From W3C Wiki

Derived from RRSAgent minutes

Agenda leading into log listed on: Agenda

See also: IRC log or IRC log mirror


jasnell, tantek, evanpro, oshepherd, elf-pavlik, rhiaro, Arnaud, bblfish, wilkie, cwebber2, +1.541.410.aaaa, dret, Sandro, Shane, hhalpin, +1.541.410.aabb, MarkCrawford, aaronpk, Doug_Schepers


Approve minutes of 04 November 2014
RESOLVED as our process for choosing a Social API strategy

Summary of Action Items

evanpro email to Ello about participation in the WG (recorded in


<tantek> good morning #social web WG!

<evanpro> I forget

<harry> warning, I'm being kicked out of my office so I'm going to be a few minutes late to the meeting

<tantek> greetings

<dret> aloha

<oshepherd> I presume the US is definitely off DST now and I don't need to worry about that confusing scheduling until ~March-ish?

<dret> correct, @osheperd

<oshepherd> Its' just slightly confusing because I think EU and US must have shifted DST in <1week of each other

<elf-pavlik> howdy!

<tantek> US is off DST

<dret> yup,@oshepherd, they tend to do that just to test how much in control we are of our scheduling and calendaring tools.

<tantek> dret, it helps sell updates to scheduling and calendaring tools, job security for the devs that work on them, etc.

<oshepherd> (even without any actual DST shifts)

<tantek> oshepherd: it's because they both have public test results for iCalendar's public test suite. NOT.

<tantek> (on both counts)

<bblfish> is the conf call now, or was it an hour ago?

<oshepherd> I had to apologise to an Apple store employee once for turning up 1 hour late because I'd dared to use Microsoft software with their ics file...

<cwebber2> hello

<elf-pavlik> hi

<elf-pavlik> bblfish, should start now

<cwebber2> fyi, Jessica_Lily == Tsyesika

<bblfish> mhh, lucky me there

<tantek> bblfish: in ~30 sec.

<elf-pavlik> jasnell, does voice already work?

<jasnell> elf: ?

<dret> i dialed in via skype 10min ago, how do i find out who i am?

<evanpro> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 11 November 2014

<cwebber2> I'm here but not identified on the call

<tantek> cwebber2: when did you call in?

<tantek> who just joined?

<cwebber2> tantek: a few minutes ago

<cwebber2> hold on, let me identify myself

<elf-pavlik> if you need to find your ??P nr you can try (just not everyone at the same time!)

<Jessica_Lily> tantek: i did i think

<tantek> oops

<cwebber2> tantek: I think it thinks I'm you

<tantek> that was not me

<cwebber2> that's me

<tantek> cwebber2, redial

<wilkie> hello all :)

<cwebber2> ok just came in

<cwebber2> again

<wilkie> I can do it!

<elf-pavlik> thanks wilkie!

<tantek> wilkie++ for scribing!

<evanpro> scribenick wilkie

<Loqi> wilkie has 4 karma

<wilkie> np

<dret> Zakin, IPcaller is me

<tantek> belated regrets for last week

evanpro: on the agenda: federation outreach to other players in social web

<tantek> I thought (and should have posted) that we were skipping a telcon the week after TPAC

<tantek> (as other WGs do)

evanpro: also some actions with respect to AS 2.0 ... any actions we should do today? ... first item: approval of minutes for nov 4th ... any objections to the minutes?

<tantek> I was confused by them

<tantek> by no objection

<tantek> but no objection, since I wasn't there :)

PROPOSED: Approval of minutes (RESOLVED)

elf-pavlik: thanks

<jasnell> no objection

<evanpro> RESOLUTION: approval of minutes from Nov 4

<wilkie> looks fine right?

Open Issues: Web Annotation Collaboration

evanpro: we will move on to the tracker. looking at open issues. ... there are 8 open issues

<wilkie> elf-pavlik: it is RESOLVED


evanpro: we have 8 open issues and 1 action for Arnaud for adding items to the FAQ ... harry, we have issues for you related to licensing

<oshepherd> Harry said he may be 5min late

evanpro: I don't see harry on the call so we will leave those actions for now



evanpro: James (jasnell) has two open action items. one is looking at annotation model (AnnotationWG) and AS 1.0 adapting this to 2.0

jasnell: both are in progress. I need to follow up with Annotation people ... eric published something on github that we have been collaborating on. should have something in a week or two. in progress.

<evanpro> KevinMarks liaison with Web annotations group?

evanpro: on annotations, we talked about having a liason for the group. who was that?

tantek: that is correct KevinMarks it was I'll talk to KevinMarks.

