:40 [aaronpk]
aaronpk: but how does the receiver know it's an LDN discovery request, that's what the user agent is for, and i haven't heard LDN say they want to recommend using the user agent
10:01:50 [jungkees]
jungkees has joined #social
10:02:06 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
10:02:12 [bigbluehat]
here's the WebMention issue comment from yesterday's meeting:
10:02:13 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: maybe the JS user agents will not be causing problems at this scale because of their nature so them being unable to set their user agent is okay
10:02:35 [aaronpk]
sandro: once the user agent tells you the request is an LDN request, then what do I do to stop that
10:02:46 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: an OPTIONS request with a retry-after
10:02:51 [aaronpk]
sandro: so are clients required to do an OPTIONS request then?
10:03:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
csarven, rhiaro, just noticed there is a broken link to pubsHubhubbub in ldn ED
10:05:02 [aaronpk]
sandro: we can make this a little fuzzy. we can say if you're being hammered, set this OPTIONS header. and then if you think you're hammering someone, say you should respect the OPTIONS header
10:05:18 [aaronpk]
csarven: what are the other specs doing in similar situations? not necessarily within this WG
10:05:27 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: does annotations do discovery?
10:05:30 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: yes, via link headers
10:05:40 [aaronpk]
csarven: given the web architecture, is there a particular reason to mention this in the spec?
10:05:48 [aaronpk]
tantek: no, this was an empirically discovered problem
10:06:09 [aaronpk]
sandro: we could publish a WG note that talks about this problem in general and both LDN and webmention could link to it, which is about possible failure modes in discovery
10:06:29 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: i would think this exists, because the RDF world scrapes things all the time so someone has to have dealt with this at scale before
10:06:35 [aaronpk]
tantek: i appreciate your optimism, do you want to find that?
10:06:47 [aaronpk]
csarven: i don't know if SWP would be the best place to mention this
10:06:56 [aaronpk]
sandro: i would think a specific note about backing off in discovery
10:07:08 [bigbluehat]
Web Annotation Protocol's method of discovery uses Link headers/tags
10:07:10 [Loqi]
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Protocol
10:08:08 [aaronpk]
tantek: sarven made a proposal, which is that SWP add a section about this
10:08:20 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i wouldn't be opposed to putting it in SWP, and fine with separating it out if it's worth it
10:08:29 [paulj]
paulj has joined #social
10:09:08 [aaronpk]
PROPOSED: add a section to SWP describing the likely potential for server-to-server heavy load from discovery requests and approaches to mitigating
10:09:34 [aaronpk]
csarven: it's not necessarily server-to-server
10:09:36 [tantek]
10:09:59 [sandro]
+1 although I think we'll want to move it to a separate document
10:10:23 [aaronpk]
tantek: the high risk situation right now is server-to-server, so i don't want to water it down with theoretical other situations
10:10:39 [tantek]
10:10:43 [tantek]
ack sandro
10:11:26 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i've been trying to figure out if there's any context in which this applies to activitypub. but activitypub is much more specific about recipients. but bigbluehat hit on a good example of where this has heppened, which is a client to server scenario where someone is trying to extract their whole history
10:11:53 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: the reason i believe this document already exists is before this there was atom and RSS which use the same discovery mechanism so they were doing the same thing about discovering feeds
10:12:04 [aaronpk]
tantek: i agree, but there should have been evidence of this happening before
10:13:00 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: david, as standin for all of RDF at the moment...
10:13:19 [aaronpk]
... the case we're dealing with is doing discovery...
10:13:30 [aaronpk]
... are there known ways to encourage a backoff strategy from the client
10:13:39 [aaronpk]
david: sure, but that's not an RDF issue, that's an HTTP issue
10:13:51 [aaronpk]
... sure there are HTTP status codes, like "slow down your requests"
10:14:09 [sandro]
10:14:18 [rhiaro]
10:14:22 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: i'm trying to suss out if whether this is as ancient as i think it is
10:14:27 [aaronpk]
.. .and what others have done in this situation
10:14:46 [aaronpk]
... i don't think it's unique here and i'm looking for prior art here
10:15:11 [aaronpk]
david: i'm struggling to figure out why a 503 return code isn't appropriate
10:15:19 [aaronpk]
tantek: because the server is not too busy...
10:15:28 [aaronpk]
... it's closer to a 429 "too many requests"
10:15:31 [bigbluehat]
10:15:32 [aaronpk]
david: fair enough
10:15:37 [aaronpk]
sandro: "for use in rate limiting schemes"
10:16:20 [newton]
newton has joined #social
10:16:53 [aaronpk]
tantek: can we capture this as an action instead of continuing to discuss it here?
10:17:09 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: my concern is we were talking about doing things like sending a user agent, rather than using 429 or referencing prior art
10:17:25 [bigbluehat]
10:17:33 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: do we even need to say anything about this? HTTP is there, you can use those codes, we can just say this is not really our problem. it's a quality of the implementation problem
10:17:45 [sandro]
stack overflow about Retry-After
10:17:57 [aaronpk]
david: the old guys in the room would say you're right. the problem is the young guys are saying we need to give them context.
10:18:12 [aaronpk]
... they need some indications fro mthe spec that point out the potential warnings
10:19:03 [aaronpk]
tantek: so the proposal is to start with a note or section in the SWP document and that it may be worth spinning out into a new note
10:19:34 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: i'm happy to help with that
10:20:11 [aaronpk]
david: the bigger issue in the RDF world is the ease at which it is to write a SPARQL query that will hammer the server. but in the world of query languages there isn't a way to solve that.
10:20:18 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: is there a client need to point out always be carefule
10:21:03 [aaronpk]
david: maybe there is. an in-javascript implementation, the idea is you'd do federated queries but all the joins are done in browser, so all the subqueries going off are much less likely to be complex.
10:21:19 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay we have a proposal on the table, i'm not hearing any objections
10:21:42 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: this was about should we point out to clients while they're being built that they should be careful
10:21:57 [cwebber2]
I'll note that this is why when we get people telling MediaGoblin that we should abandon http and use $SOME_P2P_SYSTEM, while they're entirely wrong, they're also kind of right :)
10:22:15 [aaronpk]
sandro: the idea is we put this in SWP and have all the specs reference it
10:22:23 [aaronpk]
tantek: it sounds like you'd be okay contributing to that
10:22:25 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: sure
10:22:27 [rhiaro]
10:22:28 [sandro]
(all the specs that give client guidance)
10:22:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: if you agree with the proposal please +1
10:22:30 [bigbluehat]
10:22:31 [AnnBass]
10:22:31 [csarven]
10:22:32 [cwebber2]
10:22:38 [sandro]
+1 although I think we'll want to move it to a separate document
10:22:38 [aaronpk]
10:22:46 [david_wood]
david_wood has joined #social
10:22:51 [rhiaro] issue in SWP
10:22:51 [david_wood]
10:22:57 [david_wood]
10:23:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: let's declare that resolved
10:23:08 [jeff]
jeff has joined #social
10:23:35 [aaronpk]
RESOLVED: add a section to SWP describing the likely potential for server-to-server heavy load from discovery requests and approaches to mitigating
10:23:51 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: so we will remove the link in LDN until the SWP note exists?
10:23:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: what do you want to do about LDN
10:24:17 [aaronpk]
csarven: if the other document is more specific then it's preferrable to point to that. since the cache header bit is non normative
10:24:34 [aaronpk]
sandro: i'd say take this out and add a specific link to that section that says "if you're writing a client be aware of discovery issues"
10:24:44 [aaronpk]
csarven: and we remove the specific considerations
10:24:49 [aaronpk]
sandro: right cause that's going into SWP
10:25:36 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: next issue. namespaces #13
10:25:47 [aaronpk]
... we can definitely say this has been widely reviewed as a specific issue
10:26:09 [aaronpk]
sandro: can we say from this WG's perspective it's a trivial issue, we know LDN needs to use a namespace but that this group doesn't really care
10:26:11 [tantek]
10:26:31 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: side note, if we find out activitystreams is willing to add a property then you could just use that
10:26:49 [aaronpk]
... we were planning on sharing their terms
10:27:13 [aaronpk]
csarven: why LDN decided to use LDP inbox is we figured any out of the box LDP server should be compliant with LDN as a receiver.
10:27:27 [aaronpk]
... the only thing we needed to add was something like an "inbox" property, let's just reuse an existing namespace
10:27:46 [aaronpk]
... we have the opportunity to create our own namespace for the spec but for the LD community it doesn't make a lot of sense to introduce a new namespace for a single property
10:27:57 [aaronpk]
tantek: what do you think of chris' counterproposal
10:28:01 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: that's second best
10:28:13 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay is that a CR blocker?
10:28:18 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: it depends on how we describe it
10:28:38 [aaronpk]
sandro: tantek you suggested that couldn't be marked at risk
10:28:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: right beacuse it's a breaking change
10:28:52 [aaronpk]
csarven: it's true it will break, but the cost of the change is minimal
10:28:59 [aaronpk]
tantek: so it's potentially doable during CR?
10:29:12 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yes i think if we contacted every implementer during CR they would all be able to change it
10:30:14 [sandro]
rhiaro: It's just the link in discovery, so it's really easy to change
10:30:24 [aaronpk]
csarven: so the decision is still pending outside the group
10:30:35 [aaronpk]
tantek: so let's pick a date by which you will decide that you want to go to CR regardless
10:30:43 [aaronpk]
... the specific approach is up to you to decide
10:30:48 [aaronpk]
csarven: that's fine
10:31:16 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: it's LDP first, whatever activitypub does second
10:31:22 [aaronpk]
... or we can open a new namespace
10:31:36 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: for option 3 we might as well both coordinate
10:31:56 [sandro]
cwebber2: Option 1 == use LDP ns, Option 2 == use whatever AP uses
10:31:57 [aaronpk]
csarven: LDN is in a way agnostic about the type of things that can have an inbox
10:32:16 [sandro]
s/Option 1/Preference 1/
10:32:23 [sandro]
s/Option 2/Preference 2/
10:32:43 [sandro]
rhiaro: We don;t want to use a W3C namespace if that's also going to be frozen forever
10:32:52 [aaronpk]
csarven: sidenote about moving it down to AS... what i would worry is the type of things that vocabulary may have to indicate for things to have an inbox
10:33:04 [aaronpk]
.. for example the domain of some of these is an as object. we don't want that for LDN
10:33:32 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we just need to ensure when we put it into AS that nobody puts it in a domain that we don't agree with
10:33:35 [sandro]
rhiaro: IF this ends up in AS2, we'll be sure not to include an overly-restricting domain or range
10:34:37 [aaronpk]
tantek: just to be clear you have two weeks to figure this out, we don't need to solve it in this meeting
10:35:58 [aaronpk] request is the three of you have a decision by the 11th
10:37:18 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: are we going to change how we discuss the namespace in the spec right now?
10:37:53 [aaronpk]
csarven: there's already a note in the spec abotu this issue
10:38:15 [aaronpk]
tantek: as an aside, i'm going to ask that chris open similar i18n/security/accessibilty issues on activitypub
10:38:47 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: question. when we were going through our privacy/security section, we had some subsections marked as non normative. how do you decide if something is normative or not.
10:38:58 [aaronpk]
... we would like feedback on whether this is right
10:39:16 [aaronpk]
sandro: the one simple thing is if there are any 2119 things then it's a normative section.
10:39:25 [aaronpk]
tantek: it doesn't make sense to use normative langauge in a non normative section
10:39:36 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: some of this stuff feels normative but is optional and we don't know how to test it
10:39:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: normative optional things are fine
10:40:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: specific example, why is paging non normative
10:40:31 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we took this out of the main spec and moved it to a non normative section. it was normative because i wanted to point to consumers to be aware of paging.
10:40:43 [aaronpk]
... dmitri said we don't hve scope to deal with this
10:40:55 [aaronpk]
sandro: i look at this and i don't know what to do with it
10:41:29 [aaronpk]
csarven: we have this subscription mechanism thing. we didn't want to favor one.
10:41:32 [aaronpk]
tantek: you don't want to *require* one
10:41:47 [aaronpk]
sandro: i would lean towards just removing that
10:41:53 [aaronpk]
csarven: i don't want to have that text in there if it's confusing
10:42:14 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i wanted to point out to someone saying "why are there only 10 things in this inbox but they're always changing" that it's paging
10:42:40 [aaronpk]
tantek: another way to address this is to make an explicit note
10:43:00 [aaronpk]
sandro: you can say there was paging in earlier drafts of LDP
10:43:26 [aaronpk]
tantek: you can say "this specification does not define a paging model. there are the following notes that you may want to read ..."
