IRC log of social on 2016-11-18

Timestamps are in UTC.

00:06:04 [shepazu_]
shepazu_ has joined #social
00:11:55 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
00:21:34 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
00:36:11 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #social
00:36:20 [Loqi]
yeah who invited you anyway Zakim
01:15:38 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
01:23:51 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
01:43:56 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
02:32:43 [wilkie]
wilkie has joined #social
03:36:20 [timbl_]
timbl_ has joined #social
03:55:31 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
04:07:14 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
04:26:43 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
04:35:12 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
06:11:41 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
06:42:50 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
06:46:32 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
08:16:11 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has joined #social
08:21:53 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
08:51:57 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has joined #social
09:05:57 [Karli]
Karli has joined #social
11:05:43 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
12:14:28 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has joined #social
13:49:52 [csarven]
13:50:27 [csarven]
I'd like to join a hangout (audio only is fine) live from my sofa.
13:51:22 [aaronpk]
we'll probably use the conference number again
13:51:50 [csarven]
is that a diff number than the weekly w3c telco number?
13:52:04 [aaronpk]
13:52:24 [csarven]
ok, thanks. Let me know when I can join.
13:53:27 [aaronpk]
will do. i think we said we're doing agenda scheduling at 9:30 (in 37 minutes)
13:59:45 [csarven]
I'll join in then.. with preference to take up LDN first :)
14:33:55 [rhiaro]
In searching for instructions on how to operate this conference room, I found
14:34:43 [rhiaro]
Woah! ben_thatmustbeme found the secret to operating the shades and projector screen, after we spent 10 minutes pushing every button in the room
15:01:06 [rhiaro]
hey eprodrom tantek you need to show up, we're talking about politics
15:01:18 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
15:03:34 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
15:04:21 [tantek]
tantek has joined #social
15:06:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:06:31 [rhiaro]
trackbot, please draft minutes
15:06:31 [trackbot]
Sorry, rhiaro, I don't understand 'trackbot, please draft minutes'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:06:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #social
15:06:39 [rhiaro]
trackbot, make minutes
15:06:39 [trackbot]
Sorry, rhiaro, I don't understand 'trackbot, make minutes'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:06:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
trackbot, draft minutes
15:06:46 [trackbot]
Sorry, ben_thatmustbeme, I don't understand 'trackbot, draft minutes'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:06:47 [aaronpk]
trackbot, figure it out
15:06:47 [trackbot]
Sorry, aaronpk, I don't understand 'trackbot, figure it out'. Please refer to <> for help.
15:06:47 [rhiaro]
RRSAgent, make minutes
15:06:47 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate rhiaro
15:07:47 [aaronpk]
csarven, we're on the conference bridge now
15:08:02 [csarven]
Are all hands on deck?
15:08:13 [aaronpk]
15:08:50 [tantek]
csarven, all hands we need for LDN :)
15:09:03 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer
15:09:03 [RRSAgent]
15:09:22 [tantek]
trackbot, start meeting
15:09:25 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
15:09:28 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SOCL
15:09:28 [trackbot]
Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference
15:09:28 [trackbot]
Date: 18 November 2016
15:09:28 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot
15:09:33 [tantek]
15:09:34 [aaronpk]
15:09:38 [csarven]
digging diggg.. where is the number..
15:09:38 [rhiaro]
15:09:41 [csarven]
15:09:56 [aaronpk]
15:10:35 [tantek]
tantek has changed the topic to: Next meeting: Telcon: Logs:
15:11:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rrsagent, pointer
15:11:10 [RRSAgent]
15:11:26 [aaronpk]
scribenick: aaronpk
15:11:39 [tantek]
topic: LDN
15:12:08 [aaronpk]
tantek: open issue for LDN?
15:12:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:12:38 [aaronpk]
csarven: we received one new editorial issue after we entered CR
15:12:39 [tantek]
15:12:56 [csarven]
15:13:48 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: there's one more open issue. we've updated the text already, but we're waiting for commenter. i don't think we need to do anything more on it though.
15:14:02 [csarven] (open world assumption..)
15:14:03 [eprodrom]
eprodrom has joined #social
15:14:04 [aaronpk]
... and there's an ongoing philosophical discussion that doesn't affect the spec
15:14:20 [aaronpk]
csarven: it's quite interesting if you have nothing else to do
15:14:39 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: he's nitpicking about phrasing
15:14:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: is it normative?
15:14:45 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: no
15:15:39 [aaronpk]
tantek: amy and sarven, can you two agree on the text changes needed to resolve this and propose it to the group?
15:16:05 [aaronpk]
csarven: we've made a few commits to revise what henry was concerned about.
15:16:24 [eprodrom]
15:16:25 [aaronpk]
... it's about the wording about the idea that don't take the claims in the notifications for granted
15:16:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: so you think you've completed commits that handle the issue as reported?
15:17:20 [tantek]
15:17:57 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: this seems like a security consideration. if i'm tracking the state of an object, i may not want to accept notifications from an entity that doesn't control that object. i may not want to allow updates that take an object into an unexpected state that does not reflect the previous history of the object.
15:18:30 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: this is just in the intro to the security considerations section. we've already covered many ways for this, this is just the intro
15:18:47 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: if there are specific security considerations already covered, it makes no sense to argue this point and maybe take it out
15:19:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: can you drop a link to the proposed wording that hasn't been committed yet
15:19:10 [rhiaro]
15:19:56 [aaronpk]
csarven: we also have a sender verification section. let's say you have an access controlled way of writing notifications to an inbox. that alone doesn't address the validity of the statements.
15:21:30 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
15:21:30 [RRSAgent]
15:21:45 [tantek]
PROPOSED: resolve LDN issue 55 with rhiaro's suggested text in
15:21:58 [rhiaro]
15:22:24 [aaronpk]
<aaronpk> +1
15:22:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
15:22:39 [rhiaro]
15:22:50 [csarven]
15:22:53 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: "taking precautions" seems open
15:23:01 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: that's expanded upon in the actual section
15:23:14 [rhiaro]
Just to have on record: I don't think henry's proposed alternative is appropriate because it ties more closely to LDP that necessary, and we don't need to talk about 'reputation'
15:23:19 [tantek]
RESOLVED: resolve LDN issue 55 with rhiaro's suggested text in
15:23:20 [eprodrom]
15:24:41 [aaronpk]
tantek: great, everything else is editorial, i'll let you all handle those until you say you want input from the group
15:24:45 [csarven]
15:24:47 [aaronpk]
... next question, how is the test suite coming along?
15:24:47 [rhiaro]
15:25:10 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we've got tests for receivers, sender and consumer tests are not done yet
15:25:12 [csarven]
15:25:18 [aaronpk]
... the tests need some UI love to tell when you've actually passed
15:25:29 [aaronpk]
tantek: do you have a rough idea of when they will be complete?
15:25:34 [aaronpk]
csarven: i think another week or so to polish it up
15:25:56 [aaronpk]
... sender and receiver should be far simpler
15:26:17 [aaronpk]
... we have a way of checking whether something's working or not. what remains for the receiver test is... there's a "report" section
15:27:21 [aaronpk]
... you can enter a URL with an inbox and do a GET/POST/HEAD/OPTIONS and it will return the headers it receives and the body
15:27:40 [aaronpk]
... there's a section on a report that shows the normative parts of the spec and a check or cross
15:27:46 [aaronpk]
... that's the part that needs to be done
15:28:15 [cwebber2]
15:28:18 [cwebber2]
15:28:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: next question is how are you coming with implementation reports?
15:28:44 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we have an informal list, those are the people we'll go back to after the test suite is done
15:28:55 [aaronpk]
tantek: based on the informal list, what's your confidence level of the amount of the spec that's implemented
15:29:03 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we have implementations of all roles that do everything
15:29:04 [csarven]
15:29:18 [aaronpk]
... i think we have at least two implementations but not sure how many of those are non-editor implementations
15:34:02 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: do we need implementation reports from generic LDP implemtations, since LDN is a subset of LDP?
15:34:27 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think it would still be useful to get reports from those, to test your assumption that LDN is actually working the way you expect with generic LDN
15:36:07 [tantek]
s/generic LDN/generic LDP
15:37:49 [aaronpk]
sandro: keep it clear that these implementations are not necessary for the process.
15:38:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think the value is getting feedback from the implementers
15:38:09 [aaronpk]
sandro: from a community perspective it's great, but from a process perspective it's gravy
15:40:04 [aaronpk]
tantek: looking at the LDP rec it's from feb last year, so i'm guessing most of the tests in the report were run over a year ago. so having the test results for LDP will show that these implementations are still around.
15:40:16 [aaronpk]
... so it's 90% frosting but making sure these implementations still exist is good to know
15:40:47 [aaronpk]
tantek: based on that, we should try to transition to PR in january
15:41:06 [aaronpk]
... we'll try to time this with Micropub in january
15:41:46 [aaronpk]
csarven: one question about tests. the way we're going at it now, it's a form and you select some options and submit and it comes back with results.