<tantek> KevinMarks agreed to (was volunteered to) liase with Annotations WG

<KevinMarks> Yes, though I haven't been accepted as an ie there yet

evanpro: that takes care of our open actions and issues (with exception to harry's) ... next topic is API. when we talked at TPAC we talked about how a social API is within our scope and we would address it.

Social API Discussion


evanpro: toward the end of our meeting we got stuck on what the next steps would be. we should come up with a strategy for what our next steps would be and come up with what a working draft for social API would be.

tantek: thanks, sorry

evanpro: we need to be clear on what we want in our social API.

tantek: you unmuted so I assumed heh

evanpro: we have many APIs (google+, twitter, etc) listed as existing social APIs we can look at and we should look at them. ... next, once we have a list of APIs considered social APIs, we could break up those APIs in to blocks: what is about content posting, social graph, etc. see if there are areas of functionality in those APIs we haven't talked about yet. ... from

<Shane> Should we include features that APIs may find useful but that propietary APIs don't have? (I have no examples, it may be a moot point)

evanpro: I do think we do have to have a strategy for moving forward.

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss what Social IG could help with

evanpro: I will stop talking and start recognizing people off the queue ... elf?

elf-pavlik: tomorrow we have a call with social web ig and they can help with that

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask about what about existing *interoperably implemented* open APIs that satisfy many of the same use-cases? E.g. Micropub

<mattl> another call i can't make i'm afraid. it clashes with the weekly managers call at work.

tantek: while I agree with the approach of looking at proprietary, previous social-like APIs I think we've made much more progress in the state of the art than just that. We should at least look at what Social APIs we have today that interop... open APIs and see what cases they solve already. ... instead of reinventing everything from proprietary building blocks. the strongest one I can think of is micropub. which has many implementations and 8 clients supporting it which is a great deal of interop.

<tantek> sites supporting Micropub:

<tantek> clients supporting Micropub:

evanpro: I think it is a great example. we need a mechanism to say that this is something that considers the requirements. ... my concern is that our time schedule is important and we shouldn't go down a use-case tarpit.

<tantek> hence better to start with real world success examples

bblfish: I think it is great to have these examples.


<tantek> rather than use-cases, when we already have interop

bblfish: coming from an architecture point of view, I should be able to follow links without worrying much about the services underneath and do so with minimal amount of sync between services. absolute minimum. ... I should discover where I can post or do certain types of actions by following links.

<elf-pavlik> sounds like hypermedia to me :)

bblfish: if you constrain yourselves enough you can always find a means of doing and solving the requirements. ... if we put the constraints on, I think we will find few solutions to solve them.

<harry> Vocabularies, BTW, are in Social Interest Group unless directly relevant to the API.

evanpro: We are talking about a few different levels. I want to talk about a strategy for this group to get to a working draft for a social API. ... what are our next steps?

<harry> The API is probably going to be ActivityStreams-centric

<tantek> harry - more like ActivityStreams - compatible

<harry> Good point - i.e. it's not an API for *all possible* social use-cases

<tantek> there is no hard constraint to be ActivityStreams - centric, just interop

<harry> but for sharing status updates.

bblfish: I think cutting things into blocks is a good exercise. the trick is to be is to see can one of these and look at them and find limitations to them based on implementations, or maybe we see, with creativity, we can solve generic problems in a simple manner.

<tantek> "can have a generic system" is far different than "has a working system"

<tantek> if "can solve generic problems in a simple manner", then demonstrate proof of that by simply solving the generic problem with your own website/client implementations and document them

<cwebber2> I think it makes sense to have ActivityStreams 2.0 be the basis of things, given the work that's been done

evanpro: I think being able to say "this is what we are trying to do. get these systems (micropub, etc) working on a set of requirements." is a great way to go.

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say APIs are not just a matter of vocabularies, until you've built support yourself, you cannot make any such assertion. Building is the only way of

<cwebber2> I'd be surprised given the existing work put in so far if we didn't

evanpro: tantek?

tantek: I wanted to make it clear that I don't think we can accept that an API is x,y,z is true unless we have an implementation. ... until you have built out a client/server API you just don't have any idea what is needed

<wilkie> uh oh

<wilkie> somebody else scribe plz

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss hypermedia APIs

elf-pavlik: difference between today's social APIs like google,fb,twitter, specific domain,

elf-pavlik: and ...