10:44:44 [sandro]
10:44:46 [Loqi]
[Steve Speicher] Linked Data Platform Paging 1.0
10:44:56 [aaronpk]
aaronpk: better to include the note at the specific point in the spec where the reader will be confused about it. like you said, they will be confused when they make a GET request and only see 10 items, so add the note there
10:46:33 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: can we look at the rest of this section?
10:46:45 [aaronpk]
tantek: you could move the rest of the "content" considerations inline
10:47:15 [aaronpk]
tantek: it's unusual to have subsections that flip between normative and non normative
10:47:47 [aaronpk]
tantek: in general, entire security and privacy sections are non normative. "fyi"
10:48:07 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we don't specify a way to do verification, but say you SHOULD do verification but don't specify how
10:48:44 [aaronpk]
tantek: that's similar to the vouch extension to webmention
10:49:11 [aaronpk]
sandro: you could rewrite 5.4 to say "ways of verifying" instead of "SHOULD"
10:49:38 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i feel like making verification required is good
10:49:57 [aaronpk]
sandro: that's not security considerations, that's basic protocol
10:50:06 [aaronpk]
tantek: it sounds like there are pieces in here that should be moved inline
10:51:04 [aaronpk]
tantek: what sandro is getting at is if there is normative text in the "consideration" section then you should move those into the spec
10:51:30 [aaronpk]
csarven: what i'm worried about is are we supposed to have a test for that
10:51:43 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we say you "should" do verification but don't specify how, so how do we test that
10:52:34 [aaronpk]
tantek: the HTML spec required image formats, but didn't specify which formats
10:53:03 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: how about we make a text box and say "paste some JSON here that you will reject and we will send it to you and test that you reject it"
10:53:06 [aaronpk]
tantek: yeah that's fine
10:53:54 [aaronpk]
csarven: there's some repetition in the spec about things like discovery in the sender and receiver. if you're only reading the sender section then it makes sense. but we don't want to repeat that again, so part of having that consideration section is so we can refer to it from both
10:54:07 [aaronpk]
tantek: so you can still put that in a separate section, but call it something other than "consideration" so it sounds normative
10:54:37 [aaronpk]
tantek: did you consider filling out the security and privacy questionnaire
10:54:41 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yeah there's an issue for it
10:54:48 [aaronpk]
... does a11y have a similar checklist?
10:55:16 [aaronpk]
tantek: they don't yet, all they have is the horizontal review processes. my experience is they want issues to be fixed inline rather than a considerations section
10:55:27 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: do they have a checklist we should go through before asking them for feedback?
10:55:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: no
10:55:37 [aaronpk]
tantek: what is your approach to get wide review?
10:56:18 [aaronpk]
csarven: we have a list of people to contact
10:56:43 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we have a cursory list of implementations that exist
10:56:55 [aaronpk]
csarven: we think these are fairly close to passing but are obviously not tested
10:57:04 [aaronpk]
tantek: yeah that's similar to where micropub got to
10:57:26 [aaronpk]
tantek: are there any at risk features in LDN?
10:57:34 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: the activitystreams equivalency media type thing
10:58:13 [aaronpk]
... about interop between LDN and naive json implementations
10:58:27 [aaronpk]
sandro: basically if you're thikning in activitystreams and you're trying to post somewhere
10:59:15 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: according to AS, if you make a GET request wtih an activitystreams accept header, and get back LD json, instead of rejecting it you can ____ to make them accept it
10:59:27 [aaronpk]
sandro: that sounds like it should be a SHOULD
10:59:36 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we originally had that, but some people were not happy because it's not a real media type
10:59:55 [aaronpk]
sandro: the problem is this SHOULD does not apply to social web people, it applies to LD people
11:00:07 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: you can say i don't care about activitystreams and i'm going to reject them...
11:00:22 [aaronpk]
tantek: here's what you can do, if you want to interoperate with LDN then you MUST...
11:00:40 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: LDN shoudln't really be caring about this specific vocabulary. SWP does care about it.
11:00:51 [aaronpk]
tantek: it's an easy detail to miss since it's out of band
11:01:31 [aaronpk]
sandro: LDN is trying to be a cleanly orthogonal technology not actually tied to activitystreams
11:02:23 [aaronpk]
sandro: can you tell the story of when this would matter
11:02:32 [aaronpk]
... as a developer i'm trying to do something, how is this text going to affect me
11:03:01 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: if i'm an activitypub developer, like a client written in C that doesn't have a JSONLD library, so it uses plain JSON.
11:03:28 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: this happens in a lot of applications
11:03:40 [aaronpk]
... existing implementations, many people are not tuned into the JSONLD world
11:03:53 [aaronpk]
... so they are going to send JSON and not pay attention to the JSONLD
11:04:50 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i'm chris' friend and i have my own stupid php implementation of an inbox. chris' server wants to send me a notification. it can discover my inbox just fine, and send a post just fine, even though i don't care about activitypub and his doesn't care about LDN.
11:05:16 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: this is like a bridge between worlds where people don't care about each others' specs
11:05:16 [csarven]
"my own stupid php implementation" -- got URL?
11:05:55 [aaronpk]
tantek: we had a request to do this in webmention
11:06:20 [aaronpk]
... i think it's reasonable to add a non normative activitystreams considerations section in the appendix
11:06:31 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: so that someone can come to LDN and search for "activitystreams" in the document
11:06:43 [aaronpk]
... right now this is jammed normatively in the spec which is i think the problem
11:06:48 [sandro]
tantek: So make this an "Activity Streams Interoperability Appendix"
11:06:58 [aaronpk]
csarven: alternatives. i would prefer not to have it at all
11:07:06 [aaronpk]
... for the greater good i can see how it helps bridge tooling
11:07:18 [sandro]
(or sections: LDP Compatibility; and Activity Streams Compatibility
11:07:23 [aaronpk]
... but it seems to single out one particular way of doing things with LDN, and LDN's position has always been generic
11:07:36 [aaronpk]
... the spec isn't going to talk about any particular spec
11:07:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: in my experience the more of those you add in an appendix the more people are interested
11:08:17 [aaronpk]
sandro: i would expect to see a "Activity Streams Compatibility" section
11:08:29 [aaronpk]
csarven: but we don't single out any particular vocabulary to keep it open
11:08:48 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: one argument for it is we've explicitly called out the two specs
11:08:59 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: this increases the chances of an activitystreams person finding LDN
11:09:26 [aaronpk]
csarven: i'm okay with an appendix, just trying to get this across
11:09:36 [tantek]
this is the example from webmention that is worth considering a parallel of in LDN:
11:09:37 [Loqi]
[Aaron Parecki] Webmention
11:09:59 [aaronpk]
tantek: the section in webmention i think the editor was not happy about adding and adding this one section was the compromise
11:10:16 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: i think just because you can't list all the options isn't a good reason to not list any
11:10:24 [aaronpk]
tantek: i'd like to leave this to the editors' discretion to talk about it
11:12:12 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we have our exit criteria
11:12:22 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: as for wide review, we emailed many lists and people
11:12:29 [aaronpk]
... some have replied in private
11:12:56 [aaronpk]
... a research group in germany who did a full presentation with slides on LDN
11:13:05 [aaronpk]
csarven: their presentation compared semantic pingback with LDN
11:13:31 [aaronpk]
tantek: are the LDP people in the groups you've reached out to?
11:13:40 [aaronpk]
csarven: yes, in ??? group
11:14:10 [aaronpk]
tantek: bigbluehat can you speak to if the annotations group can review this?
11:14:20 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: now that our charter is renewed it's likely we'll be able to revisit this.
11:14:29 [csarven]
s/???/Web Annotations WG/
11:14:30 [aaronpk]
tantek: can we expect an email from the group in response to the request?
11:14:51 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: sure. some of us have already reviewed it.
11:15:05 [aaronpk]
sandro: specifically we want to say that the annotations WG has reviewed the spec and have addressed their concerns
11:15:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: are there any other WGs you want to absolutely get a response from?
11:15:52 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: is it worth hassling the data shapes group?
11:16:07 [aaronpk]
sandro: maybe you could review the specific section that mentions data shapes and say it's mentioning it in an appropriate way
11:16:22 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: yes the statement is correct. you want me to specifically ask the WG?
11:16:49 [aaronpk]
tantek: there is a greater burden of proof on this spec because it's progressed so rapidly
11:17:16 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we have a couple of w3c member reps not in the WG who plan to do implementations
11:17:51 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay you have the one outstanding thing to do before the 11th, and are about to send the call for horizontal review
11:17:56 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
11:18:09 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: can we do the rehash of this section before we publish?
11:18:22 [aaronpk]
... can we make a decision now to publish pending fixing all this stuff?
11:18:28 [aaronpk]
csarven: they were non normative changes anyway
11:19:23 [aaronpk]
PROPOSED: publish new WD of LDN including fixes resolved by the WG today
11:19:28 [sandro]
11:19:32 [aaronpk]
11:19:32 [rhiaro]
11:19:35 [csarven]
11:19:39 [cwebber2]
11:19:53 [aaronpk]
RESOLVED: publish new WD of LDN including fixes resolved by the WG today
11:20:01 [AnnBass]
11:20:35 [aaronpk]
tantek: i was going to ask to have 10 minutes for post type discovery
11:21:01 [bigbluehat]
11:21:17 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: Post Type Discovery
11:21:40 [aaronpk]
tantek: i've made 1 normative change in response to an issue, commenter has said "sounds fine".
11:21:51 [aaronpk]
... i did process al lthe issues and mark them up with editorial, or waiting for commenter
11:22:14 [aaronpk]
... i want more time to work on those, but i believe this one change is worth publishing a new WD
11:22:24 [rhiaro]
11:22:30 [Arnaud]
ack rhiaro
11:22:54 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: dret said "what is a valid value" and tantek listed 4 values, but my question is what if there are other valid values in the future?
11:22:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: then the spec needs to be updated in the future
11:23:10 [aaronpk]
... so it's confidence in the limited set we have
11:23:24 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: also those are english language valid values so there is an i18n issue
11:23:32 [aaronpk]
tantek: they are enumerated values
11:23:39 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: so any language has to use those as values?
11:23:41 [aaronpk]
tantek: correct
11:24:07 [aaronpk]
david: in relation to amy's concern, until we get some way of updating stuff like this routinely, the conclusion we came to was for WGs to make it clear what their intentions are
11:24:29 [aaronpk]
... so it woudl be great if this document said "here is a mechanism for dealing with updates in the future". it's a legitimate problem that we don't know what we're doing
11:25:08 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay i added a comment to the issue
11:25:37 [aaronpk]
... i feel like the spec is pretty stable, i'm going to update it over time with what implementations do
11:25:55 [aaronpk]
... there was a comment amy made in a blog post. that amy implemented something similar based on the UI fields
11:26:03 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i made something similar but has different priorities
11:26:14 [aaronpk]
tantek: can i ask you to file an issue and mention the priority order you came to?
11:26:20 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: yes but i don't want to commit to an order myself
11:26:31 [aaronpk]
tantek: sure but i'd like to capture the data point of what you implemented as implementation feedback
11:26:41 [aaronpk]
sandro: i don't understand.
11:26:52 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: it means i don't agree with tantek's order of what properties mean what post
11:27:21 [aaronpk]
tantek: i accept your implementation came to a different conclusion, and want to capture that in an issue
11:27:41 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i feel like there is no right way to do this and that's why i feel weird about it being a spec
11:27:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: the spec is largely a documentation of what various implementations were converging on
11:28:17 [aaronpk]
sandro: there's no way for me publishing content whether someone's going to use this algorithm or not, right?
11:28:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: right. as a publisher, you by publisihng the semantics you think are right, that the right thing happens
11:29:14 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i see this as a fallback for people who don't have specific opinions
11:29:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: as a content provider, you care about what implementations will do. this spec is doing your homework for you so you know what the majority of implementations are doing
11:30:10 [aaronpk]
sandro: so if i post something with a like-of and video, then it's a "like". but if i hear that amy is doing something different, now I don't know what to publish
11:30:23 [aaronpk]
tantek: this is like browsers and search engines, you don't know how the consumer is using it
11:30:31 [newton]
newton has joined #social
11:30:35 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: i want to ask amy, you don't want to do it this way?
11:30:55 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: my implementation predates the spec, and then this was written up and it's not how I want to do it.
11:31:11 [aaronpk]
tantek: this is the gathering of commonalities, so that's why i'm asking you to describe what you do
11:31:28 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: what track is this on? cause there are no SHOULDs/MUSTs/MAYs at all
11:31:46 [aaronpk]
... eventually it has to have a MUST in it otherwise it's a note
11:31:53 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: i think what ben is asking is what does it mean to be conformant
11:32:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: there's a conformance classes issue that has been filed
11:32:24 [aaronpk]
sandro: you can have a spec like a vocabulary spec that doesn't have any MUSTs that is still normative
11:32:26 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
11:32:37 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: amy, would you be willing to change your implementation to follow this algorithm?