15:42:01 [aaronpk]
... the question is the difference between tests and validators
15:42:07 [aaronpk]
... what we have now is kind of like the w3c html validator
15:42:16 [aaronpk]
... kind of like how webmention has it, individual links to each test
15:42:26 [aaronpk]
... we're not doing it that way, is the way we're doing it okay?
15:43:05 [aaronpk]
tantek: do you have instructions for someone running the test to say run it with these options and then these other options
15:43:16 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we could have URLs that prefill the forms with different options, or just have a set of different forms
15:43:54 [aaronpk]
tantek: what does the implementation report template have?
15:44:56 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: the report template right now has a bunch of checkboxes. we can refine that to different combinations of things.
15:45:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: that would probably help people submitting reports
15:45:11 [tantek]
15:45:14 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
15:45:53 [eprodrom]
15:45:55 [eprodrom]
15:46:37 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
15:46:51 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
15:46:56 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: of the implementations, what i don't see are any activitypub implementations which was one of the advantages of LDN we were hoping to have
15:47:04 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: my implementation is also activitypub
15:47:26 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: it may be important to raise this as we're talking about getting implementations of activitypub
15:48:09 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: a conformant sender would be sending activitypub if it found an activitystreams inbox
15:48:12 [cwebber2]
I'm here
15:49:03 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think we know what to do next for LDN then. when you feel like the test suite is complete, put it on the agenda for the next telcon
15:49:45 [aaronpk]
... we'll use that as a trigger to start requesting implementation reports
15:50:16 [aaronpk]
TOPIC: 10 minute break
15:50:20 [csarven]
(not about the break)
15:52:35 [tantek]
break for 10 min
15:52:48 [aaronpk]
8 minutes until resume meeting
15:52:48 [Loqi]
I added a countdown scheduled for 2016-11-18 4:00pm GMT+0000 (#5938)
15:52:52 [tantek]
oops was scrolled and didn't see aaronpk had done it already
16:02:01 [Loqi]
resume meeting
16:04:08 [cwebber2]
I emailed Jason Robinson about implementations
16:04:31 [cwebber2]
he indicated on this thread that Diaspora was unlikely to implement AP but Friendica may:
16:04:36 [aaronpk]
16:05:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: are there any open issues since last time we talked?
16:05:38 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we call out the JSONLD context as non normative, but we would still like to make it useful
16:05:53 [aaronpk]
.. amy uses it to generate the document that lives at the namespace URL
16:05:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2, i seem to get diaspora on most things, seems like they creaare mostly of the opinion "we aren't going to add it, but you are welcome to add a PR"
16:06:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/get/get that from/
16:06:27 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: having extra things in it will probably not break things but having missing things might
16:06:31 [csarven]
Note to self: look at AS2 examples (the one that extends with OA, PROV that I wrote last year) and see if they are still okay (especially with the changes in OA)
16:06:56 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we have two outstanding editorial issues, actually no we dont
16:07:07 [tantek]
16:07:15 [aaronpk]
... we have one outstanding editorial...
16:07:25 [aaronpk]
... about the relationship between link types and object types
16:07:38 [aaronpk]
... there is a subtle difference between referencing an object and referencing a link to the object
16:07:46 [aaronpk]
... james gave a good answer to it and asked him to include it in the document itself
16:07:55 [aaronpk]
... it hasn't been updated so i think i'm going to do it myself
16:08:12 [aaronpk]
... i think i understand the difference, it feels very subtle but i think i can use james' wording from the document and the examples he gave
16:09:18 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we made a decision this summer about using markup in the name
16:09:40 [aaronpk]
... as a group we made this decision that we weren't going to use markup. we asked for comments from the orgiinal commenter. there hasn't been discussion since august 4th.
16:09:53 [aaronpk]
... i think it's reasonable to close it at this point
16:09:59 [aaronpk]
16:10:30 [aaronpk]
tantek: we had a joint socialwg i18n meeting at TPAC
16:10:37 [aaronpk]
... we asked it to get minuted in our channel
16:10:44 [aaronpk]
... did this come up?
16:12:08 [rhiaro]
16:12:28 [aaronpk]
aaronpk: here's the link to the IRC chat from the meeting
16:14:48 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: from my POV we had a discussion and made a resolution to discuss it
16:15:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: okay, close it with a link to their issue
16:16:08 [tantek]
354 was discussed here:
16:16:13 [tantek]
16:16:31 [csarven]
eprodrom jasnell: Feel free to assign me to
16:16:44 [csarven]
I don't have the q key on my kb
16:18:02 [aaronpk]
16:18:15 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: in JSON-LD, you can specify the context property as either an object or as a URL
16:18:41 [aaronpk]
... it is nice to be able to just have that single URL, and one of the ways we've sold the AS2 to the AS community is "don't worry about JSON-LD just drop in this property and you have JSON-LD"
16:18:57 [aaronpk]
... the problem is the default language in JSON-LD is defined within this context object
16:19:07 [eprodrom]
"@context": ""
16:19:08 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:19:37 [eprodrom]
"@context": {"@id": "", "@language": "en"}
16:19:37 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:19:51 [aaronpk]
... it would require some additional complexity to change the language
16:20:12 [aaronpk]
... but one of the selling points is we're going to make it easy to use it and now we've made it slightly harder
16:20:35 [aaronpk]
... the change proposes making it a SHOULD instead of MAY
16:20:57 [cwebber2]
16:21:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: the assumption that if you give authors a SHOULD that they're going to pay any attention to is false
16:21:20 [aaronpk]
... so richard is wrong about how authors behave when given directions like that
16:21:24 [aaronpk]
sandro: i think the examples are the important part
16:21:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: examples are far more effective than "should" language
16:22:07 [aaronpk]
sandro: i'm very concerned about the increased complexity. we're between a rock and a hard place.
16:22:16 [aaronpk]
tantek: it's something that noone currently implements
16:22:32 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: no other implementations support it, but we also only have english speaking implementations
16:22:57 [aaronpk]
tantek: this goes back to the larger point that the i18n group has yet to incubate or implement any localization in JSON
16:23:09 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: this is about how JSON-LD specifies how to do it, which is already implemented
16:23:30 [cwebber2]
16:23:37 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: so right now what we have is if you would like to specify the default language, you change the context from a single string to an object with a couple properties
16:24:03 [tantek]
16:24:12 [aaronpk]
sandro: can activitystreams supply multiple context URLs for a bunch of languages?
16:24:13 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:24:24 [cwebber2]
16:24:27 [Loqi]
[Christopher Allan Webber] ActivityPub
16:24:48 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: we added language to everything that has a name
16:24:54 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: bengo pointed out he got very confused
16:25:14 [cwebber2]
{"@context": ["", {"@language": "en"}]}
16:25:15 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:25:59 [cwebber2]
{"@type": "Create",
16:25:59 [cwebber2]
"@context": "",
16:25:59 [cwebber2]
"object": {"@context": {"@language": "en"}}}
16:26:00 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:26:14 [aaronpk]
... so we suddenly transformed the way the inner context worked
16:26:36 [aaronpk]
... the object that used to be inside got shifted around. it no longer had a list within a map, it just became a map
16:27:08 [aaronpk]
... and bengo said it was confusing and was some magic JSON-LD-foo
16:27:20 [aaronpk]
... and I had only put it there because someone told me to, so I removed it
16:27:31 [aaronpk]
... so having the language inside there can create some gnarly scenarios to ask from users
16:27:50 [aaronpk]
tantek: was this ever tested in JSON-LD itself?
16:28:07 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i've never done anything like this in an actual implementation
16:28:42 [aaronpk]
tantek: is there any evidence that there are any actual implementations of JSON-LD that are doing anything with language in the way we are being asked?
16:29:10 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i don't think we're going to be able to change the way AS2 does this by renegotiating with JSON-LD
16:29:47 [aaronpk]
tantek: i'm not suggesting we create our own solution. i'm asking this because putting in something that we think is solved because it's in a REC which if it turns out it's not solved is worse than not having it at all... because it's providing a false sense of having internationalization
16:30:10 [aaronpk]
... i don't know how to resolve this except for asking i18n to point us to some actual JSON-LD producers and consumers
16:30:56 [cwebber2]
16:30:57 [cwebber2]
16:31:02 [cwebber2]
16:31:11 [tantek]
16:31:19 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: i think there is a fundamental assumption here by the 118n group which is that each natural language proprety in a document should be explicitly marked up as the language it is, either by the default or specificlaly on the property
16:31:41 [rhiaro]
16:31:44 [aaronpk]
... there is a contradictory principle that it could be left out and understood from human world context (not @context)
16:31:47 [tantek]
16:32:03 [aaronpk]
... the mechanisms we hve for doing explicit language markup seem to complicate our JSON documents
16:32:13 [aaronpk]
tantek: which alone isn't enough reason to not do them
16:32:28 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: one thing we can do is bite the bullet and say we need to add this as a SHOULD and update our examples
16:33:19 [tantek]
16:33:32 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: one problem with the -fr @context URL is naive consumers would fail if they are doing exact string matching on the context
16:33:38 [tantek]
q+ to ask how are AS1 impls handling non-en langs e.g. Diaspora in Germany?