<harry> I'm pretty sure generic hypermedia APIs are not on topic.

evanpro: why are those different from what we are trying to do

elf-pavlik: because they expect very specific for specific domain

elf-pavlik: support certain concepts, thus API that is limited for those certain concepts

elf-pavlik: but like Hydra, you can discover what it does using JSON-LD

elf-pavlik: you don't have to have prior knowledge about what it can do

elf-pavlik: even with webmention and micropub, you have link relations

elf-pavlik: when you discover them, you can discover you can interact in a certain way

elf-pavlik: remind about the Hydra that it is a suggested candidate


( tantek post-meeting suggests this instead: )

elf-pavlik: also Micropub and Linked Data Platform

evanpro: Micropub, LDP, great candidates

evanpro: I want to bring the conversation back to process

<oshepherd> harry++

<Loqi> harry has 2 karma

<Shane> I don't know much about Hyrda but I do know the discovery for Micropub and Webmentions are very important/useful

<harry> Happy to add Hydra as a candidate.

evanpro: are we comfortable with using those APIs as research, identifying their functionality

<cwebber2> evanpro: yes, I think that's what we really want to do

<wilkie>ok I'm back


evanpro: and requirements

<harry> But in general, I'd rather start to get consensus on something simple and build up as we get implementation experience

evanpro: does that sound right or do we have another path forward?

evanpro: and identifying the requirements we need

<cwebber2> ?q

<tantek> evanpro: or do we have another path forward

<dret> haryr, are you in the shower?

<evanpro> B-)

<cwebber2> -q

harry: I'm happy to have hydra added as a candidate. I tend to agree with evanpro and other folks that we could start with something simple that looks like a HTTP API and moving out for next-gen APIs. I would focus on simple and move up.

<Shane> harry: Agreed, we should start with the simplest implementations. Small instead of monolithic.

harry: for requirements, I think it would be best for people to draft what they want and see what we could get working.

<tantek> who just joined?

harry: this requires an editor to look to find consensus

<tantek> Zakim: ??P6 is elf-pavlik


<cwebber2> +q

<harry> To repeat, I'd like to see an editor role try to get consensus with a rough draft.

<harry> Evan seems like he's doing a good job as that editor so far :)

cwebber2: just wanted to say that it is a smart idea to go forward with this plan.

<cwebber2> I'm done

cwebber2: time schedule is short. we can't move forward until we know what requirements are. why don't we act on the current list?

<tantek> evanpro: I don't see where acts on the actual candidates

<tantek> so thus there's a problem with

<bblfish> So just to write out what I said earlier: "starting off with the notion of a distributed social web one major constraint is that one should be able to follow links from page to page, jumping between servers, that may never have heard of each other until a user made a link between them, and so yet a software client has to be able from this to be able to work out what he has to do to allow a certain action to take place. This constraint is very s

PROPOSED: approve Path_towards_Social_API as our process for choosing a Social API strategy (RESOLVED)

<bblfish> trong, and it should allow one to narrow down the protocols quite rapidly."

evanpro: I think that sounds great.

<harry> +1 EvanPro's proposal

evanpro: (wrt tantek's question) let me link here that we would have proposals that would link to Social API candidates and we would make a decision as a group.

<harry> However, we need someone to write down the requirements, i.e. the editor role I mentioned.

<cwebber2> +1

evanpro: and choosing one of the candidates would be the last step.

<evanpro> +1

<Jessica_Lily> +1

<oshepherd> +1

STRAWPOLL: consensus on this moving forward

<elf-pavlik> can we write down cleare PROPOSAL ?


<evanpro> PROPOSAL: approve as our process for choosing a Social API strategy

<cwebber2> do I re-+1?

<cwebber2> +1

<cwebber2> regardless :)

<evanpro> +1

<oshepherd> +1

<wilkie> it is PROPOSED / RESOLVED

<elf-pavlik> +1 after including

<Jessica_Lily> +1

<wilkie> you'd think it should accept both

<wilkie> +1

<evanpro> RESOLVED: as our process for choosing a Social API strategy

evanpro: I feel pretty comforable with that and it seems others are comfortable ... I think we take some next steps of starting to break up the functionality in those APIs.

<tantek> I added more existing APIs to the patterns page, and grouped by Open vs. Proprietary

evanpro: especially for those who are not as familiar with these APIs to get a feeling of their functionality.

<tantek> and implemented vs. not known

evanpro: implementing this strategy is something we can do next week. we have a lot more to do today.

<tantek> thanks evanpro for helping move forward a sensible process :)

evanpro: I appreciate the focus on this and now we can move forward

Federation Outreach

<cwebber2> +q

evanpro: I would like cwebber2 to address this issue on the call

cwebber2: as I wrote to the list, I wrote about having concerns about how there are many groups implementing federation. it would be best to use this group to consolidate some of that.