11:32:50 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: there are some things that are weird, like the reply, since a reply could also be a photo
11:32:58 [aaronpk]
... i sort my post types by intention rather than by content
11:33:13 [aaronpk]
... a "photo" post doesn't make sense to me
11:33:38 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: AS2 dropped having a specific reply post type in favor of having a reply-to property
11:33:49 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: are these post types defined in microformats spec?
11:33:58 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: no, microformats is the implicit
11:34:09 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: what is the end result of this parsing algorithm?
11:34:13 [aaronpk]
tantek: it gives you a singular type
11:34:15 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: as...?
11:34:30 [cwebber2]
11:34:39 [rhiaro]
11:34:54 [Arnaud]
ack cwebber
11:35:19 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: when this originally came up, my original reason was being all for it was i was excited to have a route for mapping non-typed microformats to activitystreams
11:35:31 [aaronpk]
... so it would be useful if it specifically called out which activitystreams types it mapped to
11:35:55 [aaronpk]
... for example "Then it is an RSVP post" and then also which particular AS2 object
11:36:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think there was an outstanding issue for this
11:36:09 [aaronpk]
... the plan is to resolve it in the way you described
11:36:32 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: amy is your desire that the spec change to how you do it?
11:36:44 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: no, i think it's fine that there are different ways to do it
11:37:08 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: i was expecting this was note track. "this is a way to do it" rather than MUST/SHOULD and some other people do it differently
11:37:30 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: this is describing how *some* implementations do it
11:38:20 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: this would feel sounder if the implementations referenced had been developed in isolation instead of within one community
11:38:36 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: amy is saying she doesn't even care to have a recommended way to do this
11:39:42 [aaronpk]
csarven: it seems like you're using AS2 as an example. how would I know that when I read "rsvp" in a post that is' the same concept of an RSVP in the vocabulary i'm using
11:39:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: it references the microformats meaning of rsvp
11:40:03 [aaronpk]
...but i would like input if there is some other meaning of rsvp
11:40:39 [aaronpk]
tantek: to counter your point amy, a community has found value in converging, so i'm trying to reflect that
11:41:02 [boris_anthony]
boris_anthony has joined #social
11:42:24 [cwebber2]
q+ sandro
11:42:30 [cwebber2]
ack sandro
11:44:34 [sandro]
sandro: How about specifically flagging that a post uses this particular algorithm? eg type=auto-algo-1
11:44:34 [aaronpk]
tantek: in practice, almost every webmention receiver has implemented at least part of this algorithm based on which type of responses they display on their site
11:45:13 [cwebber2]
11:45:18 [aaronpk]
... for example when a receiver gets a post with a "like-of" property
11:45:52 [aaronpk]
annb: what i'm hearing is that tantek says a community has agreed to this, and amy is saying there is a much bigger world, so there are likely other possibilities
11:45:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: and my request was to give me that input
11:46:18 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: if this algorithm is run, what is the expected output
11:46:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: a post type
11:46:27 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: a post type in a specific format?
11:46:37 [aaronpk]
... in the case of this algorithm i would output an annotation which supports most of these types
11:46:48 [aaronpk]
... as the reader i wasn't sure what i would take away if i implemented this protocol
11:46:58 [aaronpk]
... what is the meaning of "a photo post"
11:47:09 [sandro]
11:47:11 [aaronpk]
... is it an activitystreams thing? a json object? something in my UI?
11:47:35 [aaronpk]
tantek: there's issue 9, use AS2 language for post types.
11:47:46 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: is that what you want the spec to be about? this is the spec for microformats2 to activitystreams2
11:48:10 [aaronpk]
... would i come here as an activitystreams developer? what about any other devleoper?
11:48:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: yes, if your system has a strict notion of what type this post is, then you can use this to say what is the one post
11:48:34 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: so where are these types defined?
11:48:36 [aaronpk]
tantek: in this spec
11:48:46 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: we're missing "what is an RSVP post"
11:49:10 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: you're saying these are more abstract types, you will call out how these will map to activitystreams but also how these map to other abstract types
11:50:14 [tantek] filed for Chris's point
11:50:49 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: what i'm concerned about is that this spec is creating a new vocabulary
11:51:10 [aaronpk]
... so why is there a need for an intermediate vocabulary that is more vague
11:51:32 [aaronpk]
... is it okay for the WG to spend its time on another vocabulary right now
11:51:54 [aaronpk]
... if there is a reason for this, it sounds like it's microformats mapping to AS2
11:52:10 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: [to tantek] how open to this idea are you?
11:52:22 [aaronpk]
tantek: my first cut will be to document that mapping. if it turns out that's enough then there's no need to add more vocabulary
11:53:53 [aaronpk]
aaronpk: my concern is that then my implementation wouldn't be using this spec since i don't use the activitystreams vocabulary
11:54:16 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: this seems better as something living on a wiki where it's a continuous documentation of what people are doing, rather than a technical recommendation
11:54:19 [rhiaro]
+1 bigbluehat
11:55:03 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think i understand what you're saying by not introducing a vocabulary and not wanting to make it a rec. i would say first use AS2, if your needs go beyond that then document that somewhere else. the only remaining piece that is left is the algorithm that is doing the mapping
11:56:32 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: right now it feels like colloquial oral history that needs to be documented, you'll find what overlaps and then you can spec that in the middle. but i don't feel like a w3c technical recommendation is appropriate, it has too much weight. if it's taking this set of conversations, and here's the bit of the venn diagram and how it maps into a particular w3c vocabulary then that's valuable.
11:56:56 [aaronpk]
... if you zero'd in with that as the use case for the document then you have a specific recommendation that we can ship in 3 months
11:57:15 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think i would agree with that assessment
11:57:28 [aaronpk]
... with one caveat, is that there are activities beyond what's in AS2 and i would want to add those
11:57:43 [aaronpk]
bigbluehat: what you do if that happens is say we don't know the future and have an extensibility section
12:00:14 [aaronpk]
tantek: i've made some editorial changes and addressed an issue, i would like to request publishing a new WD
12:00:27 [tantek]
updated WD staged:
12:00:28 [Loqi]
[Tantek Γ‡elik] Post Type Discovery
12:00:58 [aaronpk]
PROPOSED: publish new WD of post type discovery
12:01:25 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: one possibiltity is to highlight this outstanding issue in the WD
12:01:52 [rhiaro]
+1 with arnaud's suggestion of highlighting issues or calling out general todos
12:01:58 [sandro]
+1 given of course there are some important open issues to still resolve
12:03:57 [aaronpk]
12:04:05 [tantek]
rhiaro is there a specific issue you'd like me to incorporate inline before publishing?
12:04:06 [cwebber2]
+1 on the basis that the plan is to move towards adding AS2 types
12:04:10 [sandro]
annb: +1
12:04:35 [tantek]
rhiaro: this one?
12:05:08 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: the main question here is how likely is it that this is going to be microformats to as2 types.
12:05:16 [aaronpk]
tantek: i would expect that
12:05:19 [sandro]
tantek: to me yes, it's crucial, this is MF2 to AS2 types
12:05:45 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: my main concern is if this ends up as microformats2-to-vague
12:05:51 [aaronpk]
... specific-to-specific is okay
12:06:23 [aaronpk]
csarven: normally it's better practice that the thing you have maps to something rather than the other rway around
12:07:27 [aaronpk]
Arnaud: could add that note in the introduction where it says "type of post"
12:07:43 [aaronpk]
... it seems like people agree, so let's amend the proposal
12:07:57 [aaronpk]
RESOLVED: publish new WD of post type discovery, with the highlight of the issue regarding the type in the introduction
12:46:18 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
12:52:31 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
13:01:05 [david_wood]
david_wood has joined #social
13:01:11 [david_wood]
13:01:14 [cwebber2]
group photo time? ;)
13:01:31 [eprodrom]
13:02:12 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
13:02:15 [cwebber2]
did I ever present+?
13:02:18 [cwebber2]
13:02:23 [cwebber2]
just in case :)
13:02:37 [cwebber2]
ok, we're going to take a group photo with the remote participants on the laptop :)
13:02:48 [cwebber2]
though a few people are still trickling back
13:03:08 [paulj]
paulj has joined #social
13:14:06 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
13:15:59 [kaorumaeda]
kaorumaeda has joined #social
13:17:19 [newton]
newton has joined #social
13:18:44 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
13:19:48 [cwebber2]
13:20:23 [sandro]
13:20:55 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #social
13:21:02 [rhiaro]
13:22:59 [rhiaro]
tantek: Where are we with open issues?
13:23:08 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: our open issues are primarily editorial
13:23:18 [rhiaro]
... We've had a number opened since the CR announcement, but typically editorial
13:23:26 [sandro]
13:23:27 [rhiaro]
... So these are ones we're going to be able to knock down prett quickly
13:23:32 [rhiaro]
... THere are a couple we may have to dig into further
13:23:36 [rhiaro]
... Primiarly they're editorial
13:23:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: any normative issues the group can help you resolve?
13:24:31 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: The only one I see that *beep*
13:24:41 [sandro]
(we're having audio problems due to network problems :-( )
13:25:20 [sandro]
Aaron's switching to his phone network instead. Hold on.
13:25:25 [eprodrom]
Julien can you mute?
13:26:16 [eprodrom]
I can't hear you any more
13:26:30 [eprodrom]
I'm going to try reconnecting at this point
13:26:32 [sandro]
we're trying to get the network working
13:26:44 [sandro]
we think it's at our end, but sure, try reconnecting.
13:28:07 [csarven]
tantek: eprodrom , could you paste issue URLs to chat
13:28:28 [eprodrom]
13:28:33 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
13:28:45 [eprodrom]
This is from Sandro, posted just a few hours ago
13:29:07 [sandro]
this group has discussed in thoroughly - I was documenting the outcome of that.
13:29:50 [eprodrom]
13:29:52 [eprodrom]
That's what I assumed
13:30:28 [aaronpk]
eprodrom, did you get dropped from the call?
13:30:36 [eprodrom]
I did, I'll reconnect
13:31:14 [eprodrom]
OK I'm back
13:31:17 [eprodrom]
Sorry your audio is going in and out
13:31:43 [julien]
julien has joined #social
13:31:50 [julien]
hey hello!
13:31:57 [tantek]
hello julien!
13:32:02 [tantek]
scribenick: rhiaro
13:32:11 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: issue 370 is brand new, do we have a resolution?
13:32:17 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
13:32:21 [rhiaro]
sandro: We discussed at the f2f, I thought jasnell might have an opinoion
13:32:25 [rhiaro]
... Maybe we can talk about it more
13:32:33 [rhiaro]
... My writeup was opinionated compared to what we said around the table
13:32:47 [rhiaro]
... Where should as2 extensions go? What namespace should they use? Case in point being AP
13:32:56 [rhiaro]
... In particular should eeach extension go in its own
13:33:02 [rhiaro]
... In which case the AS2 ns is frozen forever
13:33:18 [rhiaro]
... The other end is that the AS2 ns somewhere we can keep adding as new things come along that seem reasonable
13:33:22 [rhiaro]
... Where we set the bar I"m not sure
13:33:32 [rhiaro]
... This WG can make decisions from the beginning, and as we wind down we spin up a CG
13:33:56 [rhiaro]
... I propose the bar at, like ietf fo rmost new things, somebody proposes it and if there's no good reason not to lget it go forward after a few weeks of discussion it is improved
13:34:09 [rhiaro]
... There's a danger of you end up with a bunch of things that aren't used, but that's less dangerous than setting the bar too high
13:34:14 [rhiaro]
... Being more welcoming toe xtensions is the right attitude to take
13:34:32 [rhiaro]
tantek: general feeling?
13:34:58 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: My main concern with adding things to the AS2 namespace, one objection is ??? always be additions of features
13:35:09 [rhiaro]
... If we are modifying object or person or something it would really require doing a new namespace
13:35:12 [sandro]
Clarification --- this is append-only
13:35:14 [rhiaro]
sandro: absolutely, it would be append only
13:35:27 [sandro]
and additions would be clearly indicated as to maturity
13:35:31 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: If we can manage that then we could have a reasonable expectation of backwards compatbility as the extensions occur
13:35:48 [rhiaro]
... If' I'm usin gAS2 ns today I'm expecting it to have a certain number of properties, adding a new class would not affect me
13:36:11 [rhiaro]
... The other one would be ???