16:34:04 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:34:05 [eprodrom]
16:34:13 [cwebber2]
{"@type": "Note",
16:34:13 [cwebber2]
"@language": "en"}
16:34:13 [cwebber2]
16:34:13 [sandro]
16:34:13 [sandro]
"@context": "",
16:34:13 [sandro]
"name": "Martin created an image",
16:34:13 [sandro]
"type": "Create",
16:34:13 [sandro]
"actor": "http://www.test.example/martin",
16:34:14 [cwebber2]
{"@type": "Create",
16:34:14 [sandro]
"object": ""
16:34:16 [sandro]
16:34:16 [cwebber2]
"@context": "",
16:34:17 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:34:19 [cwebber2]
"object": {"@type": "Note",
16:34:21 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: we do have an alternate way of doing @language in AS
16:34:22 [cwebber2]
"@language": "en"}}
16:34:28 [cwebber2]
{"@type": "Note",
16:34:31 [cwebber2]
"@language": "en"}
16:34:34 [cwebber2]
16:34:38 [cwebber2]
{"@type": "Create",
16:34:41 [cwebber2]
"@context": "",
16:34:42 [Loqi]
[Amy Guy] ActivityStreams 2.0 Terms
16:34:44 [cwebber2]
"object": {"@type": "Note",
16:34:47 [cwebber2]
"@language": "en"}}
16:35:56 [cwebber2]
16:36:35 [tantek]
16:36:57 [tantek]
ack rhiaro
16:37:01 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: so here's the thing
16:37:31 [aaronpk]
... the way we support extensions or using any of the vocabulary is you have to use the context. so you can have the AS2 context in a string and then an object with a bunch of prefixes and more contexts
16:37:53 [aaronpk]
... so if i'm publishing a bunch of data that uses AS and a bunch of other vocabularies, which I am, I have to list the context that way
16:37:59 [eprodrom]
16:38:03 [aaronpk]
... a plain AS consumer i'm happy to ignore the vocabularies it doesn't understand
16:38:16 [aaronpk]
... but if it doesn't understand context as an object then it's not going to recognize it in the first place
16:38:32 [aaronpk]
... so in order to make AS and JSONLD play together at all, all consumers need to be able to understand context as an object, not only as a string
16:38:49 [aaronpk]
sandro: anyone using extensions it woudl not fall back
16:38:57 [aaronpk]
tantek: that was a decision last time this came up
16:39:12 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: are we okay with bad consumers that will error out? we're not okay with that
16:39:32 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: so if we have to support @context as an object then we can put @language there as well
16:39:56 [aaronpk]
... so we don't need to put @language in all the examples because we can say that once
16:40:03 [aaronpk]
... but they have to be able to understand the @context as an object
16:40:03 [tantek]
16:40:05 [fabrixxm]
fabrixxm has left #social
16:40:10 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
16:40:27 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: i'm going make a suggestion that might be controversial for our friends in i18n
16:41:02 [aaronpk]
... we do have a specific language tag (und) undetermined. what we could use is sandro's cool hack for multiple contexts that define language
16:41:16 [aaronpk]
... so that we can have single string contexts for each natural language
16:41:25 [aaronpk]
... the base namespace could be "und"
16:41:35 [aaronpk]
... that would be roughly the same as what we have now
16:41:50 [cwebber2]
16:42:15 [aaronpk]
... it would be obeying the letter of the suggestion
16:42:23 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: but then consumers would have to string match against every language
16:42:38 [aaronpk]
sandro: we could say that the context is this string followed by a hyphen and a language tag
16:43:45 [aaronpk]
... if every example in the spec there's this extra curly braces and @language then it makes all the examples look a lot more complicated
16:44:07 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we want the examples to be simple, but we want to tell consumers to be prepared to consume an object as context
16:44:13 [eprodrom]
16:44:13 [Loqi]
aaronpk has 70 karma in this channel (1142 overall)
16:44:21 [eprodrom]
You're a hero for scribing this
16:44:21 [aaronpk]
... we need the majority of the examples to be simple, and then one section with the context being an object
16:44:26 [cwebber2]
I agree that seeing the @context with an array does make it seem more complicated
16:44:27 [cwebber2]
16:44:37 [aaronpk]
sandro: people making consumers are more likely to check against the test suite and read the spec
16:44:39 [cwebber2]
I also think sandro's suggestion makes things complicated, based on my own implemntations
16:44:50 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: more likely simple consumers would do a string match
16:44:55 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: i think we should require consumers understand objects
16:45:23 [cwebber2]
16:45:29 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: consumers would do a string match and would notice that some percentage of what they were getting didn't need work with the string match and then they would do a regex match. then in a small number of cases they'd have an array thing and may or may not support that.
16:45:29 [wilkie]
you're making consumers more complex to make producers 'feel' less complex?
16:45:47 [cwebber2]
wilkie, yeah I think this makes things a lot more complex
16:46:13 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: they can not support extensions and drop all the terms and that's fine. but dropping any AS that includes extensions dropping the whole thing is a problem.
16:46:13 [wilkie]
does the HTML lang attribute make HTML feel too complex?
16:46:34 [aaronpk]
sandro: that means people to me people won't use extensions at all because a chunk of consumers will fail if the AS includes extensions
16:46:39 [cwebber2]
16:46:40 [cwebber2]
q+ to explain why sandro's suggestion is also complex, but suggest we just use @language in *some* examples.
16:47:15 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: what you're suggesting is probably to use context as an object in all our examples so consumers get used to seeing that
16:47:21 [sandro]
{ @context: { @id: "{
16:47:21 [sandro]
"@context": ""} ... }
16:47:29 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we're not telling publishers to publish an object, but we're telling consumers to expect an object
16:47:39 [sandro]
16:47:42 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we're in a weird space where "have to" is a difficult term to define
16:47:55 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: are consumers going to look at the examples in the spec or use the test suite?
16:48:08 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: they'll probably run it against the test suite and then see things in production
16:48:10 [wilkie]
the context should be the same regardless of what language you use so that JSON-LD generically understands two documents are comparable
16:48:36 [sandro]
{ @context: { @id: "" }
16:48:36 [sandro]
name: "..." }
16:48:57 [tantek]
sandro - has anyone suggested or tried this in the broader JSONLD / i18n communtiies?
16:49:11 [tantek]
it sounds like experimentation in the context of a CR which I feel uncomfortable about
16:49:20 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we have a base version that does not define language. we make N many language specific contexts you can pull in to use a single string context. and finally we have a MUST on consumers that they MUST handle a context as an object.
16:49:26 [cwebber2]
tantek, I agree this feels like experimentation
16:49:56 [aaronpk]
tantek: i don't think we should be experimenting in CR
16:50:00 [cwebber2]
16:50:02 [eprodrom]
"@context": ""
16:50:16 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: if a publisher wants to use language, they'll be okay with using the extra step of the object with language
16:50:35 [aaronpk]
sandro: about 1/4 of the examples we put the @language in
16:50:50 [cwebber2]
yes, I agree having about 1/4 of the examples with @langauge
16:51:28 [wilkie]
HTML lang isn't required. it defaults to 'unknown'. from a cursory glance, the HTML spec doesn't recommend it be there, instead it warns that absent 'lang' can produce unexpected results.
16:51:31 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: if we make language a SHOULD then we should have it in most of the examples
16:51:44 [cwebber2]
I agree with SHOULD
16:51:57 [wilkie]
I agree with SHOULD also
16:52:01 [cwebber2]
16:52:19 [aaronpk]
tantek: the problem is history does not support "SHOULD"
16:52:26 [aaronpk]
... you end up with lang="en" as the default
16:52:47 [aaronpk]
sandro: i thought the phrasing was "if you know the language you SHOULD put it there"
16:52:52 [aaronpk]
tantek: that is very different
16:52:55 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: that is very different
16:53:00 [aaronpk]
ben_thatmustbeme: <general agreement>
16:53:05 [cwebber2]
tantek, is that what you wanted to raise?
16:53:06 [cwebber2]
16:53:20 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: another possibility is to make a simpler way to define language
16:53:25 [eprodrom]
"language" : "en"
16:53:29 [aaronpk]
sandro: that's what chris was getting at
16:53:45 [eprodrom]
"@context": "...", "language": "en"
16:53:48 [tantek]
16:53:56 [aaronpk]
sandro: this is the tradeoff for people using JSON-LD processors or not
16:55:49 [tantek]
from r12a: "Could we either change MAY to SHOULD, or at least add a note to say that actually language information is quite important (since very few developers seem to recognise that)?"
16:56:01 [cwebber2]
16:56:05 [cwebber2]
16:57:18 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we can tell consumers there are three ways to identify an AS document
16:57:31 [aaronpk]
.. as a publisher, i want to know i can publish it in this object format and not have consumers fail
16:57:40 [tantek]
ack cwebber
16:57:40 [Zakim]
cwebber, you wanted to explain why sandro's suggestion is also complex, but suggest we just use @language in *some* examples.
