From W3C Wiki

Derived from RRSAgent minutes


See also: IRC log


bret, jasnell, Sandro, Arnaud, Lloyd_Fassett, elf-pavlik, jtauber, hhalpin, Tantek, bblfish, +1.703.670.aaaa, evanpro, Shane, MarkC, markus, dromasca, wilkie, oshepherd


<harry> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 23 September (tentative)

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Keep Action spec separate


None raised


<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2014

<bblfish> zakim IPCaller.a is me

<bblfish> Zakim [IPCaller.a is me

<bblfish> Zakim [IPCaller.a] is me

<tommorris> Apologies for absence: I am travelling today following medical treatment.

<harry> trackbot, start meeting

<tantek> apologies for the beeps but that worked! :)

<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 30 September 2014

<harry> jtauber, can you scribe?

<evanpro> harry: jtauber scribed last week

<jtauber> Arnaud: I did the minutes wiki page

<bret> hey all, I'll be joining the call today too

<bret> tommorris: :( hope you feel better and your travels go smoothly

<jtauber> Arnaud: sorry, I'm still getting used to the process :-)

<evanpro> (I think)

<Loqi> it'll be ok

<tommorris> thanks bret

<oshepherd> I can scribe

<oshepherd> (I forgot my headset again...)

<harry> scribe: oshepherd

Arnaud: participation is still limited to members... number of invited expert applications, still working through list

<harry> Can we hold approving minutes till end of agenda?

<bret> Totally understandable and reasonable

<harry> I am still fixing the draft minutes up

Arnaud: and balancing desire between W3C being inclusive and keeping WG productive
... and ensuring that people who should be W3C members are members.




Arnaud: Agreed that minutes would be transcribed to wiki, turned into wiki page following a defined template.
... Asking scribe to transcribe, post to mailing list once done so that people can discuss the cleaned up minutes, so that they have a heads up to chime in on last week's minutes

<evanpro> +1

<jtauber> my apologies for not getting it done in a timely fashion (still learning)

<Arnaud> Proposed: approve minutes of 23 September:

<jasnell> +1 to approve

<Shane> +1

<harry> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of 23 September

<harry> (tentative)

<harry> Let's hold a week to object over mailing list and maybe fix up minutes

<elf-pavlik> +1

tantek: Just saying for folks that if you have any objections with the minutes you should speak up

Arnaud: People have a week after call to raise comments on resolutions, past week's minutes, etc
... So scribe should attempt to make sure that minutes are out promptly to maximize this time
... Looking at list of open actions...

<jasnell> link?


<Arnaud> action-2

<trackbot> action-2 -- James Snell to Describe how as2 diverges from json-ld and manages the compatibility -- due 2014-09-16 -- OPEN


How does AS2 diverge from JSON-LD (Action 2)

jasnell: This is in progress... as a result of conversations last week with regards to whether we are going to go with JSON-LD or not
... the changes themselves are already in spec document
... divergences are not called out specifically, but they're there
... going to go into that in more detail

<Arnaud> action-4

<trackbot> action-4 -- Arnaud Le Hors to Add "what is the role of social wg, ig and cg?" as an faq to -- due 2014-09-23 -- OPEN


Arnaud: (Procedural) It is impolite to give other people actions without their consent
... Moving on...


Arnaud: Reminded that regisrtation ends on October (28th ?)

<harry> So if you haven't register, register *now*

<harry> Oct 8th

Arnaud: Running out of space, if you haven't registered yet, register now

<harry> Oct 27-28th is our meeting

<harry> oct 27-28th is our meeting

Arnaud: Talking about adding a BOF session with Not joining WG or WG meeting, but BOF during wednesday plenary so we can discuss matters with them

<harry> Oct 29th is a BOF, Google will attend.

Arnaud: (At least 2 people from Google, someone from Yandex) to see if there is any synergy or can be any transfer of work

<tantek> happy to hold an indieweb BOF as well

<evanpro> +1

<harry> +1

<evanpro> tantek: Indieweb BOF would be great

Arnaud: I have setup meeting pages on the wiki for this meeting, again invite everybody to go to page and indicate if they are intending to attend in person or remotely and to indicate which topic they would like to be discussed

<harry> Add here:

<harry> for TPAC BOFs on Wednesday

Arnaud: Can't guarantee we will be able to acommodate, but have done in past and has worked well; aranging things to fit other people's timezones where possible
... As we get closer to meeting, will try to set up an agenda which provides specific time frames as for when we intend to talk about what
... Always difficult to work out how much time each topic will take, but good to have an agenda so we have some reference, even if we are somewhat flexible around that
... Moving on from procedural work towards specifications we have to discuss...