13:36:12 [tantek]
the other one would be ...
13:36:12 [sandro]
+1 we wont break anything marked as stable
13:36:18 [sandro]
(ie things in the CR)
13:36:22 [rhiaro]
... think of any case today would expect particular class or property not to exist
13:36:52 [rhiaro]
... that sounds kind of funny but if I was going to assume that surnames do not exist but then it does, what would that mean
13:37:00 [rhiaro]
... We don't really have any cases where that happens so I don't think it's an issue
13:37:09 [rhiaro]
sandro: I think the way extesniblity is defined in the spec right now that won't be a problem
13:37:37 [cwebber2]
13:37:39 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I support this
13:37:44 [cwebber2]
namespace party!
13:38:43 [sandro]
PROPOSAL: Accept Proposal-2 from, being clear we're committed to keeping stable things stable
13:38:57 [cwebber2]
q+ for after 370 resolution to discuss
13:39:28 [sandro]
details like "14 days" subject to being revised by the group, with a public comment period
13:39:31 [rhiaro]
13:39:32 [cwebber2]
13:39:36 [sandro]
13:40:58 [csarven]
13:40:58 [eprodrom]
13:41:10 [bigbluehat]
13:41:13 [Arnaud]
Arnaud has joined #social
13:41:19 [aaronpk]
13:41:21 [rhiaro]
tantek: that looks like consensus
13:41:28 [sandro]
RESOLVED: Accept Proposal-2 from, being clear we're committed to keeping stable things stable
13:41:52 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: doesn't have to be right now, but I'd like to discuss closed issue 312
13:41:59 [rhiaro]
tantek: eprodrom, any other issues you want help resolving?
13:42:11 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think all the normative ones that are up there we're set
13:42:22 [rhiaro]
... let's discuss 312
13:42:36 [rhiaro]
... Very few actually none properties of AS2 are required. No MUSTs.
13:42:51 [eprodrom]
13:42:59 [rhiaro]
... The only property we have is name with a SHOULD
13:43:12 [rhiaro]
... If you run an AS2 document through the validator, it will give you an error for objects which don't have the name
13:43:26 [rhiaro]
... there was some question about whether we shoul dalways have a name
13:43:28 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
13:43:44 [rhiaro]
... Should it be a SHOULD? we've gone through this a couple of times and I think we decided to keep it a SHOULD
13:43:55 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I remember not being pleased with it being a SHOULD
13:44:07 [rhiaro]
... rhiaro and I have been doing implementatons and both ran into issues where we weren't rpoviding names when it didn't make sense
13:44:18 [rhiaro]
... I'm not sure I agree with the view that if you can't think of a good name provide a stupid name
13:44:27 [rhiaro]
... That means in my consuming code I can't tell if a name is a good name or not
13:44:31 [rhiaro]
... Name is used to indicate a subject
13:44:37 [rhiaro]
... in AP
13:44:47 [rhiaro]
... If a subject isn't provided you could pull it from the post itself, but taht should be up to the UI
13:44:55 [rhiaro]
... rhiaro ran into places where names didn't make sense
13:44:55 [tantek]
13:44:59 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
13:45:04 [rhiaro]
... And then the things she was producing were not validating
13:45:05 [tantek]
ack cwebber
13:45:05 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to discuss after 370 resolution to discuss
13:45:16 [rhiaro]
tantek: the validator was enforcing a should which makes sense
13:45:22 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: the pumpio community does not always use name
13:45:33 [tantek]
13:45:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: (makes sense in the current spec)
13:45:44 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: pumpio is as1. There are cases where there's not a name
13:46:39 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: what chris said
13:46:39 [tantek]
13:46:42 [rhiaro]
... I have activities without names
13:46:48 [rhiaro]
... they are redundant in many cases
13:46:53 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: right, why would a like need a name
13:47:11 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: from the pov of an implementor that typically having... like needs a name in pumpio you see it in the minor feed
13:47:22 [rhiaro]
... It's nice to have it
13:47:33 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I'm going to argue this is an i18n problem if you end up requiring a name
13:47:36 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
13:47:39 [rhiaro]
... You could say 'blah liked it' in the native language
13:47:52 [rhiaro]
... So if you require that and then you use it because tha'ts provided even if it's stupid it'll be english only
13:47:58 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: namemap
13:48:11 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: are you going to end up dumping a huge namemap on every object that's a like?
13:48:34 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: Client can craft that string from other properties in appropraite language
13:48:49 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: so the issue is it's a should?
13:48:55 [rhiaro]
... It inherits from atom title which was a must
13:48:59 [rhiaro]
... everybody hates the must in title
13:49:00 [eprodrom]
13:49:02 [rhiaro]
... so it's moving down the stack
13:49:07 [rhiaro]
... but I don't know that you should push it all the way toa may
13:49:12 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: It could be an informative note
13:49:25 [rhiaro]
tantek: I'm going to flip this and say unless there's a justification for the normative requirement it shouldn't be there
13:49:34 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: is the bigger issue it's for all types?
13:49:37 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: yeah
13:49:48 [rhiaro]
tantek: what problem is it solving that it is a shoudl?
13:49:59 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: the point with atom is you'r egonna list stuff so you need a text string to click on
13:50:06 [rhiaro]
... atom said if you don' thave the title put the date
13:50:09 [rhiaro]
... most people put in title
13:50:13 [rhiaro]
... but it was the thign peopel tripped over with comments
13:50:19 [rhiaro]
... jasnell had to deal with title there
13:50:23 [tantek]
13:50:44 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: if you don't want to put a nmae, don't put a name. It's a SHOULD
13:50:53 [rhiaro]
sandro: if somebody makes up a bad title it's not ignorable
13:51:02 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: if he can't always trust the name he will never trust the name
13:51:11 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: Iwouldn't be able to tell how to trust it
13:51:20 [tantek]
q+ csarven
13:51:23 [rhiaro]
... Other people would implement things based off the validator and I would no longer be able to tell if it's useful
13:51:43 [rhiaro]
... There are certain types where if somebody supplies a name I would show it, and if someone hasn't, I wouldn't want to put subject: name
13:51:51 [tantek]
ack csarven
13:52:27 [rhiaro]
csarven: jasnell mentioned a while back that not everything is backwards compatible, so wehther this is one of those things we want to carry forward, bigbluehat said it was must before, whehter that's even a concern at this point
13:52:37 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: the ohter option is to make it a may
13:52:57 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: or just don't say anything
13:53:06 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: what will break if there is no name?
13:53:07 [tantek]
13:53:13 [eprodrom]
13:53:20 [rhiaro]
... what's another story?
13:53:31 [rhiaro]
tantek: consumers believe they need soething (like a reader), like to click on, that's reasonable
13:53:42 [rhiaro]
... Due to .. I don't know where this methodology came from - results in a *publishig* requirement
13:53:58 [rhiaro]
... Which results in the unintended consequence of publishers making up an x when they are required to have an x ,where they otherwise wouldn't
13:54:11 [rhiaro]
... Then the consumer sees that and thinks this is garbage, I can no longer depend on a thing I wanted to be able to depend on
13:54:28 [rhiaro]
... The leap is from consumer things they need x to spec says publisher is required to publish x, which is a bad methodology
13:54:47 [rhiaro]
... no one is disagreeing with the consumer need, the problem is with the logical leap to therefore make that a publisher requirements
13:54:57 [rhiaro]
... I don't know where that logic became accepted
13:55:05 [rhiaro]
... empirically it has been proven as a failed design approach
13:55:29 [tantek]
13:55:31 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
13:55:59 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: one side then the other side
13:56:14 [rhiaro]
... We have a comment. It doesn't really have a title, but if we need to refer to it we have to make up some sort of name for it
13:56:28 [rhiaro]
... we can have every single consumer that sees that comment make up a fake name
13:56:36 [rhiaro]
... or we can have the publisher make a fake name
13:56:51 [rhiaro]
... it's making it easier on the consumers to say hey publishers we know it's going to need a fake name so you make it up
13:56:59 [tantek]
q+ to note consumers end up preferring to know when it is a real name vs a made up name
13:57:07 [rhiaro]
... sounds nice, th eonly problem is now we have given a fake name ????
13:57:35 [rhiaro]
... If we have a publisher assign that fake name 'a comment by chris' we've given it the same kind of meaning as a name that was assigned by a user
13:57:41 [cwebber2]
q+ to say that "if we're saying it's a SHOULD so it's not required enough, every client has to produce a fallbck anyway"
13:57:43 [rhiaro]
... that probably is meaningful in context
13:57:55 [newton]
newton has joined #social
13:57:58 [rhiaro]
... we would expect that consumers should be very respectful of names and titles created by a user, but not need to be as respectful as made up names
13:58:03 [rhiaro]
... may want to internationalise them
13:58:03 [cwebber2]
13:58:14 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
13:58:27 [rhiaro]
... I see the point that chris has that leaving out a name says that this object doesn't have a meaningful name, and you can use any kind of context clues liek it's type or it's author in order to create a name
13:58:46 [rhiaro]
... and you can internationalise that, you can call it a tweet instead of a comment, or a status update instead of a note
13:58:56 [rhiaro]
... so it actually gives consumers, even though they have that burden, it gives them freedom
13:58:57 [tantek]
13:58:59 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +++++++1
13:59:03 [cwebber2]
ack cwebber
13:59:03 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to say that "if we're saying it's a SHOULD so it's not required enough, every client has to produce a fallbck anyway"
13:59:33 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: You started to say the other side of things, which is we want to give them something, so fill in something... and that's why publishers sholud give the name. BUT it was also previously said that this is a should so don't die on that hill
13:59:47 [bigbluehat]
13:59:47 [rhiaro]
... But it means that every service has to privde a fallback *anyyway* as it was a should
13:59:58 [rhiaro]
... but that was yes to what you said.
14:00:01 [tantek]
ack tantek
14:00:01 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to note consumers end up preferring to know when it is a real name vs a made up name
14:00:03 [rhiaro]
... local context, internationalisation
14:00:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: implementaiton experience with this.. when consuming code designers start out requiring a name, and people or algorithms start making up names. Then consumers would rather know if names came fro the user or were made up
14:00:44 [rhiaro]
... and the information as to whether it's made up or real turned out to be crucial
14:00:46 [cwebber2]
+1, knowing whether it's synthetic or intentional is good
14:00:52 [cwebber2]
14:00:58 [rhiaro]
... and they went to great contortions to detect if it was made up or not and decide what to display it
14:01:19 [rhiaro]
... the consumers thought they wanted something, but givne the interactions that occurred they ended up not wanting the name unless it was from the user
14:01:32 [rhiaro]
... and rather than show a synthesised name they would show nothing and that tells me that it is bad advice to lean on the should
14:01:33 [aaronpk]
+1 I have actually written that code
14:01:35 [dan]
dan has joined #social
14:01:38 [rhiaro]
... to lean on pushing people to provide a name
14:01:40 [cwebber2]
I really want the info of "nobody has provided a name" :)
14:01:46 [rhiaro]
... and make it a may and list specific situations where it's a sholud or a must
14:01:56 [rhiaro]
... I commented on the issue with that
14:01:59 [tantek]
14:02:04 [tantek]
ack bigbluehat
14:02:19 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: I think there's agreement that there are places where you MUST provide a name. I think rhiaro just said that. Articles and things
14:02:25 [rhiaro]
... The question is really the vector of control over the name
14:02:28 [rhiaro]
... What wholud happen in that case
14:02:36 [rhiaro]
... IN the case of atom they MUSTed it, SHOULD is not a requirement
14:02:56 [rhiaro]
... hopefully implementors are sane enough to say this is a shoulld but I'm trafficking in likes so I can leave it out
14:02:57 [rhiaro]
14:03:06 [aaronpk]
14:03:07 [rhiaro]
... if they provide a title your implementation can ignore it or replace it
14:03:44 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: we have 3 implementations that have run into this
14:03:53 [aaronpk]
q- i forgot what i was going to say
14:03:58 [aaronpk]
14:04:09 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: is the recommendation to reduce name to a may?
14:04:22 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I think we can drop it and have a note that encourages supplying a name wher eappropriate
14:04:41 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: i want the case aaddressed where there are types which must have a name
14:04:53 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
14:04:58 [rhiaro]
... is a Note sufficient for that use case
14:05:14 [rhiaro]
... Or is there a way to specify name contextually such that it is a MUST on article and not on everything else
14:05:22 [rhiaro]
... That sounds more like the issue that's being addressed
14:05:41 [csarven]
14:05:52 [rhiaro]
... not that name is bad, but there are scenarios where giving the publisher the power over the name is that they might give me crap
14:06:03 [tantek]
14:06:12 [rhiaro]
... the bigger question is over what types should the publisher have authority even if they send you crap
14:06:32 [rhiaro]
... and at what point does the client need to care whether or not there must or may not be a name, and trust that even if the publisher does soething insane it should still display it
14:06:38 [rhiaro]
... and which you want to encourage more to do the right thing
14:06:47 [rhiaro]
... do you encourage the client to ignore name on Like
14:06:54 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
14:07:30 [rhiaro]
... my concern is that if you lower it too much and ??