16:58:02 [cwebber2]
16:58:10 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i think sandro's path, while i like it in an entertaining way, but would be a huge mess
16:58:43 [aaronpk]
... i don't like resorting to string parsing as a shortcut either
16:58:49 [rhiaro]
+1 not string parsing
16:59:09 [aaronpk]
... there were a couple suggestions that were good. if you wrote in a note that it's really important to do language things that's really easy
16:59:19 [aaronpk]
... also 1/4 of the examples could include language and that'd be reasonable
16:59:34 [aaronpk]
... to set the expectation that sometimes this happens
16:59:45 [aaronpk]
... we're also not making it so that every example has this overhead of the language
16:59:48 [sandro]
+1 say "it's really important" and 1/4 of examples use it.
17:00:10 [tantek]
Aside: looks like JSON-LD test suite and reports did a bunch of explicit @language processing testing (syntactically) and that implementations in general "passed" in terms of transforming from input to output.
17:00:23 [tantek]
ht: ben_thatmustbeme for finding that link
17:00:35 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Stream with a Note that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties
17:00:54 [Loqi]
[Gregg Kellogg] JSON-LD Implementation Report
17:01:06 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Stream with a Note that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties and use such markup for some examples
17:01:09 [sandro]
17:01:12 [cwebber2]
tantek, yeah expansion and compaction will do smart things that "understand" the @context
17:01:13 [rhiaro]
17:01:14 [cwebber2]
17:01:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:01:33 [aaronpk]
tantek: you said something earlier i thought was useful. "if the producer knows the language"
17:01:49 [cwebber2]
tantek, but I've still found combining two documents together to be a bit tricky, unless you do an expansion then compaction... I guess expansion then compaction is the "cleanest way"
17:04:40 [tantek]
17:06:42 [aaronpk]
sandro: we can add text that explicitly says we omitted language from the examples for brevity and to avoid people blindly copy/pasting the language in the example without changing it
17:06:57 [shepazu]
shepazu has joined #social
17:07:08 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: we're concerned about people blindly following the examples
17:07:37 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: they primarily use the language mechanism built in to AS (map) which is easier and more obvious
17:07:53 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: it doesn't need to be all the examples, just some of them
17:08:25 [aaronpk]
... what we're saying is you should do language somehow, but we can't include all possible ways so we include language in the simplest way to illustrate it
17:08:44 [aaronpk]
ben_thatmustbeme: that makes sense, we don't include every tag in every example
17:09:20 [aaronpk]
tantek: evan it sounds like you have some proposed text
17:09:23 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Stream with a Note that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties and use such markup for some examples
17:09:51 [tantek]
17:09:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:09:58 [eprodrom]
17:10:29 [cwebber2]
17:10:31 [sandro]
+1 with explanation of WHY it's not in every example
17:10:48 [sandro]
(to avoid hypocracy)
17:10:55 [rhiaro]
+1 with explanation of WHY it's not in every example
17:11:09 [wilkie]
+1 also with explanation so people don't accidentally think English is default
17:11:49 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Stream with a Note that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties and use such markup for some examples, and points out that it's not in every example because we want to avoid the copypaste EN everywhere thing
17:13:40 [cwebber2]
17:13:53 [sandro]
17:14:00 [aaronpk]
<aaronpk> +1
17:14:04 [rhiaro]
17:14:17 [wilkie]
17:14:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:15:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
+0 i don't think its really necessary
17:16:41 [aaronpk]
sandro: our examples leave out language because we have a reason to leave them out
17:16:56 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: so maybe we just make it a should anyway
17:17:00 [aaronpk]
tantek: if you know the language
17:17:26 [tantek]
note as an example: Twitter acknowledges it doesn't "know " the language but offers "language detection" in its developer API:
17:18:02 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: we're going to say you SHOULD explicitly mark it up, but we're not going to recommend a particular way of doing so
17:18:09 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: right, based on the most appropriate way of doing it
17:18:23 [sandro]
RRSAgent, pointer?
17:18:23 [RRSAgent]
17:18:38 [eprodrom]
PROPOSED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Streams with a SHOULD that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties if you know the language, and use such markup for some examples, and points out that it's not in every example because we want to avoid the copypaste EN everywhere thing
17:18:43 [cwebber2]
17:18:52 [rhiaro]
17:18:58 [aaronpk]
<aaronpk> +1
17:19:05 [sandro]
17:19:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
17:19:10 [eprodrom]
17:19:28 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Resolve issue #354 of Activity Streams with a SHOULD that points out the importance of explicitly marking up language of natural language properties if you know the language, and use such markup for some examples, and points out that it's not in every example because we want to avoid the copypaste EN everywhere thing
17:19:58 [aaronpk]
tantek: i think this will communicate a positive response to richard which is great
17:20:13 [aaronpk]
... i also want to acknowledge what evan said about people ignoring it, like on twitter, where they don't know
17:20:14 [cwebber2]
17:20:21 [cwebber2]
I asked the i18n team to give guidance on this
17:20:30 [cwebber2]
17:20:51 [cwebber2]
17:20:58 [tantek]
17:21:06 [tantek]
ack cwebber
17:21:33 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: just pointing out this link. when the i18n team asked us to add SHOULD to activitypub, i said this sounds great but realistically i don't know the language. i asked them to produce a document so that we can link to it, so they started this
17:21:40 [aaronpk]
... here's some guidance on how to figure out what language to apply
17:22:02 [aaronpk]
tantek: if they publish this as a note i'd be okay, but i don't feel comfortable referencing a random page on their wiki
17:22:42 [aaronpk]
... chris if you want to reference this page, i encourage you to reach out to them and request they publish it as a NOTE
17:22:53 [aaronpk]
cwebber2: i can do that
17:23:00 [eprodrom]
17:23:02 [rhiaro]
I would like to point out that I have a multilingual blog post now (half English half Japanese)
17:23:18 [aaronpk]
eprodrom: this does mean our examples will have a warning on the validator
17:23:24 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: that's fine, because we have a good reason
17:23:55 [aaronpk]
sandro: maybe we add a checkbox to the validator asking whether you know the language
17:24:09 [aaronpk]
rhiaro: an extra checkbox on the validator saying explicitly to validate language stuff would be good
17:24:40 [tantek]
FYI: the related i18n issue was closed 23 hours ago:
17:25:03 [tantek]
17:25:06 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
17:25:36 [aaronpk]
17:26:16 [cwebber2]
I'm on the phone
17:26:18 [cwebber2]
what's going on
17:27:53 [tantek]
we are adjourned until 14:00 EST for lunch
17:28:00 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, ok what issues are we working on?
17:28:10 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, making a proposal?
17:28:15 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, wasn't totally clear to me
17:28:24 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, and do you want to do so now, or in an hour?
17:33:02 [aaronpk]
sorry hi
17:33:20 [aaronpk]
so we need to write up a description of the community group in order for the group to propose creating it
17:36:49 [aaronpk]
starting this here:
17:38:42 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: could we take 20 minutes to eat, then regroup?
17:38:45 [aaronpk]
17:38:49 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: cool.
17:39:02 [aaronpk]
say something on the phone when you're back, i'm stepping away
17:40:49 [cwebber2]
17:55:07 [tantek]
julien departed ~noon (for the minutes)
18:11:51 [cwebber2]
18:11:59 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I'm back. Dialing back in now
18:12:07 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: would you prefer to handle this over voice or irc?
18:12:22 [aaronpk]
there's a whole discussion happening here so maybe irc?
18:12:30 [cwebber2]
sounds good to me
18:12:31 [aaronpk]
actually i'll put on headphones
18:13:17 [aaronpk]
oh i got disconnected too, one sec
18:14:35 [cwebber2]
18:14:39 [aaronpk]
so i started this
18:14:51 [cwebber2]
good start :)
18:15:01 [aaronpk]
we really just need a little description for the form to submit here
18:15:03 [Loqi]
You must be logged in to propose a group or ( Request a W3C account ).
18:15:03 [Loqi]
Once you are logged in, you will provide the name of the group, a short description, and a short name. The shortname is used in various places (such as automatically generated U...
18:15:13 [aaronpk]
but also need to agree on the "ground rules" for the group especially around communication methods
18:15:50 [cwebber2]
so I think it would be nice to use gitlab as communication, because it supports afaict pretty much every github feature and *might* end up federated
18:16:05 [cwebber2]
we can just use the ironic mega-silo for now
18:16:10 [aaronpk]
yeah i agree gitlab is probably the best bet, but i'm concerned about it for two reasons
18:16:22 [aaronpk]
1) it doesn't actually federate so it's kind of an aspirational use of gitlab until it actually does
18:16:26 [Loqi]
that doesn't make sense
18:16:33 [cwebber2]
shh Loqi
18:16:53 [aaronpk]
2) it means we're on our own little island whereas on github at least everyone already has an account and there's good cross-linking of issues and stuff with other repos we'll be referencing
18:17:01 [Loqi]
[@Zaninel] Millions of dollars in engineering has led us to this point...