Activity Streams 2

Arnaud: We already aimed to publish document by TPAC. Is there anything in the wya of attaining that goal?

jasnell: Have updated the vocabulary document based upon technical feedback received so far, regarding link value and relationship with link relations and JSON-LD alignment
... Sent out detailed note yestefday and another this moring detailing what these changes are
... Apologise that these are long notes, will take time to go through, but do cover everything changed
... Second document (covers serialziation, syntax) will be updated tomorrow; by friday indent to have drafts of all documents
... Can discuss if we are to publish these as FPWD in time for TPAC

<harry> The key is to get it *decided* by TPAC

<harry> it might not appear on Web for a week or so after.

<tantek> no, sooner

<harry> with its official status

Arnaud: Aiming to get document published by the ??nd of October, lots of W3C admin processes to go through especially for FPWD

<harry> although the Github Editor's Draft will be accurate

Arnaud: Need to get webmasters to publish document, etc.

<harry> and up to date on day off.

Arnaud: Aiming for document by end of this week, decision on 14th of October

<tantek> Arnaud: aim to make decision by 2014-10-14

<tantek> +1 on make decision by 2014-10-14

Arnaud: By then must have reviewed draft, must be able to vote as to whether we should publish as a FPWD

<harry> If we ask for FPWD by Oct 14th, then we'll have it published by TPAC

<tantek> to publish FPWD

Arnaud: Not discussion of if things are done, etc; just if the document is reasonable, so we have a stick in the ground
... Does it sound reasonable to have decision by 14th? That gives us 2 weeks before TPAC to get doc published, which is reasonable

<tantek> note that FPWD is a starting point. We are allowed to make plenty of changes, including breaking changes.

<tantek> we can publish updated WD as often as we the WG can review and agree to publish

<tantek> elf-pavlik: issue tracking per spec is up to the editor

<tantek> in this case, the editor has indicated he prefers github issues on his drafts

jasnell: We do have a draft now, working on edits to that. Putting updated draft in branch on GitHub. Would suggest people review both, so that we can fall back to older draft if changes are not yet ready for FPWD

<Shane> Is there a set amount of drafts that we are allowed to publish?

<tantek> Shane - no set amount.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss AS2 approval for FPWD

Arnaud: Important to signal to group when you freeze the doucment so that we can have stable draft for people to review (limited time etc)

<jasnell> Yes Please.

tantek: Decided to publish by 14th, given how much iteration jasnell has been doing, don't wait until Friday to review document, please review ASAP

<harry> FPWDs are usually pretty sketchy

tantek: Think document is in very stable space, especially for FPWD, on Friday please check what changes he has made since today

<harry> so we are in good shape relative to other WGs, nothing is in stone as well

<bblfish> yes, but in my experience from the LDP WG once something is in FPWD it is very difficult to remove something

<jasnell> this is the updated version to review:

tantek: On Friday you will still have 14 days to raise any issues, though I don't think will be any blockers

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss discussions on mailing list of github issues?

<bblfish> because there is a prejudice for something to be in the draft, so you have to get a lot of consensus to get it out

<jasnell> to view as HTML locally, check out the ontology-approach branch

<bret> mic is garbled

<bblfish> yes, voice is garbled

<harry> I think elf is asking if jasnell prefers github issues or not

<jasnell> git clone -b ontology-approach

<tantek> jasnell - please provide a URL that doesn't require executing any command lines

elf-pavlik: What channel should we use to discuss issues on drafts, Github or WG ML?

<jasnell> tantek: I will have to do that a bit later today

Arnaud: Discussed point before, important operational issue. Would personally prefer people use tracker+ml because connected, but some people prefer GitHub.

<tantek> jasnell - ok for you to take that as an action?

<harry> I've seen both used well

<harry> for small issues, github issues make sense

<bret> tantek:

<harry> for larger design issues, use the WG/tracker

<tantek> jasnell - is that correct?

<harry> WebCrypto and a few other WGs do that productively

Arnaud: Up to editor which way they want to do it. Been raised before that for smaller issues GitHub is probably OK, but for bigger issues should probably be raised on the WG/Tracker so whole ML is aware

<jasnell> bret: thanks ;-) ... that doesn't seem to pull in the respec formatting but that works

<bret> dang!

harry: The problem if we raised issues for any minor semantic issue, overloads tracker and ML with noise, so chuck on GitHub unless you think needs formal discussion from WG

<jasnell> I'll push the branch to the gh-pages branch a bit later this morning

Arnaud: James, are there any technical issues you would like us to discuss now?


jasnell: So it looks like elf-pavlik has raised a bunch I have not yet gone into regarding link relations, etc.
... most seem to be low level technical issues don't need to get into right here
... One regarding issue of audience targetting, how we identify audience.
... Automatic testing
... Nothing which sticks out as needing urgent review here


Arnaud: To WG, are there any issues you would like to talk about now?