14:07:40 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: SHOULD means MUST unless really good reason
14:07:48 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: web platform tests is not made to test shoulds
14:07:52 [rhiaro]
... thefore it's ignorable
14:07:58 [rhiaro]
... you can't fail a tes tbecause of a should
14:08:04 [cwebber2]
14:08:06 [rhiaro]
... web platform tests says shoulds are irrelevant
14:08:17 [rhiaro]
... if you only do the musts you ust be able to pass the tests
14:08:31 [rhiaro]
... so what we've done is hack the wpt code to still test the shoulds and not fail, but provide a note
14:08:33 [cwebber2]
14:08:42 [rhiaro]
... and now we're arguing about wpt about whethers houlds should be testable
14:08:50 [cwebber2]
q+ to say that I don't want a SHOULD when it's the wrong thing, in the case of a Like, regardless of tests
14:08:52 [rhiaro]
... which is why I say they have no meaning when it comes to implmenetation and will pass the tests
14:09:03 [rhiaro]
... and some people will go out of their way to do shoulds, but as far as passing they only have to do the musts
14:09:26 [rhiaro]
tantek: in practice it hasn't been ignored
14:09:27 [rhiaro]
14:09:40 [tantek]
ack csarven
14:09:41 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: I'm talking about testing to pass rec
14:09:59 [rhiaro]
csarven: in response to tantek's proposal here and what bigbluehat has been saying about whether some of the properties would fall under musts or shoulds
14:10:07 [rhiaro]
... in some cases it seems like it makes sense, some cases you can get away without
14:10:34 [rhiaro]
... what I'd like to know is the cost of those differentiations.. if I have this vocabulary in mind and I"m implementing would I always think name is a global thing I can apply to everything, or is it only applicable to some of those objects
14:10:45 [bigbluehat]
14:10:54 [rhiaro]
... On one hand name I can put it anywhere if I want
14:11:04 [rhiaro]
... bigbluehat is cautioning going all the way from must, should or possibly going with may or omitting
14:11:05 [tantek]
14:11:09 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
14:11:12 [tantek]
ack cwebber
14:11:12 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to say that I don't want a SHOULD when it's the wrong thing, in the case of a Like, regardless of tests
14:11:23 [boris_anthony]
boris_anthony has joined #social
14:11:25 [tantek]
agrees with cwebber
14:11:42 [rhiaro]
cwebber: I wanted to say that even if it doesn't matter to pass the tests, SHOULD feels highly instructive to an implementor
14:11:51 [rhiaro]
... that really isn't what I want to tell somebody for every like
14:11:54 [tantek]
14:12:07 [rhiaro]
... it seems like what we started talking about is that maybe the should is in the wron gplace
14:12:11 [rhiaro]
... if it's on article I'm fine with it
14:12:18 [tantek]
14:12:19 [rhiaro]
... that's th eone thing in the spec I can say yeah I expect every article I read to have a title
14:12:31 [rhiaro]
... I don't expect it of a note, or a tweet, but I expect every aritcle I read in the newspaper to have a title
14:12:41 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
14:12:49 [eprodrom]
14:13:53 [tantek]
ack bigbluehat
14:14:29 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: just to call out that kongaloosh and my own experience feeling obliged to generate a name from the SHOULD
14:14:36 [tantek]
14:14:44 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: there is at least one case where there should be a name, which is Article
14:15:16 [rhiaro]
... I don't want to hurt that
14:15:19 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
14:15:36 [rhiaro]
eprodrom: I think I agree with making this a may and should on article
14:15:44 [rhiaro]
... The only reservation I have is that james has a strong opinion about this
14:16:01 [rhiaro]
... he's made some pretty stroing points about it before so I"d like to get his opinoin before we change it
14:16:04 [bigbluehat]
current spec text on the topic: "While all properties are optional (including the id and type), all Object instances should at least contain a name (or equivalent nameMap)."
14:16:07 [bigbluehat]
14:16:09 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
14:16:26 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Remove SHOULD from name/nameMap on general Object and add SHOULD to name/nameMap to Article.
14:16:28 [bigbluehat]
14:16:30 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
14:16:57 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I would be okay with MAY there, I just don't think we need it
14:17:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: the reason this came up is because you and rhiaro cited new data, implementation experience, which helps us drive changes during CR
14:17:24 [rhiaro]
... I think that is sufficent to justify a change if we have consensus
14:17:31 [rhiaro]
... opinions?
14:17:38 [rhiaro]
sandro: jasnell can formally object when he reads the minutes or proposal
14:17:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: so, vote
14:17:42 [rhiaro]
14:17:44 [cwebber2]
14:17:46 [aaronpk]
14:17:47 [AnnBass]
14:17:51 [sandro]
+1 seems like the right solution
14:17:56 [tantek]
14:18:10 [eprodrom]
14:18:16 [bigbluehat]
+0 not sure Article is the only case; needs more discussion
14:18:34 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: this proposal does not block adding it to other things
14:18:34 [csarven]
+1 to Article (possibly for the others)
14:18:47 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Remove SHOULD from name/nameMap on general Object and add SHOULD to name/nameMap to Article.
14:19:22 [sandro]
sandro: Our understanding is this does NOT require a new CR, because it doesn't make any implementations need to change
14:19:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: evan wants to check with james before making the change
14:19:26 [jasnell]
-1. special casing it doesn't really buy anything and SHOULD still allows for exceptions where needed
14:19:48 [eprodrom]
14:19:57 [sandro]
jasnell, want to call in? We're on google hangouts.
14:19:58 [eprodrom]
My screen froze; rejoining
14:20:21 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: what we're saying about special casing is my +0ing concerns
14:20:42 [rhiaro]
tantek: this argumenet that SHOULD allows for exceptions is not sufficeient, it's not new
14:20:47 [rhiaro]
... we need new data
14:20:50 [cwebber2]
14:20:54 [cwebber2]
could you call in?
14:20:54 [rhiaro]
sandro: we can't ignore jasnell's -1 without hearing them out
14:21:14 [rhiaro]
tantek: we're looking for new information
14:21:16 [jasnell]
can't at the moment, will just comment here: the whole reason it's a SHOULD is because implementation are not expected to understand all @types
14:21:44 [cwebber2]
jasnell, did you read my i18n concerns
14:21:53 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
14:21:55 [jasnell]
if the implementation wants to be able, at a bare minimum to say "Sally uploaded a thing", the name gives a minimal bit of display for the "a thing" part
14:21:58 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I would say that if you're making an extension, and you don't think people will be able to figure out how to lable it, *put a name there*
14:22:20 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> but not that everyone is required ot put *something*
14:22:29 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> we're not saying Article is the only thing that can have a name
14:22:40 [jasnell]
if we want to say that for any type NOT in the core vocabulary, make it a should, but for everything in the core vocabulary it's a may, then I can live with that
14:22:54 [aaronpk]
wait wait this is different
14:22:56 [aaronpk]
14:23:00 [tantek]
14:23:03 [tantek]
ack aaronpk
14:23:09 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: there are two totally different things going on
14:23:17 [rhiaro]
... 1. Some objects have a user entered name where the user is typing out a thing
14:23:33 [rhiaro]
... for those cases I absolutely agree a machine should not automatically insert something there and mix machine and human created content
14:23:41 [bigbluehat]
14:23:42 [bigbluehat]
14:23:47 [rhiaro]
... 2, totally separately, is he wants to be able to generate as entence that says 'sally uploaded a thin'g
14:23:56 [rhiaro]
... that's a name, but it's a name of the type of the object, not a human entered name
14:24:19 [rhiaro]
... in that case it makes sense to put something there
14:24:23 [rhiaro]
... the point is it's machine generated
14:24:26 [cwebber2]
14:24:28 [rhiaro]
... for those cases it makes sense
14:24:30 [tantek]
14:24:33 [jasnell]
it's not always machine generated
14:24:41 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: and you ahve a textual fallback
14:24:49 [jasnell]
btw, this is why `name` used to be called `displayName`
14:25:04 [jasnell]
the `display` part of it was significant
14:25:07 [tantek]
q+ to discuss fallback
14:25:19 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: the localisation is at the consumer end not the publisher
14:25:22 [tantek]
ack bigbluehat
14:25:41 [jasnell]
in any case, as I said, if you want to say that name is a MAY for the core types and a SHOULD for extension types, that would be fine
14:25:44 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: jasnell is pointing out it used to be displayname
14:25:48 [rhiaro]
... it's intent is the same
14:26:03 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> jasnell - fine with that
14:26:19 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: we discussed that we would use name for the user supplied name
14:26:19 [tantek]
ack cwebber
14:26:26 [tantek]
14:26:27 [sandro]
jasnell, the problem seems to be that publication software will machine-generate a name which isn't as good as what the consuming-machine would generate (eg in the local language) --- always in the case where the human author didn't provide a name.
14:26:30 [tantek]
q+ cwebber
14:26:32 [tantek]
q+ tantek
14:26:52 [rhiaro]
bigbluehat: Shane of the testing group who said all the things about must and should, is available to explain w3c process + testing requirements to exit cr, and how heavy handed we should or should not be with should, if we care to hear from him
14:26:58 [jasnell]
but it's quite likely that the consuming machine will have no idea what type of object it is
14:27:03 [rhiaro]
... it will matter shortly we should get that right
14:27:07 [rhiaro]
14:27:08 [jasnell]
at least when we're talking about extension types
14:27:22 [rhiaro]
tantek: we have evidence showing that it's harmful
14:27:23 [jasnell]
which means that the consuming end won't know what name to pick in any language
14:28:06 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: I want to discuss this, but not right now
14:28:11 [sandro]
jasnell, for extension types, get that from the definition of the extension type. It's goofy to say every use of an extension has to give a name to the extension type, which is conflated with the human generated name.
14:28:13 [jasnell]
having the publisher give a human readable name in any language at least gives the consuming end something it can translate if it has no idea what this thing is
14:28:15 [newton]
newton has joined #social
14:28:16 [tantek]
14:28:20 [tantek]
ack cwebber
14:28:23 [cwebber2]
1) I want to be able to know *when a name was not provided in a meaningful way*.
14:28:32 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
14:28:38 [jasnell]
sandro: how?? there's no programmatic way of getting that information for the extension type
14:28:44 [jasnell]
at least none standardized
14:28:48 [eprodrom]
14:28:56 [sandro]
I mean, there is, rdfs:label, right?
14:28:58 [eprodrom]
14:28:59 [tantek]
eprodrom: ?
14:28:59 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: and there's the i18n thing
14:29:05 [tantek]
14:29:08 [rhiaro]
... saying you have a namemap means every publisher has to have its own translations
14:29:13 [eprodrom]
tantek: what Pubstrate could call notes
14:29:17 [rhiaro]
... almost every application comes with a UI that should have those applications
14:29:28 [cwebber2]
2) having a 5kb Like with a nameMap is not great and might not even have all the info/languages a client could provide
14:29:35 [tantek]
q+ to also note we don't require HTML publishers to provide all languages
14:29:59 [tantek]
14:30:02 [tantek]
ack tant
14:30:02 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to also note we don't require HTML publishers to provide all languages
14:30:02 [rhiaro]
... since you can infer something there stick it on there.. but I want my application to have better i18n than the publisher to be able to do the right thing
14:30:28 [sandro]
+1 cwebber2 the format shouldn't confuse human-generated-data from machine-guessed-data
14:30:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: tryign to cram the fallback behaviour and the syntehseising behaviour and the user chosen title behaviour into one property, take this with whatever salt you want, we've found in indieweb that it gets too overloaded and couldn't come up with a sensible arguement to try to figure out when it is what
14:30:59 [jasnell]
fwiw, AS1 also had separated displayName and title... also for this reason
14:31:08 [rhiaro]
... the alternative approach we have that seems to be working is to prefer name to be a user significant thing, rather than synthesised
14:31:18 [aaronpk]
q+ to say what jasnell said
14:31:23 [jasnell]
displayName holding the simple displayable, and possibly machine generated name, title for holding more complex markup
14:31:26 [rhiaro]
... and if a publisher wants to provide a text alternative to a type of post that they think consumers might not understand, that the summary field or property is a good place to do that
14:31:30 [jasnell]
but the WG saw fit to remove title
14:31:34 [rhiaro]
... that has been shown to be functional
14:31:35 [sandro]
and was displayName entered by user, or hardcoded as the class name, in every human language?