18:17:32 [aaronpk]
in an ideal world, this issue tracker would just be an aggregator and i would be posting comments from my own software (e.g. my own gitlab instance) and they'd just be aggregated at this group's
18:17:36 [aaronpk]
but in the mean time .... :)
18:17:41 [cwebber2]
re: 1)
18:18:22 [aaronpk]
yeah, it doesn't even have a proposed solution yet right? also that's just about pull requests, not about issues
18:18:40 [cwebber2]
18:18:57 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: the other side of things is that I know some people who won't use github because it requires proprietary javascript, and that's a no-go for them
18:19:02 [aaronpk]
i'd love to be able to demonstrate federated issue tracking
18:19:18 [cwebber2]
so gitlab is not ideal
18:19:22 [cwebber2]
but I think it might be a bit beter
18:19:24 [cwebber2]
18:19:32 [cwebber2]
there's tradeoffs for sure; I hear you on it's more of an island
18:19:41 [cwebber2]
though, in theory github users can log in with their github accounts
18:19:44 [cwebber2]
so it's not so bad
18:20:02 [cwebber2]
but they won't get notifications from one notification UI
18:20:04 [aaronpk]
gitlab uses omniauth and i'd love to be able to pull in the indieauth gem for it
18:20:11 [aaronpk]
that way i don't even need a separate gitlab identity
18:20:38 [cwebber2]
that'd be cool
18:20:52 [cwebber2]
so, aside from github vs gitlab
18:20:56 [tantek]
can you file an issue for them to pull it in?
18:21:49 [aaronpk]
actually i want to update that gem to do the auth server discovery itself rather than delegate that to first
18:22:12 [cwebber2]
would also be good to discuss scope of what we intend to accomplish. the current description on that page is pretty good, though
18:22:22 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, something that doesn't seem to be described, but I want to continue
18:22:34 [cwebber2]
is related things to make the federated web more usable, like spam filtering / anti-abuse tools
18:22:43 [aaronpk]
there's not much in that description, just half a sentence pulled from our current charter :)
18:22:46 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, I assume the IG will be a good fit for that?
18:22:57 [aaronpk]
18:23:00 [cwebber2]
right CG
18:23:02 [cwebber2]
18:23:11 [aaronpk]
I *think* we can do whatever we want in the CG?
18:23:24 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: just making sure you and I agree on what's good :)
18:23:36 [aaronpk]
yeah i'd like to be able to work on things like that too :)
18:23:55 [cwebber2]
so we're basically thinking vocabularies and protocols to support the distributed / federated social web, and surrounding technologies that "support" them (such as spam filtering and anti-abuse tooling)
18:24:11 [aaronpk]
that works
18:24:24 [aaronpk]
go ahead and add that to the page?
18:24:28 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: cool, doing so
18:26:31 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: updated description, refresh
18:27:54 [aaronpk]
18:29:22 [aaronpk]
so the group will get a wiki on by default, do we want to use that?
18:29:43 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I think we might as well
18:29:51 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: the socialwg has used a wiki to good effect mostly
18:29:58 [aaronpk]
yeah seems like it
18:30:38 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: so I suggest we use gitlab, but yes, since it's not federated, use It'll have some tradeoffs, but given the work we're doing I think it's worth it, and it might allow some users in related spaces to participate who wouldn't on github
18:31:07 [aaronpk]
oh gosh
18:31:20 [cwebber2]
18:31:26 [cwebber2]
not, I don't know what that is
18:31:31 [aaronpk]
lol oops typo
18:31:34 [aaronpk]
i think i am actually more opposed to using compared to
18:31:51 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: ok, do you have an alternative?
18:32:02 [cwebber2] appears to have something to do with Mattel and Hasbro
18:32:11 [aaronpk]
self-hosted gitlab?
18:32:29 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: I'm ok with that, though I don't volunteer to host it :)
18:33:25 [aaronpk]
let me check what the recommended server stats are for it
18:34:12 [cwebber2]
ooh I like that it uses capital-S Scheme
18:34:40 [cwebber2]
scheme based expert system ;)
18:34:50 [cwebber2]
1980s MIT classic ;)
18:35:51 [aaronpk]
wow they want 4gb ram free
18:38:40 [aaronpk]
know anyone who could sponsor hosting this server? ;-)
18:38:45 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: ping mattl :)
18:38:53 [aaronpk]
ha oh yeah
18:40:01 [cwebber2]
aaronpk, I believe there's which I think mattl got some gitlab people to sponsor/maintain
18:40:17 [cwebber2]
but I don't know much about it or how that maintenance is done.
18:40:37 [aaronpk]
well i'm happy to run the server cause i already run the indieweb server and more for my own sites
18:43:03 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: ok!
18:43:14 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: so I say we still resolve at this time to do something like
18:43:31 [mattl]
aaronpk: i can get you a server
18:43:37 [cwebber2]
oh or there we go
18:43:48 [aaronpk]
18:43:55 [aaronpk]
i don't even need a big one, just a 4gb VPS is enough
18:44:53 [mattl]
yup. we can figure it out next week
18:45:12 [aaronpk]
that'd be awesome
18:48:37 [aaronpk]
how would you describe our group's use of the wiki?
18:49:00 [tantek]
18:49:19 [tantek]
everything besides discussions
18:53:10 [aaronpk]
cwebber2, can you hear us? i switched back to the speakerphone
18:53:51 [cwebber2]
18:53:57 [cwebber2]
I need to dial back in, one se
18:53:57 [cwebber2]
18:54:48 [cwebber2]
18:54:53 [cwebber2]
sounds like a room full of robots
18:55:03 [aaronpk]
i'm gonna call back in
18:55:08 [cwebber2]
18:55:22 [aaronpk]
i may have confused it by switching from headphoens to speakerphone
18:55:42 [cwebber2]
sounds better now
18:55:43 [wilkie]
I hear it
18:56:50 [rhiaro]
The other thing is the bus factor of aaronpk being in charge of everything
18:59:43 [rhiaro]
I think we just need another route clearly documented for them to participate
18:59:48 [rhiaro]
so they're not dismissed altogether
19:00:12 [tantek]
is IRC still not good enough as a start?
19:02:58 [rhiaro]
hey cwebber2 what license should my software be
19:03:47 [cwebber2]
rhiaro, that depends on what you're writing; I think is a pretty nice guide
19:04:09 [rhiaro]
19:04:38 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: for clarity, I'm using Apache v2 for ActiviPy (which is a library only), MediaGoblin is AGPLv3, but for newer server applications, especially ones that are both server + client, I tend to just use GPLv3+ (though AGPL is still a good choice)
19:04:47 [cwebber2]
rhiaro: but that page probably says better than I will here
19:05:08 [tantek]
19:06:43 [aaronpk]
ah right we already have this github org:
19:07:28 [aaronpk]
we'll make a new github org for this
19:09:55 [aaronpk]
cwebber2, check out the updated page
19:10:21 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: looks good
19:10:40 [cwebber2]
aaronpk: also can we agree that we don't try to pronounce "swicg" as one word
19:10:46 [aaronpk]
19:10:51 [cwebber2]
it sounds a bit like retching
19:11:01 [aaronpk]
i think the "g" is silent
19:11:03 [tantek]
resume meeting postponed til 14:15
19:11:19 [cwebber2]
swick-gee is not bad
19:11:20 [tantek]
19:11:36 [aaronpk]
is that a hard or soft G
19:11:37 [tantek]
because WICG is pronounced wi-kig
19:11:47 [tantek]
19:11:52 [tantek]
like keg
19:11:55 [cwebber2]
swi-kig is ok
19:12:29 [cwebber2]
(factoid: did you know that python's WSGI protocol is supposed to be prounounded "whiskey"??)
19:13:08 [aaronpk]
(added a sentence about not using
19:13:15 [aaronpk]
19:13:19 [tantek]
not using or not having to use?
19:13:21 [wilkie]
that's unacceptable. soft-g, hard-g and now g-that-sounds-like-k
19:17:42 [aaronpk]
(if you don't want to use)
19:18:18 [cwebber2]
I think we're good
19:18:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
19:19:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
19:19:15 [csarven]
swicg comes a bit close to SWIG. Semantic Web Interest Group.
19:19:39 [csarven]
And that had been around forever
19:19:40 [eprodrom]
19:19:49 [csarven]
19:20:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<discussion of other group names>
19:20:09 [eprodrom]
What about WebSub?
19:20:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i don't want to derail this with another long round of choosing a name for something
19:20:22 [rhiaro]
19:20:48 [csarven]
Do we need a Google docs for this? Like for push
19:21:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: AnnB proposed Social Web Incubator Community Group.