<evanpro> Grrr, dropped off the call

<Shane> I dropped off the IRC, that was odd

cwebber2: although there is some risk of distraction to the group of bringing it disagreeing opinions, it is still worth the outreach. ... I reached out to Diaspora. one dev has submitted to the WG and is interested in representing Diaspora. doesn't work on federation presently, but is interested in it.

<tantek> cwebber2++ for reaching out to other groups. Thanks Chris!

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 3 karma

cwebber2: mmn-o is also interested in working with us. there are some doubt about how much they can dedicate to it. maybe it is better to spend energy on last-gen federation, but has applied for WG.

<evanpro> *whew*

cwebber2: I reached out to other groups as well. seems skeptical. response I got was "we think we is to way too early to decide, and it is better to implement many protocols and let industry decide. we want to do our own thing"

<elf-pavlik> cwebber2, do you track you outreach somewhere?

<oshepherd> (Is MMM-O Michal Nordfeldth? He has already posted to the list)

cwebber2: frendi(c/k)a. a person there thinks it would not be the best for them to work on the WG.

<Shane> Sorry, I'm going to have to head off. Internet connection here is dreadful

<tantek> that's sad/ironic about see for a broader list of issues related to tent.

cwebber2: another person working on friendi(c/k)a expressed some interest but I don't think they applied to the WG. ... selfdogfood has been accepted by many and many have that aspect of expertise

who is this?

<tantek> cwebber2, seriously, wonderful outreach effort

evanpro: we have 4 new applicants including those from GNU Social and Diaspora. it looks like [outreach] has been helpful

<MarkCrawford> Chris - it would be great if you could pass along the groups you contacted and the results to the IG for their liaison responsibility

<elf-pavlik> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 4 karma

evanpro: are there other groups we should be reaching out to?

<tantek> cwebber2, to be clear, selfdogfood is not just dogfood (run the software themselves), but the *self* aspect is about using it on their primary identity on the web.

cwebber2: one group I considered is buddycloud. they are using XMPP and maybe that is just too different.

<tantek> cwebber2, per:

cwebber2: somebody did mention that they might be interested in interop.


cwebber2: there may be a low chance, but maybe the ello folks could be pestered considering their anti-facebook views.

evanpro: I think ello is reasonable to reach out to ... does anybody want to take an action to discuss this with ello?

<tantek> re: discuss with Ello, they seem interested but interop not a priority for them

shepazu: I reached out to the list if anybody reached out to ello, reply was that indieweb did. what was the result?

<tantek> but hey, let's have another group reach out to them and try again :)

<evanpro> ACTION: evanpro email to Ello about participation in the WG recorded in

<trackbot> Error finding 'evanpro'. You can review and register nicknames at

<wilkie> isn't surprising heh

<tantek> perhaps the more groups reach out to them, eventually they'll raise the priority for them

<cwebber2> excellent

<cwebber2> thanks evanpro

<tantek> wilkie - I'm sad about's response / status :(

<cwebber2> and thanks for previous outreach tantek

evanpro: again, I think this is an important ongoing effort. I appreciate cwebber2 focusing on it. we have 10 minutes left. ... I added an issue about github and w3c tracker. I noticed we are tracking issues in both places. I want to make sure that we are ok with this process.

<tantek> more on Ello documentation / discussion:

<tantek> in particular:

evanpro: if we use github to track issues on documents and w3c tracker for general issues/actions that makes sense, but I wanted to make a point to clarify anything wrong. ... in particular, I want to ask james (jasnell) who is using github issue tracking about how he feels

jasnell: I have no problem with it

evanpro: seems good

<tantek> if it's not broken, don't fix it?

<MarkCrawford> are we ok with using github and the W3C process?

evanpro: seems we have no issue with using both so let's put this to bed.

MarkCrawford: it is not a question with using both, my question is are we ok with respect to the w3c process in using both

<tantek> hey MarkCrawford - would it be ok to ask you as IG chair to reach out to Annotation WG to get use-cases from them and document them so that we make sure WG develops building blocks that Annotation WG can use?