14:31:43 [rhiaro]
... if something understands likes it displays it as a like, if it doesn't it can look ats ummary
14:31:53 [rhiaro]
... the first point: summary as fallback has been useful
14:31:59 [cwebber2]
jasnell, right
14:32:08 [cwebber2]
jasnell, I think that's what's causing all this trouble
14:32:17 [rhiaro]
... Second point is that the entire discussion of providing dozens of translations is a bit of a red herring because there's no expectation or requirement of anyone publishing html to provide nuemrous languages
14:32:24 [rhiaro]
... there's no burden like that
14:32:27 [tantek]
14:32:29 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
14:32:36 [jasnell]
so what I would actually recommend is bringing back title and leaving name alone
14:32:50 [jasnell]
use title for the human-provided part
14:33:01 [jasnell]
name for the potentially machine-generated part
14:33:05 [jasnell]
and leave name as a SHOULD
14:33:10 [Arnaud1]
Arnaud1 has joined #social
14:33:28 [aaronpk]
jasnell, and also recommend that the *software* generate that name, and NEVER use user-entered content in the name?
14:33:43 [sandro]
Makes sense.... requires another CR unless we consider title an extension.
14:33:56 [tantek]
jasnell, except "name" is the more meaningful / semantically relevant term (i.e. a person's name). whereas "title" has tended to be more presentational.
14:34:01 [jasnell]
I don't think we can say never user user-entered content there
14:34:19 [jasnell]
because it simply may not be possible for the application to generate a reasonable name
14:34:25 [tantek]
14:34:31 [tantek]
ack aaronpk
14:34:31 [Zakim]
aaronpk, you wanted to say what jasnell said
14:34:56 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: if we have different properties for these uses, then the problem goes away
14:35:10 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: we could use a different property isntead of summary because we might just push the same problem onto summary ifwe use that
14:35:26 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: then if you use property b over name the consumer can know that it was probably syntehsised
14:35:31 [rhiaro]
... So consumers can rely on the two different uses of the name
14:35:49 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: so saying name as a 5kb thing is not just a red herring, if you always provide name/nameMap, you expect publishers to always provide translations for the type, but you also won't know when it's user provided, which makes correct translation impossible
14:36:11 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: this would also have to come with very clear guidence to publishers so they don't confuse the two
14:36:19 [rhiaro]
... but splitting out these uses of 'name' woulld actually solve the underlying issue
14:36:23 [sandro]
14:36:23 [sandro]
14:36:27 [cwebber2]
jasnell, FYI I am +1 on separating name/title again
14:36:38 [rhiaro]
tantek: I want to separate out the fallback issue
14:36:59 [sandro]
the className (aka AS1 name) shouldn't be considered instance data
14:37:07 [rhiaro]
cwebber2: a revised proposal to see if we split it..
14:37:12 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> sandro that's what I was tryign to say
14:37:24 [rhiaro]
tantek: if we split off the fallback functionality from name we can amend proposal
14:37:27 [cwebber2]
jasnell, I will try a revised proposal
14:37:41 [jasnell]
cwebber2: +1 thank you
14:38:14 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
14:38:56 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> aaronpk - it does'nt necessarily have to include the class name, but just somethign that makes sense for that extension
14:39:08 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I dont' think we should overprescribe that in general
14:39:12 [jasnell]
adding title back and adding some recommendation text around it saying to use title for human-provided title and name for simple label is the way I'd go. For linked data based implementations, as:name can be mapped to rdfs:label if it makes things easier
14:39:44 [tantek]
jasnell, I'd reverse that since name is meaningful and title is presentational
14:39:50 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> I like name vs fallbackName
14:39:57 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Return distinction between "user entered or otherwise significant name" and "text fallback" and shift SHOULD from meaningful name to text fallback.
14:40:03 [cwebber2]
14:40:04 [sandro]
Also, that needs another CR unless we're careful
14:40:05 [tantek]
14:40:06 [rhiaro]
14:40:10 [aaronpk]
I am also curious to hear the cases where the fallback name would be user-generated
14:40:33 [aaronpk]
14:40:52 [tantek]
+1 with use as "summary" for fallback text since that seems to work, and does not require adding a new term (thus does not require a new CR)
14:40:52 [sandro]
+1 as long as we do it without a new CR, by keeping "name" the same, and adding an extension for the other function
14:41:27 [eprodrom]
Can we come up with a better property name than "fallbackName" ?
14:41:40 [cwebber2]
eprodrom, yes this name is not the permanent choice of naming
14:41:49 [jasnell]
use label if anything
14:42:09 [jasnell]
as:label would have a natural mapping to rdfs:label
14:42:23 [csarven]
^ +1
14:42:35 [sandro]
jasnell, the rdfs:label I'm suggesting is from the CLASS not the INSTANCE
14:43:37 [jasnell]
{"id": "http://abc", "type": "http://abc/thing", "name": "My thing", "label": "thing"}
14:43:55 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Return distinction between "user entered or otherwise significant name" and "text fallback" and shift SHOULD from meaningful name to text fallback.
14:44:27 [sandro]
jasnell, that makes sense in that framing. The examples being spoken in the room have been different.
14:44:45 [csarven]
14:44:55 [sandro]
14:44:58 [jasnell]
{"type": "add", "actor": {"name": "James", "type": "Person"}, {"type": "http:/abc/thing", "name": "My thing", "label": "thing"}} == James added a thing or James added "My Thing"
14:45:07 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: 15 minute break
14:45:16 [aaronpk]
jasnell, that makes sense. i could see a consumer that's generating a notification do something like "james posted {if strlen($name) > 100 then "a" $label else "$name"}"
14:45:17 [rhiaro]
tantek: after this we'll discuss PuSH
14:46:07 [cwebber2]
thank you for working through this with us jasnell
14:46:09 [jasnell]
label can be define as a simple string, no language map
14:46:11 [paulj]
paulj has joined #social
14:46:30 [jasnell]
consuming implementation can use it to select a translation that makes sense
14:46:31 [sandro]
14:46:31 [sandro]
jasnell, we're going to break. Do you want to +1 or -1 that resolution?
14:46:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
by the way, i noticed that monday is cwebber2's birthday (assuming my calendar is telling me the truth) so wish him a happy early birthday
14:46:42 [jasnell]
14:46:54 [sandro]
ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber2 says thank you!
14:47:01 [sandro]
(he was walking away from his computer)
14:47:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
i heard
14:47:04 [sandro]
great, jasnell
14:47:39 [sandro]
any thoughts on whether we make the other property an extension or waste another 6 weeks and risk everything on another CR? :-)
14:47:58 [sandro]
(maybe there's a way to slip it into this one, but I doubt it.)
14:48:29 [jasnell]
that I don't know
14:48:45 [jasnell]
had we kept title around in the first place this wouldn't have been an issue
14:49:16 [sandro]
Yes, if you can dig up who argued for removing it, you can whack them over the head with a big "i told you so"
14:49:35 [aaronpk]
likely the reason it was removed was that the actual motivation for having it wasn't written down in the first place
14:49:44 [sandro]
(and maybe the rest of us bear responsibility for not thinking it through enough at the time.)
14:50:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro, tantek said we are going to go to pubsubhubbub since julien has been waiting patiently for some time now
14:50:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
and then go back to AS2 after
14:51:11 [sandro]
eprodrom, do we still need to talk about AS2 testing? You realize that all has to be done ... soon?
14:51:19 [eprodrom]
14:51:34 [aaronpk]
had the spec clearly mentioned the two distinct uses of name, then it may not have been removed in the first place.
14:51:36 [aaronpk]
14:51:36 [eprodrom]
I think the open question is whether we have a full test suite
14:51:36 [Loqi]
documentation has 7 karma (1 in this channel)
14:52:10 [sandro]
eprodrom, I don't think most of us are in any position to assess that. Do we need help in figuring that out?
14:52:37 [sandro]
(I'm going to go walk around for a minute. bbiab.)
14:52:37 [eprodrom]
So, here's the thing: our test documents mostly come from the spec itself
14:52:41 [eprodrom]
Examples from the document
14:52:46 [eprodrom]
They're pretty comprehensive
14:52:59 [sandro]
that's promising...
14:53:17 [eprodrom]
OK! We can discuss after PuSH maybe?
14:53:51 [jasnell]
when y'all are back on AS2 someone please mention me here so I'll get the notification
14:53:55 [jasnell]
have fun!
14:55:40 [eprodrom]
I'm a likable guy
15:02:36 [aaronpk]
jasnell, we're gathering again, four of us here right now
15:02:56 [eprodrom]
15:02:58 [eprodrom]
15:03:20 [julien]
Here! sorry
15:03:23 [eprodrom]
I am not convinced
15:04:03 [eprodrom]
I am off for 15 min, unfortunately
15:04:07 [eprodrom]
Going to be back v soon
15:04:21 [rhiaro]
scribenick: rhiaro
15:04:26 [rhiaro]
TOPIC: Pubsubhubbub
15:04:37 [rhiaro]
tantek: there's an update to the ED of PuSH, has anyone read it?
15:04:41 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: AYE
15:04:56 [rhiaro]
... It appears to be the same thing as the 0.4 spec, i did not see any changes other than syntax, si that correct?
15:05:09 [rhiaro]
julien: it was mostly cosmetic changes
15:05:31 [rhiaro]
... I'm still not sure whether this is the right appraoch for ?? ... more clear on how the thing works with different types of content, and I'm not sure how to do that in the spec
15:05:32 [newton]
newton has joined #social
15:05:34 [rhiaro]
... Don't know how to formalise that
15:06:04 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: tantek, the new ED that julien published is the same in terms of functional content as 0.4
15:06:12 [rhiaro]
... that's establishing a baseline for starting the new work here
15:06:31 [rhiaro]
... the changes that have been made are cosmetic around references etc
15:06:36 [rhiaro]
tantek: upon readaing it did you come upon anything you would consider a fpwd blocker?
15:06:39 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: what is a blocker?
15:06:47 [rhiaro]
tantek: that you think it must be fixed before we publish as fpwd?
15:06:59 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: I did file some PRs for type level fixes
15:07:06 [rhiaro]
julien: I will merge them today
15:07:08 [cwebber2]
eprodrom, could you reopen until resolved?
15:07:16 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: pretty minor, updated references
15:07:37 [rhiaro]
... Two content things that I'm going to open issues on. I don't know if they're fpwd blockers, inclined to say no
15:07:42 [rhiaro]
... But i don't know exactly what the criteria are for that
15:07:51 [rhiaro]
tantek: you have to feel pretty strongly that it's wrong
15:08:01 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: one example is that it recommends using sha1 which is deprecated
15:08:03 [rhiaro]
... that feels wrong
15:08:22 [rhiaro]
... Simple fix is to switch it with sha256 or sha512
15:08:30 [rhiaro]
... Not changing how spec works, but fixing broken algorithm
15:08:44 [rhiaro]
julien: I'm fine with changing it. I think the spec allows, the signature starts with a type of algorithm that is in use
15:09:02 [rhiaro]
... I think we should make the spec more ?? and specify that hte signature is a combination of a key and a value and the key shoulld be the address and the value should be the signature
15:09:11 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: that's dfeinitely not how the spec is writtne, it looks like it's hard coded to sha1
15:09:22 [rhiaro]
... that's fine to make it explicit that the first part of that parameter is the algorithm
15:09:36 [rhiaro]
... I belive jwt has a similar mechanism of sepcifying the hasing algorithm so we could look at tha tfor some text
15:09:52 [rhiaro]
tantek: that sounds like something we should fix before fpwd
15:10:09 [rhiaro]
... *summarises*
15:10:14 [cwebber2]
15:10:21 [cwebber2]
15:10:24 [sandro]
Use please
15:10:43 [rhiaro]
tantek: anyone else reviewed?
15:10:47 [cwebber2]
15:10:48 [rhiaro]
rhiaro: I reviewed, no opinions
15:11:06 [rhiaro]
... it seems fine, and people hav eused it in this state
15:11:27 [rhiaro]
tantek: i have read push0.4 but not this draft, but if this reflects 0.4 I think that would be an excellent fwpd
15:11:32 [rhiaro]
sandro: diff?
15:11:36 [rhiaro]
aaronpk: there are no functional changes
15:11:39 [rhiaro]
... only syntax
15:11:59 [rhiaro]
julien: i rephrased the abstract
15:12:08 [rhiaro]
tantek: if no-one else has any objections I would like to propose..