19:21:09 [csarven]
(not a real suggestion)
19:21:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: which paralells Web Incubator Group
19:21:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the "Incubator" seems bizarre to me
19:21:33 [tantek]
s/Group/Community Group
19:21:37 [tantek]
19:22:00 [aaronpk]
19:22:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: anyway... i did not plan on talking about the name, i planned to share the description that cwebber2 and I came up with, its not a charter length description, its what shows up on the group page and the list of all groups
19:22:10 [aaronpk]
"The Social Web Incubator Community Group is to continue and extend the work of development of vocabularies and protocols to support the distributed / federated social web, as well as "supporting" technologies (such as anti-abuse and anti-spam tooling suitable for a federated network). This group continues the work of the W3C Social Web Working Group."
19:22:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i would like feedback on if this is clear
19:22:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: most of that is from our charter
19:22:54 [eprodrom]
19:22:55 [tantek]
19:22:58 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
19:23:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: "the work of development" can just be "development", can get rid of the scare quotes
19:23:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: related technologies
19:24:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: "tooling" is an interesting word there
19:24:11 [cwebber2]
+1 techniques
19:24:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: techniques
19:24:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: the rest sounds great
19:24:40 [tantek]
19:24:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: the last sentence about 'continues the work of' is that appropriate?
19:24:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: seems fine to me
19:25:14 [tantek]
q+ to say s/for a federated network/for the open web
19:25:34 [cwebber2]
19:25:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: can i throw a couple of other things in here, to the extent that we have registries, like the namespaces for as2, can we add that in there
19:25:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i read that as being in there, but we can add that in there
19:26:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we need that as part of the summary?
19:26:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: the first post will be a longer summary of the group
19:26:44 [tantek]
q+ to also make it clear about incubating
19:26:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: who is going to update erata for the specs? thats something the CG should handle
19:27:17 [tantek]
19:27:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the group can't publish anything normative, but they can update the list of erata
19:28:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i don't know if we need to call them out, but those are definitely two important things for the CG to manager
19:28:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
19:28:54 [tantek]
19:28:58 [tantek]
ack tantek
19:28:58 [Zakim]
tantek, you wanted to say s/for a federated network/for the open web and to also make it clear about incubating
19:29:31 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
19:29:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the phrase "suitable for ..." i was saying "suitable for the federated web"
19:29:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... to keep other types of federated network work out of the group
19:30:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/federated web/open web/
19:30:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i specifically say open web to set the bar high here
19:31:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the summary should clearly call out the method of incubation
19:31:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we will only have during the period of the extension that we presumably get, to have a WG, whereas the webWG has one
19:31:53 [tantek]
19:31:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... so i want to explicitly call that out
19:32:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think there is a lot from this page that i find is very useful
19:33:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we need a charter? I don't think so
19:33:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i don't think so
19:33:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i'm not saying you should copy that charter, but its a good place to mine from
19:34:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm a little teapot, short and stout
19:34:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think that middle paragraph that you cited is a pretty good one
19:35:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and the key thing is that its not saying what group its going to, but if they have enough prototypes they can use that to propose a new working group
19:35:48 [sandro]
s/sandro: i'm a little teapot, short and stout//
19:35:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/sandro: I'm a little teapot, short and stout//
19:36:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: does the description look good?
19:37:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: would you consider putting formats in place of vocabularies?
19:37:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i can add formats
19:37:22 [aaronpk]
added formats
19:37:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: for participation i would say the same requirements from the wicg charter
19:38:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... where you have to sign this license agreement
19:38:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the bit about maintaining the namespace, thats beside the point, its co-ordinating extensions
19:38:52 [cwebber2]
19:38:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... traditionally extensions use different namespaces
19:39:05 [tantek]
19:39:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think that from my perspective, if i were trying to track down whose job it is to update that namespace
19:39:43 [tantek]
19:39:48 [tantek]
ack cwebber
19:39:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: hopefully that would be in the namespace, its a rule that every page on is signed
19:40:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... it says editor, amy guy at the top
19:40:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2: there was a review process for joining this group, is there one for this group
19:40:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there is no such requirements for community groups
19:41:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: as i remember joining the group requires you to sign this stuff automatically
19:41:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the one surprising thing there is that if you work for a w3c member, your AC rep has to review it, but the system does it
19:42:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... public can easily join, but member organizations without going through their company first
19:42:14 [tantek]
19:42:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... its just surprising
19:43:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: also in participation, we haven't had a history of posting things on a blog for this group, so i'm not sure that a claim that we would do that in the future is something we should promise. if you want to say that we MAY..
19:43:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i wanted to make sure to make it clear that you would not expect to see discussion on the blog
19:43:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: so maybe put that as a catch all absolutely last
19:44:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and then after the 'the groups wiki is used for documenting conclusions' i have found those wikis incredibly dead
19:44:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i would suggest we instead use the w3c's wiki
19:45:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: why is that bad?
19:45:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... because they have to be in the CG?
19:45:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: you get less people randomly joining in and making editing your wiki
19:45:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: is this for patent issues?
19:46:06 [aaronpk]
wait i didn't say that
19:46:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: if your TRs are on your wiki, as you used to do...
19:46:28 [tantek]
19:47:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think they raised the bar on the wiki, where you have to be in a group to edit the wiki
19:47:20 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
19:47:21 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
19:48:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: woah, w3c says it requires member access, but you (aaronpk) aren't a member
19:48:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: did you register as a swicg org on github?
19:49:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/aaronpk: is this for patent issues?//
19:50:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: in order for me to submit this, we do need to have a name. Are there any serious objections to the current name?
19:51:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so swikig is how its pronounced? i don't see a lot of incubation in that description
19:51:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats why i asked for it up front in the description
19:51:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i'm okay with it
19:52:59 [tantek]
PROPOSED: create the Social Web Incubator Community Group (SWICG) with description and participation as noted with aaronpk and cwebber as co-chairs
19:53:14 [rhiaro]
19:53:24 [eprodrom]
19:53:24 [cwebber2]
19:53:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
19:53:26 [aaronpk]
19:55:18 [sandro]
19:55:20 [tantek]
RESOLVED: create the Social Web Incubator Community Group (SWICG) with description and participation as noted with aaronpk and cwebber as co-chairs
19:55:25 [KevinMarks]
Bait and Swicg
19:55:34 [KevinMarks]
19:55:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: he's just being goofy
19:55:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: he's being Kevin
19:56:05 [wilkie]
19:56:07 [eprodrom]
ha ha
19:56:58 [aaronpk]
19:57:13 [aaronpk]
19:57:15 [Loqi]
This is the list of proposed Community and Business Groups. To express support for a group, you must have a W3C account. Once a group has sufficient support (five supporters), W3C announces its creation, lists it on the current groups page, and peopl...
20:00:17 [aaronpk]
20:00:21 [aaronpk]
we're live!
20:01:27 [cwebber2]
should I hit join on that or am I added as a chair and that happens automatically?
20:02:37 [cwebber2]
I'm trying to figure this out, hold on
20:03:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
cwebber2, you need to join
20:03:25 [cwebber2]
"I confirm that I have a significant employment relationship with GNU MediaGoblin (If incorrect update affiliation first) "
20:03:38 [cwebber2]
not super sure if GNU MediaGoblin really counts as significant employment right now
20:03:39 [cwebber2]
but I guess
20:04:04 [csarven]
wait.. you read agreements/TOS/license/patents warnings? Who are you?
20:04:21 [csarven]
I see checkboxes, I'm like.. I got this.
20:04:31 [cwebber2]
csarven: haha
20:04:35 [Loqi]
20:06:29 [aaronpk]
cwebber2, once you join i will make you a chair
20:06:33 [cwebber2]
I did join!
20:06:45 [cwebber2]
"Your request to join the group with only individual commitments has been sent for review to the W3C Staff. You will be notified by email when your request is approved or denied."
20:07:54 [cwebber2]
should I have said as my "employer"? :P
20:08:15 [cwebber2]
with GNU MediaGoblin only remotely sort of being my employer
20:08:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPC: AS2 non-spec issues
20:08:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: AS2 non-spec issues
20:09:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: before we go to test suite, we have closed 10 issues, they are updated in the ED, the most important is the issue around name and summary from last week, so we push them to the ... whats the next step?
20:09:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: are there normative changes?
20:10:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: this was a change to a SHOULD, (reference previous resolution)
20:10:49 [tantek]
20:11:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: do we think the language thing effects implementations?
20:11:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: thats a publisher requirement, isn't it?
20:11:24 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: the syntax is the same
20:11:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: wasn't it true that you could have a conformant reader, that just looks for the string
20:12:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: can we capture that as an issue? thats orthoganal to what we just resolved
20:13:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: you could have made a conformant reader before but doesn't now right?
20:13:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we did have examples before that had the object format for context
20:13:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we didn't specify that you don't blow up
20:14:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: so is this about just making it explicit? or do we not need to do anything? how about I open an issue and we can discuss it there.