<jasnell> issue is resolved by the proposed vocab update

Arnaud: Hope we have verified what is expected to happen with AS
... Should we discuss ActivityStreams vocabulary?

<elf-pavlik> who managed to read updated documents?

jasnell: As I said, I did post the changes to WG.
... in response to Tantek's response on IRC, will be pushing update to github pages after call, so everyone can see nicely formatted version easily
... There are some fairly significant changes, e.g. type value has been removed; link value has been refactored into Link class
... End result is that there are some fairly important changes to the abstract model, but syntax isn't much changed. Mostly semantic changes
... Major change is Actions have been folded into the ActivityStreams main vocabulary; were previously in separate draft
... Will see things like Potential Action, ActionHandlers, etc
... Have reworked design so actions are more similar to's actions, without introducing dependency on schema

<Shane> I like the design being similar without a dependency

<tantek> who just joined?

<elf-pavlik> I wanted to clarify something on JSON-LD

<elf-pavlik> that one can design around JSON-LD and use it later as JSON

<dromasca> ??P18 is me

<dromasca> maybe?

<elf-pavlik> but the other way it doesn't work that well

<tantek> let's not spend time on call on JSON-LD tutorial please

<jasnell> +1

<elf-pavlik> as for example, i have hard time to get microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD


Arnaud: <echos Tantek>, clear that JSON-LD is designed so that it can be consumed as JSON (but the other way is not necessarily true)
... Any question on direction taken by jasnell and vocabulary?

<tantek> elf-pavlik: microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD is offtopic for this channel at this time. happy to discuss "microformats2 JSON as JSON-LD" in Freenode IRC #microformats if you wish

harry: I do think there is a valid point that we have heard a lot from elf-pavlik and wondering if anybody else would like to speak esp. from non-JSON-LD using community e.g. indiewebcamp and see if they have had time to look at spec at all

<tantek> who just joined?

Arnaud: To clarify, this is not intended to be published at same time as the spec, right?

<tantek> jasnell we need two URL to review

jasnell: To clarify, both AS2 vocab + syntax are intended to be published together

<tantek> so we are proposing two FPWD

<tantek> AS2 vocabs

<tantek> AS2 syntax

Arnaud: Process is that as people review documents, raise a list of issues they have, and we can start working on those issues and moving forward

<jasnell> tantek: yes. the AS2 vocabs is what I posted yesterday. I'm working on updating the AS2 syntax today and tomorrow

Arnaud: Perfectly reasonable to publish an FPWD with open issues; nobody expects FPWD to have all issues closed
... Lastly, action handlers

jasnell: The actions stuff has been pulled into vocabulary; does have a revised model
... As a bit of background, actions original proposal that was contributed overlapped fairly significantly with actions
... but took different approaches with regards to syntax and properties
... in update published yesterday, have revised model so that it is /closer/ to what has done, follows same basic model, but property names etc are slightly different, no direct dependency
... aligned so that community has /one/ way of doing things, but don't overlap

<tantek> are there any implementations of actions?

Arnaud: Don't think we have discussed the merging of these two together in the past. It is important to indicate that we are abandoning separate document

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to respond to Harry and to respond to Harry as to whether any indieweb folks have looked at AS2 drafts

<tantek> I'd prefer to keep actions separate

<evanpro> Separate

jasnell: The actions portion is still separate section in the main vocab draft, so can be separateed out if necessary

tantek: So harry asked if anyone in Indieweb community had had a chance to review the AS2 draft
... Don't speak for commuinity, just for myself; have looked over some of draft, haven't done a total reading
... Don't see how to map some of Indieweb microformats usage into AS2 JSON...
... ...but that might just be me not quite understanding it yet, not going to raise as a blocker

<Shane> I've read it but having not implemented AS, I don't have strong opinions either way

tantek: As I see it, the AS2 work should continue to go forward, should try to figure out some form of mapping
... If we can't figure out some form of direct mapping, maybe worth bringing forth some form of proposal, not worth crossing bridge until we get to it

<jasnell> I'm happy to work with you on exploring that mapping

tantek: Regarding the actions: thats all new, as far as I understand, not based upon anye xisting implementations
... Based upon that I think we should keep it separate
... Don't want tthat to cause any issues for existing AS2 syntax+vocab documents
... Would prefer to go to FPWD with both vocab+syntax without actions

Arnaud: Need to get to bottom of that problem

<jasnell> ok, so the proposal should be: keep actions vocabulary in a separate document from the activity vocabulary

evanpro: I was going to second that. Not sure if actions are really necessary for our FPWD, may take a lot of our time
... I think architecture of AS is such that they fit in nicely..

Arnaud: Not sure if much to discuss, hearing multiple nods as to people prefering to keep things separate
... Inviting silent ones to chime in on keeing things separate

oshepherd: +1 on separating

<elf-pavlik> any drawbacks of having 4 documents rather then 2 ?

