From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

16 Dec 2014


See also: IRC log


jasnell, Arnaud, +1.514.554.aaaa, eprodrom, cwebber2, rhiaro, Sandro, tantek, +1.541.410.aabb, bblfish, jessica_lily, wilkie, +1.541.410.aacc, Doug_Schepers
eprodrom, aaronpk


<trackbot> Date: 16 December 2014



-q ??P1

<jasnell> everyone is winding down

<jasnell> brain slowly shutting down for the end of the year

<jasnell> +1 for skipping next week

+1 on skipping 2 weeks

<jasnell> +1 for skipping two weeks

<tantek> who is calling from 541?

<bblfish> hi

<tantek> who just joined?

<jessica_lily> me

I can scribe if nobody volunteers

<eprodrom> Henry is presenting today

<eprodrom> I scribed last week

<eprodrom> But I can share in the job

<eprodrom> scribenick eprodrom Approval of last week's minutes

<jasnell> no objection

no objections

<eprodrom> RESOLVED: minutes of Dec 9 approved when should we meet next?

<eprodrom> Next meeting is the 23rd

<eprodrom> Today is low, next two weeks will be lower

<tantek> +1 for 2015-01-06 for next meeting

<eprodrom> PROPOSED: skip 2 weeks for holidays, next meeting Jan 6

<jasnell> +1 to skipping two weeks

<eprodrom> +1

<bblfish> +1

<jessica_lily> +1 for missing two weeks

+1 to skipping till jan 6

<eprodrom> RESOLVED: next telecon Jan 6 2015

<wilkie> +1 schedule on the wiki

I think having deadlines helps a lot

<eprodrom> elf-pavlik proposes removing dates from #sched section of socialwg wiki pages

even ones you fall behind on :)

<eprodrom> Arnaud: we have a deadline

<eprodrom> And we need to keep track of what's going on

<jessica_lily> i think deadlines are useful providing they're realistic

<tantek> who just joined from 541?

<eprodrom> eprodrom: Let's put small number of dates on the schedule

<eprodrom> tantek: let's use the Tracker to keep dates and schedules

<wilkie> that makes sense

<eprodrom> sandro: we have a commitment to the dates on the charter and we need to update the charter if we don't make it

<tantek> note for the minutes, Milestones from the charter:

<eprodrom> Arnaud: we are at risk for running out of runway

<ShaneHudson> Hi all, I've got IRC open but won't be paying too much attention. We are having an issue with water in the lights in my house :( sorry!

<Loqi> aww, cheer up

<eprodrom> tantek: we've missed API and Federation Protocol goals already

<tantek> for FPWD

<eprodrom> tantek: and we need to review as a group

<eprodrom> ACTION eprodrom update schedule to show only milestones for approval on Jan 6

<trackbot> Created ACTION-23 - Update schedule to show only milestones for approval on jan 6 [on Evan Prodromou - due 2014-12-23].

<eprodrom> eprodrom: shoot for 3/15 for FPWD of Social API

<eprodrom> tantek: probably too aggressive

<eprodrom> Arnaud: editor's draft?

<jasnell> we don't necessarily need agreement on approach before getting a first editor's draft proposal



<tantek> evan is closing 3 actions as done 16, 17, 19

<tantek> advertising action is still open

tantek: it says "replaced by" 21 :)

<eprodrom> eprodrom: closed Action 16, 17, 19

<eprodrom> ACTION: 20 to scheduling for F2F [recorded in]

<trackbot> Error finding '20'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.

<eprodrom> Action 20 is about scheduling for F2F

<trackbot> Error finding '20'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.

<eprodrom> Action 21 and 20 are closed

<trackbot> Error finding '21'. You can review and register nicknames at <>.