20:14:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: even to call out all the places where its like that in examples
20:14:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: given that we have an example in the spec, its not a breaking change, it was clearly our intent
20:15:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we don't need a new transition call, but we need a new CR
20:15:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i'm going to confirm that its 4-weeks
20:16:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we are adding 2 SHOULDs, they probably will not break any implementations
20:17:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: if those issues get in to ED, and those get circulated to all implementations, that may be good enough to not need a new CR
20:17:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and explicitly call them out as normative changes
20:17:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: they aren't
20:17:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... they match examples in the spec now
20:18:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: okay, they are clarifications that effect normative text, we should call that out as seperate from editorial changes, we should be up front about that
20:18:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i agree we should be up front about it, but there are many editorial changes in normative text
20:19:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i don't want it buried in editorial changes, put them as seperate 'important clarifications'
20:19:24 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
20:19:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: can we fix change log to link to previous version's change log
20:19:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: so it sounds like its good to not publish a new version yet
20:20:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i think it would be good to get these changes formally in the CR version if we are going to use those 4 weeks anyway, and its the right thing to do
20:23:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: evan, what would you like to do next?
20:23:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: lets discuss test suite
20:23:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... a couple of things happened, we have updated changes that match changes we made. such as using https context URL, and the name issues
20:25:05 [cwebber2]
20:25:08 [eprodrom]
20:25:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: what? https context URLs?? there was a whole blog post on why we don't do that. HSTS solves that anyway
20:25:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... which string are they supposed to be looking for if they are using just string matching?
20:26:00 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
20:26:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: what i'd like to do is while you read that over, we continue talking about test documents
20:27:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... updated the test docs to match the current state of the spec. second the validator, there are outstanding issues on the validator, nothing that can't be fixed but they haven't been done yet
20:27:20 [tantek]
20:28:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: #351 seems fine, the namespace didn't change, the context changed
20:28:39 [tantek]
20:28:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: but its inconsistant with annotations
20:28:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: can we deal with this next?
20:28:59 [tantek]
20:29:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we have outstanding issues on the validator, i'm not sure what our process is for that. Do we need to have no issues on the validator? Most of them are around loosing the validator.
20:30:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i have issues of validating because of ...
20:30:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes, but thats just a matter of how to get the AS2 on to the stream, if you paste it in, it still validates
20:31:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: there are certainly things to improve, but does this stop us from getting to PR?
20:31:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: it seems harmful to me asking people to use the test suite and it doesn't work correctly
20:31:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: is it blocking people from implementation reports?
20:32:34 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: what i'd like to do is go through these and mark them as blocking or not blocking. my goal is to have no issues, but get blocking ones out of the way first, then non-blocking ones
20:32:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'm going to give that to myself as a task
20:33:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... as far as implementation reports go, right now we have 4 implementation reports for AS2, 1 implementation report that we are waiting for
20:33:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i expect csarven will submit one as well
20:33:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think we'll land somewhere between 10 and 12 implementation reports before we are done
20:33:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: and how many are updates from AS1?
20:34:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i know of 2 that i think are
20:34:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: how many are besides the editors?
20:34:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: right now none are from me or james
20:34:26 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: how many outside the group?
20:34:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: how many are from outside the group?
20:34:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/eprodrom: how many are from outside the group?//
20:34:56 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: only one is from outside the group
20:35:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: is it fair to make the validator to be an implementation
20:35:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i don't feel like the validator is a valid implementation
20:35:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i feel like AS2 its more valid to use it, but we might as well err on the side of not including it
20:36:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i will do an implementation report for the validator, but if there is an question, we'll remove it
20:36:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we have a lot of features that are not implemented at all
20:37:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... every part of the vocab is a feature thats at risk, except for a very small core
20:37:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: are they literally at risk?
20:37:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we did, we had a long discussion about that
20:37:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: are there any non-at-risk features that have only 0 or 1 implementations?
20:37:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think not
20:37:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we have a summary of them?
20:37:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: thats probably my next task
20:38:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: with the required features first, then at-risk after that
20:38:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if i was going to do an estimate, they are mostly the core-types and their properties, as well as the activtypub parts
20:39:31 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... that will probably put us in the area of 5 or so extension
20:40:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think that we may get down to a small enough vocab document that we question why we have a seperate vocab document
20:40:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so if i implement it a week after REC, its referenced all from the rec, and people can still use it, there is not a big loss if we cut things from the spec
20:41:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thats the impression that i get
20:41:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: it kind of matters of where you go for documentation
20:41:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i really want the extensions to be highlighted
20:41:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... does the spec link to an extensions page?
20:42:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we do not have anything that says "look here" i don't know where that would be
20:42:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: we could just say the namespace document, the downside is 6-months from now there will be no w3c staff member paying attention to that
20:42:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: isn't that what the CG is there for?
20:43:52 [tantek] source:
20:44:00 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: who has control of
20:44:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i might, i know that james does
20:44:22 [ben_thatmustbeme]
20:44:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: going back to implementation reports. I think that we have a couple we would still like to see.
20:45:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i need to work on a summary table, but let me see if i can say this correctly
20:45:16 [cwebber2]
they will at least *use* activitystreams implementations
20:45:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... activitypub implementations will be activitystreams implementations as well
20:45:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: if we wait for those implementations, would we have more properties exit CR?
20:45:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes
20:46:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think we should seriously consider that, its a bit of a delay
20:46:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i have no complaint with that, i think it would be a better spec with us waiting for more activitypub implementations
20:47:06 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that would buy you a lot of time for CR changes
20:47:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... just another considerations
20:48:26 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
20:50:15 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
20:51:52 [cwebber2]
ok everyone
20:51:53 [cwebber2]
I need to leave
20:52:02 [cwebber2]
is there anything you need me for last minute?
20:52:29 [tantek]
20:56:19 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
20:56:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: back to one thing, if the vocab gets short enough, is it worth us merging the two documents?
20:57:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: the core is very structural, and the vocabulary is much more focused toward the social domain?
20:57:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: can we wait and see?
20:57:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we have 1 test suite, 1 validator ..
20:57:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: its more been easier logically
20:58:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: would we need to do a new CR?
20:58:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i have no idea
20:58:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: its just editorial really
20:58:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... you just publish a tombstone
20:58:38 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: you don't redirect?
20:59:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... its worth it for future readers of the spec, it will help implementations
20:59:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i would want the short names to redirect too
20:59:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: well TRs don't redirect, its a symbolic link, its sort of the normal flow so in this case you actually would want to do a redirect
21:00:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there are some
21:01:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: on another issue, the name / summary issue
21:01:06 [tantek]
e.g. shows CSS 2.1
21:01:23 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: those have been changed in the ED (gives examples)
21:03:33 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
21:03:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i've given myself a task to fix the ones that sound like they were auto-generated to sound like they were created more by a human being
21:04:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think thats all i have to say about AS2
21:04:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we have 6 issues that were opened today
21:04:30 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... from amy and csarven
21:04:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: and some from me
21:04:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we want to spend time disucssing the 1 normative issue, #377
21:04:53 [tantek]
21:04:58 [csarven]
I'll have a PR ready in the next minutes
21:05:02 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... this is amy's issues with is seperate from the language issue
21:06:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i think we resolved that, but we should make it explicit
21:06:08 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: and we need tests for that
21:06:31 [eprodrom]
21:06:34 [Loqi]
[James M Snell] Activity Streams 2.0
21:06:42 [tantek]
21:07:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: (quotes doc)
21:08:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we could have an implementer's note here that the value of the context property could be a string, object, or array
21:11:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(after some discussion)
21:11:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: I'd be fine saying there are only these 3 ways to review it
21:12:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: my only concern is there are other versions that could be generated by JSON-LD libraries
21:12:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: before we publish that in a CR, lets try to get some review of that by a JSON-LD expert
21:13:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(discussion of exact wording)
21:14:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: (updating issue with suggested wording)
21:14:46 [csarven] should be o-kay
21:14:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i'm comfortable with that
21:15:01 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: does that resolve it for you amy?
21:15:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: yes
21:15:11 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
21:15:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that brings us back to just editorial
21:15:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... given that we are talking about waiting more than 4 weeks, i think its better that we republish a new CR
21:15:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: do we need a new call for that?
21:16:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: as long as there are no normative changes
21:16:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: but thats manual still i believe and we need to do a group telcon to resolve that update
21:16:47 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: are we having a meeting on tuesday?
21:16:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: its scheduled right now
21:17:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we typically don't do them right after a F2F
21:17:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: we just skipped one before this
21:17:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we were planning on reviewing pubsub edits
21:17:39 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: we'll have enough to work on then, its worth meeting
21:19:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we're completed for AS2, i was going to have an update of PTD, but i wasn't able to get done what i wanted
21:19:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: is it reasonable to hold off
21:19:36 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: what about name for pubsub?
21:19:38 [csarven]
21:19:38 [tantek]
Topic: PubSub renaming
21:19:53 [tantek]
choices: WebFollow WebSub WebSubscribe
21:19:59 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i'm for WebSub
21:20:10 [csarven]
WebSub sounds good.
21:20:23 [wilkie]
21:20:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: my thought is the editor who is still here picks his favorite, then we +1 / -1 on that
21:20:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... and if that doesn't work, we go to the next
21:21:10 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i know juliens preference on this, and i now agree with it
21:21:14 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: which is
21:21:18 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: WebSub
21:21:43 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Rename pubsubhubbub to websub
21:22:02 [aaronpk]
WebSub specifically
21:22:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... mainly WebSub and not WebSubscribe because of the similarity to PubSubHubbub
21:22:11 [csarven]
Long name is what? WebSubscribeulator?