15:12:18 [rhiaro]
PROPOSE: Take Pubsubhubbub to FPWD from ED with the fix of the SHA change
15:12:22 [rhiaro]
15:12:26 [sandro]
15:12:28 [cwebber2]
15:12:29 [tantek]
15:12:31 [rhiaro]
<rhiaro> +1
15:12:39 [julien]
15:12:51 [rhiaro]
scribenick: cwebber2
15:12:54 [aaronpk]
15:13:02 [aaronpk]
here is the sha1 issue:
15:13:22 [cwebber2]
tantek: I'm seeing all +1s, let's call this resolved
15:13:33 [cwebber2]
... group has decided to take PuSH to WD, excellent
15:13:43 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
15:13:51 [cwebber2]
... julien, with that change, how soon can you make changes / go to FPWD
15:14:03 [cwebber2]
julien: I think next monday (??)
15:14:04 [csarven]
julien: s/thecontent/the content
15:15:15 [cwebber2]
tantek: see if you can get approved today, let's see if we can get published by monday
15:15:31 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Take Pubsubhubbub to FPWD from ED with the fix of the SHA change
15:15:49 [rhiaro]
trackbot, please generate minutes
15:15:49 [trackbot]
Sorry, rhiaro, I don't understand 'trackbot, please generate minutes'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:15:54 [rhiaro]
trackbot, generate minutes
15:15:54 [trackbot]
Sorry, rhiaro, I don't understand 'trackbot, generate minutes'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:15:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: put september 27th as due date
15:16:00 [tantek]
trackbot, pointer
15:16:00 [trackbot]
Sorry, tantek, I don't understand 'trackbot, pointer'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:16:02 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:16:02 [RRSAgent]
15:16:22 [cwebber2]
tantek: great congrats julien, looking forward to publishing this draft and iterating
15:16:35 [cwebber2]
tantek: any pubsubhubbub issues you'd like to discuss with the group
15:16:57 [cwebber2]
julien: more of a question of the formality, where can I read more on how the process works
15:17:16 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's an issue rhiaro raised earlier, step to step is not totally clear, but rhiaro can you guide julien through?
15:17:31 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: yup
15:17:44 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: aaronpk is going to start raising issues, then it'll become more clear
15:18:10 [cwebber2]
sandro: we'll start getting issues filed, have i18n issues checked, have a tester, then start to get people to report implementations and list those
15:18:16 [cwebber2]
... that's basically what we have to do
15:18:20 [tantek]
julien this may be helpful too:
15:18:43 [cwebber2]
julien: is there any way to change the name?
15:18:46 [cwebber2]
tantek: short or whole name
15:18:58 [cwebber2]
julien: whole name, it's not easy to pronounce esp to non-english people
15:19:09 [cwebber2]
sandro: great to come up now, because for fpwd we need the name
15:19:11 [sandro] or .... what?
15:19:38 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: PUSHHUB
15:19:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
my only concern of changing the name is the recognition of it
15:19:41 [sandro]
15:19:41 [aaronpk]
web push?
15:19:46 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: *narrowed eyes*
15:19:57 [sandro]
15:20:07 [cwebber2]
julien: I think maybe web hook?
15:20:11 [rhiaro]
15:20:16 [bigbluehat]
one caution is audience...not sure everyone would find their way to the new one
15:20:29 [cwebber2]
julien: is there something called web push already?
15:20:32 [bigbluehat]
15:20:34 [bigbluehat]
15:20:35 [bigbluehat]
15:20:36 [cwebber2]
sandro: there's http push
15:20:36 [sandro]
15:20:37 [bigbluehat]
15:20:41 [aaronpk]
15:20:44 [cwebber2]
julien: what about hookpush
15:21:21 [cwebber2]
sandro: over time pubsubhubbub has grown on me
15:21:38 [sandro]
15:21:41 [cwebber2]
sandro: there's maybe some question of how much to abbreviate
15:21:59 [sandro]
15:22:03 [cwebber2]
... like the url, we could use the case sensitive PuSH... probably... don't know if we want to...
15:22:03 [sandro]
15:22:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
pubsub i think would be fine
15:22:17 [tantek]
15:22:17 [cwebber2]
tantek: we are not going to bikeshed in real time
15:22:25 [cwebber2]
tantek: except we need an answer to get to fpwd
15:22:26 [cwebber2]
15:22:30 [cwebber2]
15:22:38 [cwebber2]
tantek: that's why I made it FPWD blocker
15:22:48 [cwebber2]
... how much time do you need julien after we get the name
15:23:09 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: we can't approve without the name fyi
15:23:19 [cwebber2]
tantek: if we get a short name that would work
15:23:38 [cwebber2]
julien: I prefer push
15:23:44 [bigbluehat]
I'm +1 for keeping the name--given find-ability
15:23:47 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: that won't fly because push-api is already a spec
15:23:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:23:59 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: 0 on push
15:24:02 [bigbluehat]
pubsub could work
15:24:15 [cwebber2]
tantek: any alternatives?
15:24:20 [cwebber2]
julien: I'm ok with pubsub
15:25:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
pubsub +1 here too
15:25:12 [bigbluehat]
it's a Thing
15:25:19 [bigbluehat]
...though not a protocol
15:25:21 [sandro] Web Publish Subscribe (PubSubHubbub)
15:25:34 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Use shortname of pubsub for shortname for now
15:25:40 [sandro]
15:25:42 [cwebber2]
15:25:55 [bigbluehat]
oh...and a Google product
15:26:06 [julien]
and XEP60
15:26:22 [aaronpk]
15:26:23 [tantek]
15:26:32 [rhiaro]
15:26:38 [bigbluehat]
15:26:47 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Use shortname of pubsub for shortname for now
15:26:49 [sandro]
Note was this CG
15:27:39 [cwebber2]
tantek: feelings about what to do about pubsub community group?
15:27:43 [cwebber2]
julien: I don't have any
15:27:45 [bigbluehat]
Keep the CG around for future extensibility
15:28:01 [cwebber2]
julien: if nobody participates and nothing happens any more, I think we can close it, but otherwise I think we could keep it
15:28:25 [cwebber2]
sandro: we don't need to shut it down we just don't have much conversation there
15:28:37 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: this group is probably going to end in 3 months
15:29:09 [cwebber2]
tantek: by closing this group it will tie in with figuring out what to do with everything else, which we already need to do
15:29:39 [cwebber2]
... do you see any reason to create any forum for anything else, julien?
15:30:00 [eprodrom]
15:30:05 [eprodrom]
15:30:19 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Close pubsubhubbub community group with "mission accomplished", draft incubated, it's now a rec-track working draft as part of socialwg.
15:30:24 [cwebber2]
15:30:33 [tantek]
15:30:34 [aaronpk]
15:31:30 [eprodrom]
15:31:43 [eprodrom]
15:31:50 [cwebber2]
15:31:55 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #social
15:32:11 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: Close pubsubhubbub community group with "mission accomplished", draft incubated, it's now a rec-track working draft as part of socialwg.
15:33:42 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
15:33:48 [timbl__]
timbl__ has joined #social
15:34:11 [eprodrom]
publish subscribe pandemonium
15:34:15 [cwebber2]
15:34:15 [cwebber2]
/me -_o_-
15:34:15 [cwebber2]
15:34:20 [cwebber2]
15:34:23 [eprodrom]
15:34:51 [cwebber2]
tantek: eprodrom's kind of a big deal
15:34:55 [eprodrom]
ha ha
15:35:25 [cwebber2]
tantek: it's always good to compliment someone before you hand them a heap of work
15:35:53 [cwebber2]
... we are going back to as2 next steps, thank you julien... I hope you can join us on tuesday, sounds like we have critical mass of things to discuss
15:35:56 [AnnBass]
AnnBass has joined #social
15:35:58 [eprodrom]
15:36:42 [cwebber2]
tantek: I recall eprodrom saying he thought we were done with normative issues, then cwebber2 brought up a "little issue"
15:36:52 [eprodrom]
Yes, I think so
15:36:57 [cwebber2]
... I'd like to see if anyone has anything else to discuss, and then leave it to editors
15:37:11 [cwebber2]
... not hearing specific as2 issues being raised, let's talk about general CR to PR status
15:37:29 [cwebber2]
... how are we moving with test suite status, eprodrom ? do we have a complete test suite?
15:37:58 [eprodrom]
I am unmuted
15:38:03 [eprodrom]
I'm going to try to reconnect, sorry
15:38:15 [aaronpk]
hangouts does that
15:38:20 [aaronpk]
especially in chrome πŸ˜‚
15:39:10 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
15:39:49 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
15:39:58 [cwebber2]
15:41:02 [eprodrom]
That is awesome
15:41:34 [Loqi]
[@bigbluehat] Yeah #TPAC2016 Pretty sure @SocialWebWG is done with my help... ;) (
15:41:44 [Loqi]
[@dustyweb] .@SocialWebWG is taking federated names and getting things done (
15:42:35 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: there are two parts of the test suite
15:42:38 [eprodrom]
Can you hear me?
15:42:46 [eprodrom]
15:42:53 [AnnBass]
no ... exceedingly painful static
15:43:17 [eprodrom]
At this point I think I need to type
15:43:19 [eprodrom]
I just muted
15:43:31 [eprodrom]
So let me write it out here
15:43:36 [eprodrom]
Question of test coverage
15:43:38 [AnnBass]
hmm hard to be heard when muted
15:43:40 [eprodrom]
Two parts of the test suite
15:43:50 [eprodrom]
AnnBass: I think I'm going to just type it out
15:43:56 [eprodrom]
First is the validator
15:44:01 [eprodrom]
Second is the test documents
15:44:17 [eprodrom]
Test documents PRIMARILY come as examples from the spec itself
15:44:22 [Loqi]
[@csarven] .@SocialWebWG at #TPAC2016 passes all tests. (
15:44:27 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
15:44:27 [eprodrom]
And there are plentiful examples
15:44:48 [eprodrom]
So the big question with test coverage is if we have features described in the doc that aren't in examples
15:44:59 [eprodrom]
I've been going through the docs and haven't been coming up with anything
15:45:09 [eprodrom]
At this point I could probably use a set of fresh eyes
15:45:13 [eprodrom]
Who could help out with this
15:45:35 [cwebber2]
eprodrom, I *might* be able to
15:45:50 [cwebber2]
eprodrom, I feel like I would be a good candidate but am a bit overloaded
15:46:13 [eprodrom]
That's not a bad way to do it
15:46:24 [sandro]
sandro: you could ask implementors who report results to try to help a bit, contributing tests
15:46:36 [eprodrom]
Let's just say that we haven't had anyone who's running the tests say, "I had a feature I wanted to test but there wasn't a test document for it."
15:46:45 [eprodrom]
But yes I can do that
15:47:02 [eprodrom]
For pubishers we have the validator
15:47:11 [eprodrom]
15:47:24 [cwebber2]
tantek: we have the general validation tool, but do we have anything that says "generate an activity that provides X"
15:47:53 [cwebber2]
sandro: one funny trick would be to check the validator if every feature had been tested by somebody
15:47:59 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: if we had some privacy policy
15:48:08 [cwebber2]
sandro: yes, it should prompt to ask if you are ok to record
15:48:14 [cwebber2]
sandro: I'm sure eprodrom has thought about this
15:48:33 [eprodrom]
I haven't!
15:48:42 [eprodrom]
We don't record the data in the validator but we could
15:49:00 [tantek]
15:49:07 [tantek]
ack sandro
15:49:27 [cwebber2]
sandro, are we getting reports of people producing as2, or only consuming as2?
15:49:28 [eprodrom]
We are asking for reports for both
15:49:34 [tantek]
15:49:54 [cwebber2]
15:50:15 [cwebber2]
tantek: at this point I think we need implementations to run tests for their conformance class and file implementation reports
15:50:30 [tantek]
15:50:34 [eprodrom]
None yet
15:50:35 [cwebber2]
... do you have any insight eprodrom for implementations to file reports?
15:50:40 [eprodrom]
We have one submitted by Apache Streams
15:50:46 [rhiaro]
15:50:52 [eprodrom]
15:50:52 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
15:50:55 [eprodrom]
Very important
15:51:04 [sandro]
15:51:45 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: if we're looking for potential implemmentations, activitypub compatible implementations are at minimum consumers
15:51:50 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: if not producers
15:52:00 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
15:52:01 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
15:52:01 [eprodrom]
15:52:29 [cwebber2]
tantek: when can you file implementation reports cwebber2
15:52:39 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: the week after I hit CR
15:53:05 [cwebber2]
sandro: though filing implementation reports might help with AP process
15:53:25 [cwebber2]
csarven: I may be able to provide an implementation report, I am doing just vocab, but it's publishing and consuming
15:53:39 [cwebber2]
tantek: any rough estimate on when you can publish an implementation report
15:53:52 [cwebber2]
sandro: 2-3 weeks?