<wilkie> +1 keep them separate

jasnell: No real objection to separating things out, am agnostic, can go either way as to if one or two documents
... ...Looking at IRC, looks like folks prefer keeping separate

<Arnaud> Proposed: Keep Action spec separate

<Shane> I agree with separate, though if they can be linked together for easy navigation then that would be useful

<harry> In general, we minimize documents

<evanpro> +1


<jasnell> +0

<Shane> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tantek> +1

<elf-pavlik> +0.5

<markus> +0

<tantek> modularity++

<Arnaud> Resolved: Keep Action spec separate

jasnell: No problem, will separate those out

<Loqi> modularity has 2 karma

Arnaud: We have reached the end of our agenda. Any more comments on actions before we move on?

<bblfish> Is there an overview to the actions spec?

Arnaud: I think elf brought up a question on ML?

<elf-pavlik> about *Implementations Task Force*

<jasnell> Actions is going to require close review and discussion. I will write up an overview bblfish

evanpro: So the thing I wanted to bring up as a point of business is that we have on our schedule the intention to start looking at
... some social API candidates and patterns, this week and next week, would like to start collecting social API candidates


<tantek> aside re: actions, we have had more implementation experience with webactions, see for actual usage on public websites.

evanpro: Will see if I can make a wiki page

<tantek> evanpro++ for sharing an empty wiki page to be filled in :)

<Loqi> evanpro has 1 karma

<jasnell> Do we have a list of requirements for the Social API that we can use to evaluate candidates?

evanpro: As we go into discussing social API with our contributions of the AS portion of OpenSocial, would like to see some others so we can evaluate multiple candidates

<tantek> jasnell - # of implementations would be a good start

Arnaud: So people to go to wiki page and add candidates?

evanpro: Exactly

harry: I'd just like to rather quickly address elf's point
... I think that the WG is the implementation group. Don't think it mkaes sense to separate out the implementation folks

<tantek> Harry: working group is the implementation group. no need for separate task force.

<tantek> +1 to what Harry said

<Shane> +1 for WG is the implementation group

harry: Don't think task forces make sense given our numbers at this point; TF unneeded for a WG of this scale
... Usually less meetings = more productivity, so don't think we want the overhead of extra impls
... Would love to see people listing implementations, stats on estimated users if possible

<elf-pavlik> makese sense

Arnaud: See several people have agreed with people on IRC. Seems to be premature, not sure what the purpose of an implementers group would be

<elf-pavlik> agreed!

<jasnell> relevant to impls discussion:

Arnaud: Don't think we have the critical mass at which it is necessary to split into multiple formal groups
... We have reached the end of the agenda, unless people have anything to bring up, we can end the meeting early...

<jasnell> harry: +1

<bret> I will look over it

Arnaud: ...and you can use the free time to reviwe those drafts ;-)

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask about criteria for minimal vocabs

<jasnell> I'd like to see a review from *everyone* ;-)

tantek: So I wanted to raise one of the points that we have made in this WG
... (Pretty sure it is in the charter) that we should try to come up with minimal vocab
... So in particular when reviewing the AS2 draft pay special attention to and provide feedback on what of the vocabulary you find useful
... and what of the vocab, espeically if you have implemented AS1 or AS2 or similar functionality, what terms and values you have shipped, what you haven't

<harry> +1 data-driven design

tantek: That information is useful to WG, if we see clear pattetns that implementers only care about 80% of terms, we can use that to make the vocab smaller
... Smaller standard benefits everyone

<harry> [or empirical driven design if possible]

<wilkie> tantek: where should we put that?

tantek: So people please provide your implementation experience

<bret> does use all of AS?

tantek: so we can aim for minimal set based upon real world experience

<jasnell> wilkie: either to the mailing list, wiki or the github issues

Arnaud: Would like to remind people that as a part of the W3C spec track, there will be a point at which we have a call for implementations, at which point we need 2 implementations of _every_ feature to move forward

<tantek> wilkie: wiki!

Arnaud: May be a case where we have seomthing we thought was a good idea but nobody is implementing it, so we need to publish new draft

<jasnell> wikie: you can post elsewhere, but please at least post a permanent url to the mailing list or github issues so I can better keep track

<bret> tantek: which wiki page?

Arnaud: this causes delays, best to avoid if necessary
... Have a feature like this in LDP WG

<Shane> /implementation-feedback would be a nice url

Arnaud: We have a concept of a "feature at risk"; if we have a feature we aren't sure of, we can mark a feature like this indicating that we aren't sure if we are going to move forward with feature

<tantek> bret how about /socialwg/vocab-implementations ?

<tantek> where we can document each implementation and what vocab it uses?

<harry> trackbot, end meeting

Arnaud: With everything said, looks like we can close this call a little early. Thank you all; see you again next week; meeting adjourned