21:22:21 [sandro]
aaronpk: this is my first choice, and I believe Julien's
21:22:29 [wilkie]
that sounds good actually. easy to search.
21:22:44 [sandro]
aaronpk: with WebFollow being available later for the user-facing feature, like Julian's Follow feature
21:22:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we have any non-native speakers that can confirm the pronouncability of it?
21:23:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i believe phonetically its fine
21:23:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: julien was ok with it and he's a non-native speaker
21:23:22 [rhiaro]
21:23:50 [sandro]
PROPOSED: Rename pubsubhubbub to websub
21:23:51 [eprodrom]
21:23:52 [ben_thatmustbeme]
21:23:52 [rhiaro]
21:23:54 [sandro]
21:23:54 [wilkie]
21:23:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
21:23:59 [aaronpk]
21:24:35 [aaronpk]
PROPOSED: Rename PubSubHubbub to WebSub, and move the shortname pubsub to websub
21:24:39 [rhiaro]
21:24:40 [eprodrom]
21:24:41 [csarven]
21:24:42 [sandro]
21:24:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
21:24:46 [wilkie]
21:24:50 [rhiaro]
21:25:09 [csarven]
There is no company with that name right?
21:25:13 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Rename PubSubHubbub to WebSub, and move the shortname pubsub to websub
21:25:28 [aaronpk]
there are surprisingly few search results for websub in general
21:25:39 [aaronpk]
"About 78,700 results"
21:25:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: the only other thing on the agenda was SWP
21:25:43 [eprodrom]
21:25:45 [ben_thatmustbeme]
21:25:53 [ben_thatmustbeme]
rhiaro: i have not had a chance to work on it recently
21:26:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... can bring it up next meeting
21:26:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
TOPIC: rechartering
21:26:22 [csarven]
21:26:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we have already agreed to request an extension, which we believe we will get
21:27:50 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... putting that in our extension request for 1 to 2+ months with one outlier
21:28:04 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: there is a lot to consider for our recharter
21:28:17 [ben_thatmustbeme]
.. the recharter would start in may
21:28:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i think we should ask for 6 months to keep it simple
21:28:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: that buys us additional runway for if something comes up in PR
21:29:17 [jasnell]
jasnell has joined #social
21:29:25 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: do we feel that it is good?
21:30:51 [tantek]
PROPOSED: Request 6 month extension to take our drafts to REC, with plans already to take Micropub to PR in January, AS2 & ActivityPub to PR in February, WebSub (formerly PubSub) to PR in April; no f2f meetings expected, monthly telcons.
21:31:07 [csarven]
6 months sounds good/safe. We probably only need 3 (just pulling that out of thin air). If we finish early, we go for lunch early.
21:31:10 [sandro]
csarven, yes, I told the group I've owned for ages, and I'm happy to hand it over to whoever's acting for the group on this.
21:31:13 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
21:31:13 [rhiaro]
21:31:22 [aaronpk]
21:31:26 [sandro]
21:31:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: and you are available to chair in that time as well correct eprodrom?
21:31:28 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: yes
21:31:35 [eprodrom]
21:31:42 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: whats the CGs work in that time?
21:31:49 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
21:31:50 [csarven]
21:31:58 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: everything outside of our specs, building extensions, bringing people in
21:32:15 [tantek]
RESOLVED: Request 6 month extension to take our drafts to REC, with plans already to take Micropub to PR in January, AS2 & ActivityPub to PR in February, WebSub (formerly PubSub) to PR in April; no f2f meetings expected, monthly telcons.
21:32:38 [csarven]
Should LDN be in that PROPOSAL?
21:32:46 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: that comes back to your rechartering question, if we see a lot of companies that are w3c members or are potential members
21:32:52 [tantek]
PROPOSED: equest 6 month extension to take our drafts to REC, with plans already to take Micropub to PR in January, LDN & AS2 & ActivityPub to PR in February, WebSub (formerly PubSub) to PR in April; no f2f meetings expected, monthly telcons.
21:32:56 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
21:32:58 [tantek]
(sorry for the omission)
21:33:09 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... thats a good indicator for rechartering
21:33:12 [aaronpk]
21:33:14 [wilkie]
21:33:15 [rhiaro]
21:33:20 [ben_thatmustbeme]
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1
21:33:41 [tantek]
RESOLVED: request 6 month extension to take our drafts to REC, with plans already to take Micropub to PR in January, LDN & AS2 & ActivityPub to PR in February, WebSub (formerly PubSub) to PR in April; no f2f meetings expected, monthly telcons.
21:34:00 [rhiaro]
PROPOSED: rename CG to *swish*
21:34:35 [rhiaro]
Social Web Incubator Says Hi
21:35:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: the question is what happens to all our .rocks domains
21:35:59 [csarven]
21:36:00 [csarven]
21:36:26 [csarven]
q+ github/3rd party URLs in specs
21:36:43 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: sounds like a good thing to add to the list of things we intend to maintain after the WG finishes
21:37:19 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: its okay to say that you own that and its not the group that owns it
21:37:55 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: i'd be surprised to have the community group own a domain since they aren't official
21:38:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if i was w3c, i would not want be endorsing the code written by the CG
21:38:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: is what eprodrom getting at is can the CG find someone to take over
21:39:11 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i think aaronpk has more domains there
21:39:21 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: capture it as something for the CG to deal with
21:39:35 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: going back to rechartering
21:39:49 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... as sandro pointed out there is a need for 20 members
21:40:06 [csarven]
21:40:13 [jasnell]
going back to earlier conversation: the website domain is owned by Chris Messina. Publishing is via github site
21:40:33 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... we don't even need to figure out what to put in a recharter now, we can say, what the CG incubates can determine what we recharter with
21:40:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: so the charter is open ended?
21:40:51 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
21:41:12 [ben_thatmustbeme]
(talking about web incubator CG)
21:41:24 [jasnell]
previously, Chris indicated that he is willing to transfer ownership as long as there is agreement to transfer it back to him should there be no desire to continue maintaining it
21:41:37 [ben_thatmustbeme]
s/web incubator/web platform/
21:43:07 [timbl]
timbl has joined #social
21:45:27 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i don't know why we would recharter right now, we have a CG that will be maintaining things, my guess is they will not be making many proposals in the next 6 months, there is a lot of implementation work to do
21:45:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... there is a lot of advocacy work to do
21:45:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i don't think there is a lot of work that we have on the table
21:46:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: we have very deliberately been trying to reduce that and focus the group, thats why there isn't a lot left
21:46:36 [tantek]
21:47:05 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: i guess my question is, if we get to the end of our extension, and we don't have a lot of work to do, are we ok with that?
21:47:48 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think there is a growing set of communities because of the work we are doing, i forsee growing momentum of the next 3-4 months
21:48:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... second, if i had to drop a recharter today, i could 3 things on it that have multiple implementations already
21:48:41 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... Vouch, Salmention, and private webmentions
21:48:47 [eprodrom]
21:49:15 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... if i were to say that in 6 months, we are going to draft another charter, i think we have a good case
21:49:29 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i'm not making a proposal
21:49:44 [tantek]
ack eprodrom
21:49:54 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: i see this as try to build up pressure in the CG, if it turns out to be WG levels, thats ok
21:50:32 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: if i may ask, i understand there are WG that don't have a fixed schedule as we do.
21:50:44 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: they do, every single one of them has to recharter each time
21:51:11 [KevinMarks2]
KevinMarks2 has joined #social
21:51:51 [ben_thatmustbeme]
eprodrom: is it more a horizontal group
21:52:07 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: horizontal groups don't typically produce their own specs
21:55:34 [KevinMarks]
KevinMarks has joined #social
21:56:14 [csarven]
speaking of after 6 months
21:56:48 [eprodrom]
21:57:27 [csarven]
No audio for me. It cut off. I came back on .. still no audio.
21:58:05 [eprodrom]
csarven: working on it
21:58:38 [csarven]
21:58:39 [wilkie]
sound good
21:58:49 [aaronpk]
i think google voice timed me out
21:59:29 [aaronpk]
should be back now
22:00:16 [ben_thatmustbeme]
tantek: i think we leave the question of rechartering open
22:00:40 [ben_thatmustbeme]
... i wanted to say that explicitly, and remain hopeful, and there is enough work to recharter if enough people decide that
22:00:57 [ben_thatmustbeme]
aaronpk: is it good or bad to have the group expire and then recharter again having had a gap?
22:01:03 [ben_thatmustbeme]
sandro: it doesn't really matter
22:02:13 [rhiaro]
22:02:25 [rhiaro]
trackbot, end meeting
22:02:25 [trackbot]
Zakim, list attendees
22:02:25 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been tantek, aaronpk, rhiaro, csarven, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber
22:02:33 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:02:33 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate trackbot