15:54:04 [cwebber2]
csarven: yep
15:54:16 [cwebber2]
sandro: and we should talk about PR!
15:54:32 [eprodrom]
15:54:32 [cwebber2]
tantek: there are rumors on the internets that annotations uses as2
15:54:34 [eprodrom]
15:54:36 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: that's true
15:54:44 [cwebber2]
tantek: could you submit reports?
15:54:56 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: well we're only depending on as2 collection terms / pagination model
15:55:00 [aaronpk]
julien, I have an idea for new text for the sha1 section, would you like me to PR that too?
15:55:04 [cwebber2]
sandro: in theory that should still pass the validator
15:55:20 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: it's going to have to do more than pass the validator
15:55:29 [bigbluehat]
15:55:36 [Loqi]
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Vocabulary
15:55:45 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: does the validator support extensions?>
15:55:48 [cwebber2]
sandro: it should
15:55:54 [eprodrom]
I don't understand the issue
15:55:56 [tantek]
present+ wseltzer
15:56:00 [bigbluehat]
15:56:05 [tantek]
15:56:08 [Loqi]
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Vocabulary
15:56:20 [bigbluehat]
mostly seen here
15:56:22 [Loqi]
[Robert Sanderson] Web Annotation Protocol
15:56:51 [eprodrom]
I think it will validate
15:56:55 [eprodrom]
Has anyone tried it?
15:57:03 [bigbluehat] <-- see stuff in here
15:57:35 [eprodrom]
15:57:36 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: we subclass as orderderedcollection, and subclass ???
15:57:38 [sandro]
eprodrom, are you using a json-ld processor, or just thinking of it as json?
15:57:44 [bigbluehat]
"Activity Streams Collection [activitystreams-core] model is used for paging, as in-page ordering is an important requirement."
15:57:48 [cwebber2]
... and specifically this line is of purport
15:57:51 [eprodrom]
Just as JSON
15:58:32 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: it uses subclassOf
15:58:37 [cwebber2]
15:58:41 [eprodrom]
This feels like a stretch for an implementation report
15:58:54 [cwebber2]
... because ldp's paging says you can only give so much...
15:58:54 [eprodrom]
But I'd be happy to have it
15:59:10 [cwebber2]
bigbluehat: we need these things to not die if nobody else uses them
15:59:25 [eprodrom]
bigbluehat: is there an implementation that we can do a report for, then?
15:59:32 [cwebber2]
... since we're depending on them from a vocab perspective the as2 vocab needs to make it all the way to PR for us to not hav eproblems
15:59:39 [cwebber2]
sandro: it wouldn't change implementations
15:59:50 [cwebber2]
tantek: you'd just have to copy things in
16:00:07 [tantek]
16:00:08 [sandro]
s/things/spec text/
16:00:10 [tantek]
ack eprod
16:00:23 [eprodrom]
So, I wanted to ask Arnaud a pointed question
16:00:37 [eprodrom]
Can we expect implementation reports from any IBM products or projects?
16:01:09 [cwebber2]
arnaud: only one from jasnell
16:01:21 [cwebber2]
tantek: can you give a rough guess on when it would be done
16:01:24 [cwebber2]
arnaud: nop
16:01:29 [cwebber2]
tantek: could you ask?
16:01:32 [cwebber2]
arnaud: yes
16:01:52 [jasnell]
I'll write up an implementation report for the node.js module I created that impls the spec
16:02:00 [jasnell]
I'll do that within the next two weeks
16:02:08 [cwebber2]
sandro: IBM is probably not doing any more as2 stuff fwiw
16:02:10 [sandro]
bravo, jasnell
16:02:26 [sandro]
(really, I asked and Arnaud1 confirmed)
16:02:45 [cwebber2]
tantek: can you take implementation reports and put them in summary sometime mid/late october, that would be great
16:02:53 [cwebber2]
... we need to do PR transition calls
16:03:00 [cwebber2]
... so that sets expectations for AS2
16:03:09 [cwebber2]
... anything else about AS2 exiting CR?
16:03:30 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: did we talk about the validator? I've been filing issues and want to see them fixed
16:03:38 [sandro]
eprodrom, you hear that?
16:03:41 [eprodrom]
16:04:12 [rhiaro]
16:04:14 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: yes that's fine
16:04:26 [bigbluehat]
16:04:32 [cwebber2]
sandro: do you have a timeline eprodrom on addressing those issues?
16:04:44 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: let's see when I can get through them, most are pretty small, like having links
16:04:59 [cwebber2]
tantek: we don't need to discuss them righ tnow, but if you think you can address them by next week eprodrom, that would be great
16:05:12 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: so have the validator have these issues fixed by next week?
16:05:18 [cwebber2]
tantek: or at least some update on the issues
16:05:22 [cwebber2]
eprodrom: can do
16:05:26 [eprodrom]
Validator update
16:05:29 [eprodrom]
Got it
16:05:43 [cwebber2]
tantek: ideally all issues are fixed but that's not a reasonable request, but I won't ask it, but then we would know you can perform miracles
16:06:02 [cwebber2]
tantek: I think that brings us to end of AS2
16:06:16 [cwebber2]
... so that brings us to group status, when we all become existential
16:06:32 [cwebber2]
sandro: I'm really impressed with the progress we made in these two days. I actually think we're on track, which is impressive
16:06:35 [cwebber2]
... we have a lot to do!
16:07:07 [cwebber2]
tantek: on that note, one thing we've discussed in previous meetings is narrowing types of actions we accept as we get closer to group close. So I think we said "try to bring to CR by this meeting-ish"
16:07:28 [cwebber2]
... I think by spirit of that, we're on track, based on everything we saw
16:07:43 [cwebber2]
... I think we should adopt a policy of doing no more rec-track working drafts
16:08:04 [tantek]
16:08:06 [tantek]
ack cwebber2
16:08:10 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:09:30 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: No more adopting rec-track first public working drafts in this working group
16:09:34 [rhiaro]
16:09:35 [cwebber2]
16:09:39 [bigbluehat]
16:09:40 [tantek]
16:09:41 [sandro]
+1 (obviously)
16:09:42 [aaronpk]
+1 lol
16:09:43 [cwebber2]
16:09:51 [csarven]
+1 with a :)
16:09:59 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: No more adopting rec-track first public working drafts in this working group
16:10:19 [eprodrom]
16:10:22 [eprodrom]
16:10:24 [eprodrom]
16:10:46 [cwebber2]
tantek: this still leaves the door open to note-track working drafts and I think that's fine
16:11:08 [cwebber2]
... so if you want to merge namespaces or discover links and back off, those are potentially acceptable, no need to restrict till end of charter
16:12:08 [cwebber2]
tantek: are you going to bring social web protocols to CR?
16:12:09 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: no
16:12:17 [cwebber2]
sandro: you can do rec-track primers
16:12:21 [cwebber2]
... are you going to do that?
16:12:23 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: maybe!
16:13:37 [cwebber2]
sandro: so one place it would get left off of is the proposed recommendatoin list for the advisory committee
16:13:48 [cwebber2]
... and it seems like having the social web protocols in the CR
16:14:54 [cwebber2]
tantek: I would like social web protocols in the PR transition request, and I would even say the PR WBS
16:15:20 [cwebber2]
sandro: I think WBS is "web based strawpoll"
16:17:21 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: I'm conflicted, if there's no problem with having no-normative content as rec track, great, but if people find it weird, I'm fine with a note
16:17:37 [AnnBass]
16:18:14 [tantek]
16:18:16 [tantek]
ack AnnBass
16:18:31 [cwebber2]
AnnBass: I wanted to ask if we agree that the goal is to understand how the specs work together?
16:18:52 [cwebber2]
... do we also agree that whatever format if rec/note/etc is somehow that document gets advertised/published/etc such that anyone who sees these specs sees that too
16:19:45 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: We will move Social Web Protocols to a note, with the condition that all rec-track documents reference it informatively.
16:19:51 [cwebber2]
16:20:01 [tantek]
16:20:02 [aaronpk]
16:20:07 [AnnBass]
16:20:19 [rhiaro]
16:20:21 [sandro]
+0 whatever
16:20:25 [eprodrom]
16:20:28 [csarven]
16:20:29 [rhiaro]
unless I suddenly figure out how I can use it to take over the world
16:20:32 [eprodrom]
That's fine
16:20:44 [cwebber2]
RESOLVED: We will move Social Web Protocols to a note, with the condition that all rec-track documents reference it informatively.
16:21:14 [cwebber2]
AnnBass: should LDP link to SWP?
16:21:17 [cwebber2]
sandro: no it's shut down
16:21:24 [cwebber2]
AnnBass: ok
16:21:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: so I think we're done with that, the major suggestion is "what's next with the group"
16:22:10 [tantek]
ack AnnBass
16:22:49 [cwebber2]
AnnBass: I think I'm skeptical... there's lots more that can be done in the social web space... I hear we would not be easily recharted... I've suggested we move the social interest group to a new CG, and we start tossing around ideas there, and if there's interest/energy/etc, then we can move to a rec-track group etc
16:23:26 [AnnBass]
16:23:41 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: We create a social web incubator CG and that we basically say we're creating it to at least incubate things that would have otherwise been developed in this group or the social web interest group
16:23:46 [AnnBass]
s/I think I'm skeptical...//
16:23:56 [csarven]
++ on the "blah blah"
16:24:00 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: Somebody create a social web incubator CG and that we basically say we're creating it to at least incubate things that would have otherwise been developed in this group or the social web interest group
16:24:44 [tantek]
16:25:02 [csarven]
16:25:05 [cwebber2]
PROPOSED: AnnB will research creating a social web incubator CG and that we basically say we're creating it to at least incubate things that would have otherwise been developed in this group or the social web interest group
16:25:12 [AnnBass]
16:25:15 [tantek]
16:25:25 [AnnBass]
oh ... not necessarily AnnB
16:25:32 [cwebber2]
+1 even if arnaud says I'm doing terrible things by proposing things that are not actionable via proposals
16:25:38 [AnnBass]
cwebber2 melts down
16:25:39 [sandro]
Really we mean: the group expects it work to continue in a Social Web Incubator CG
16:26:19 [eprodrom]
16:26:25 [eprodrom]
16:26:37 [aaronpk]
16:26:41 [cwebber2]
tantek: AnnBass, can you look into transitioning the federated social wg to this new CG?
16:26:44 [cwebber2]
AnnBass: yes
16:26:44 [aaronpk]
+1 to what sandro said
16:26:45 [tantek]
16:26:46 [AnnBass]
Evan: do you or Andreas have issue with closing the Fed Social Web CG?
16:26:47 [cwebber2]
16:26:48 [csarven]
16:27:06 [eprodrom]
AnnBass: I do not, but I can't speak for Andreas
16:27:10 [eprodrom]
I barely know him
16:27:19 [AnnBass]
ok .. I can try to find him
16:27:44 [eprodrom]
16:27:48 [cwebber2]
SORTA-RESOLVED: AnnB will research creating a social web incubator CG and that we basically say we're creating it to at least incubate things that would have otherwise been developed in this group or the social web interest group
16:28:00 [eprodrom]
Thanks all!
16:28:20 [AnnBass]
I am happy to work on cleaning up Fed Social Web CG and moving that stuff to new Social Web CG
16:28:31 [cwebber2]
Arnaud1: I think it's clear that I don't have the bandwidth for this, so I'm resigning as co-chair
16:28:40 [cwebber2]
cwebber2: thank you for all you've done
16:28:47 [cwebber2]
everyone: *applauds arnaud for all his hard work*
16:29:00 [aaronpk]
16:29:02 [AnnBass]
tons of thanks to Arnaud
16:29:52 [cwebber2]
tantek: meeting adjourned with 15 secs to go!
16:29:54 [eprodrom]
THANKS Arnaud1 !
16:29:56 [csarven]
16:29:56 [Loqi]
all has 1 karma
16:30:00 [tantek]
trackbot, end meeting
16:30:00 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
16:30:00 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been rhiaro, cwebber, tantek, KjetilK, aaronpk, tsyesika, Benjamin_Young, csarven, newton, Arnaud, Ann, Bassetti, AnnBass, ben_thatmustbeme,
16:30:03 [Zakim]
... david_wood, eprodrom, wseltzer, lol
16:30:05 [cwebber2]
16:30:05 [Loqi]
arnaud has 36 karma (34 in this channel)
16:30:08 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:30:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot
16:30:09 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, bye
16:30:09 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items