<sandro> +1 fine by w3c process

<shepazu> yes

evanpro: my understanding is yet, but maybe somebody on staff could elaborate more

<elf-pavlik> evanpro, we will go for 45 more min?

evanpro: sandro says it is fine wrt w3c process. so we will continue to make organic use of github and w3c trackers. ... let's move on. next is activity stream issues/actions

Activity Streams Issues/Actions

jasnell: most of the items deal with primarilily with JSON-LD base ... much of these original concepts are leftovers from when we were kinda JSON-LD aligned but things weren't always compatible

<evanpro> tantek: yes

jasnell: what I have done in a proposed update to the draft is a number of edits where I took the natural language value out and depend on JSON-LD mechanisms for that functionality

<evanpro> We also scheduled 90 minutes today specifically to catch these items

jasnell: I also refactored as:Link though there is still some controversy

<evanpro> Sorry, incorrect, we've got 60 minutes on the agenda

jasnell: the change is basically that the current spec doesn't work properly. the current version fixes that. it's an incremental step that doesn't please everybody, but is a good step. ... I would like to get this merged into the draft ... I understand some parts are still controversial. but merging them into the editors draft is not marking them resolved, just giving us a base to work from.

evanpro: that makes a lot of sense to me from here ... I want to make sure that the people involved in this discussion are ok with that. which means we are reviewing the editor's draft making sure we are addressing these issues and see next week if these are still open.

jasnell: yep

evanpro: so people pushing these on the agenda, elf-pavlik dret oshepherd, are we ok with this?

<elf-pavlik> sure, let's review it further

<oshepherd> Yeah

<dret> +1

evanpro: ok sounds good. I'm comfortable with that too. ... great. we are at the end of our agenda. anything else we need to deal with before we close?

<dret> maybe encourage people to donate vocabularies?

<tantek> dret - any vocabulary in particular?

<wilkie> dret: so, I was trying to start to compile a list of the vocabularities people are using with AS1. evanpro is the poster-child by creating a list for, so it would be great if others did that as well.

<tantek> dret, take a look at and and for vocabularies that are being used that are roughly compatible with AS

<tantek> jasnell, where's that work we did at/post TPAC?

<tantek> on AS/microformats compat?

dret: implementers: can we get something similar to what evanpro has for other implementations? so we can better understand what people are doing so far in order to develop a base vocab for AS2

<jasnell> tantek: the microformat stuff?

<tantek> jasnell yes

<dret> evan++, thanks for reaching out to mikael

<Loqi> evan has 1 karma

<jasnell> here:

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss AS basic schema, microformats,

<wilkie> jasnell: that makes a lot of sense to me. another thing might be to look at StatusNet/GNU Social. I could help out with the process.

<tantek> dret see

<jasnell> need to get that written up and added as an appendix for now

<evanpro> wilkie: that wasn't me that said that

<tantek> elf-pavlik: there's which is not popular in the group.

<evanpro> wilkie: that was me

<tantek> elf-pavlik: then there's ActivityStreams

<tantek> elf-pavlik: then microformats version popular with indiewebcamp group

<tantek> elf-pavlik: can see if we can coordinate, converge it

<tantek> elf-pavlik: wondering in particular how can we use microformats, do we need to add more elements?

elf-pavlik: I would like to take time to clarify that we may need to coordinate vocab differences and how we or others may have to extend to support things.

<tantek> (sorry was that a question for me?)

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to explicitly note the work James and I have been doing on AS2/microformats2 compat

evanpro: the work that eric and james is doing is good. not sure where we should go with that. wrt vocabs, do we put them in the social API or do we address it elsewhere.

tantek: for those not on IRC, and TPAC we had a lot of good discussion about interop much like what elf-pavlik is talking about. ... jasnell and I took an action to look at interop/overlap between microformats and AS model.


<oshepherd> I have been wondering lately about just dropping the "post" verb from AS (instead you just put the object in place)

tantek: we have a good start on that. we have a document (linked above) that shows you how if you have a consumer for AS how to be a consumer of microformats as well and how to model them. this is a great step. ... it would be nice to see if there are AS consumers today that would take a look at this document and see if it makes sense to them. we are looking for feedback.

<cwebber2> would be nice to have a pandoc for metadata :)

tantek: there are libraries and such available to test.

evanpro: so it is 2:00. I think we have an open question to talk about vocabularies. maybe we can put that on the agenda for next week and continue discussion on the mailing list.

<elf-pavlik> i would like to propose evanpro and tantek trying to get their personal websites to interoperate :)

<wilkie> lol

<tantek> elf-pavlik lol

<cwebber2> :)

<tantek> we did that in the past :)

evanpro: any other discussion?

<dret> thanks everybody!

<cwebber2> yay, thanks everyone!

<cwebber2> later!

evanpro: thanks everyone! bye.

<Loqi> woot

<elf-pavlik> thanks everyone evanpro++ wilkie++

<cwebber2> yes thank you wilkie !

<harry> thanks everyone!

<tantek> via -> PuSH/Atom/AS -> statusnet

<wilkie> no problem! typing skills++

<tantek> thanks wilkie for minuting! hope it was ok that I supplemented.

<harry> trackbot, end meeting

<wilkie> tantek: thanks for that