<eprodrom> jasnell: leaving actions open for IBM connections API

<eprodrom> cwebber2: can you fill in for me for a second?

eprodrom: yup

<eprodrom> Thanks

<eprodrom> scribenick: cwebber2

there has been work on the activitystreams spec, there is a vocab draft separated from the other draft

this is Arnaud, right?

there's suggestion maybe there's a requirement between where we draw line between where we explore vocab at large, where we need something we can all rely on

jasnell: it's pretty straightforward, vocab I've been working on is sum of a most common use cases I could identify

across wide set of implementations

I catalogued what are the most common difficulty / artifacts, went back to base schema in AS 1.0

reconciled with what we have now

quite a few additional classes, but all represent real world use cases

main issue I've seen is there are issues with basic structure but with the objects themselves

some use, some use something else

which mean these implementations don't interoperate

at the very least, the goal is to represent the most common concepts in a basic way

so we can implement basic interop

I advocate that we implement those basic terms as part of base vocabulary

later if IG wants to define some details, this provides some basic interop

that's where we're at now

<eprodrom> +q

is this a WG item or a IG item

eprodrom: yeah, so my basic feeling is this really is part of the working group

our charter is to create a syntax for social data and I think that the social network info that jasnell has put together is what we need for interop at this level

if we have 5 different definitions of types for a person or a note or different verbs for following/friendly


I don't think that can be called interop

what jasnell has done so far is set a solid base for those of us who need to do social data to get started

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say vocab interop is WG item, per charter

but I have hesitancy to go out the door without some agreed upon vocab

tantek: I agree with eprodrom, WG needs to agree on interop

it's something implementers who have a strong say in, rather than the interest group

so +1 for keeping that

key is to scope so we can meet succuess: what is minimum subset do we need to meet interop?

calling out minimum subset because looking at some vocabs seem to have terms and prhases that look like people were making them up

we need to do some implementer getting heads together

<jasnell> tantek: which has terms that look "made up" to you? that wasn't clear

what is the minimum interop so that we can do this

and other stuff can be dropped

Arnaud: harry is not on call, so I wonder what he would say

we will have to make this decision

should we do a formal proposal?

I seem to hear agreement

<jasnell> +1 on having a proposal

tantek: if there's agreement, we shoud do proposal, see if there are objections

<eprodrom> scribenick eprodrom

Arnaud: proposal is to keep working, continue jasnell's efforts

go for it eprodrom

<tantek> jasnell - *most terms* e.g. most of schema is totally made-up and no-one uses (including Google)

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: Continue jasnell's effort to do an extended vocabulary for Activity Streams focused on social data

<jasnell> +1

<eprodrom> +1

<wilkie> +1


<elf-pavlik> 0

<jessica_lily> +1

<eprodrom> jasnell: there are use cases in the wiki, which are what drives the extended vocabulary

<tantek> +1 caveat subsetted for vocab terms that are each *essential* for specific documented use-cases.

<eprodrom> jasnell: if there are parts of the vocabulary that don't depend on it, we can remove

<eprodrom> tantek: we should link every term to a use case

<eprodrom> Arnaud: there are steps in the process that make sure what is in the spec is justified

<eprodrom> RESOLVED: Continue jasnell's effort to do an extended vocabulary for Activity Streams focused on social data Linked Data Platform API

<sandro> Let's start tghe Imeplemtnation Report *now*


<eprodrom> bblfish will give us a preview

<eprodrom> page shows links between resources

<tantek> s/URL/URLs

<eprodrom> On reaching a resource, must know what he can do with the resource

<eprodrom> bblfish: there are namespacing and URL requireements, e.g. TOR

<eprodrom> bblfish: LDP is a simplification and generalization of Atom

<eprodrom> No requirements on format e.g. XML

<eprodrom> Turtle as a default, JSON-LD as a requirement

<eprodrom> Reading a resource is extremely simple

<eprodrom> JSON-LD results come back if you request it

<eprodrom> What relations would we want on a LDP seed?

<eprodrom> Can create binary and data resources, POST on container

<eprodrom> Some containers require binding

<eprodrom> Basic container does not do that

<eprodrom> Authentication not included

<eprodrom> LDP Next does include it

<eprodrom> Cert or other authentication

<eprodrom> Binary resources can be posted

<eprodrom> Arnaud: please wait until the end of the discussion for questions

<eprodrom> eprodrom: oops

<eprodrom> Arnaud: "binary" resources can be binary or anything else

<eprodrom> bblfish: DELETE is accepted

<eprodrom> bblfish: PUT is also accepted

<eprodrom> PATCH is possible but no defined format

<eprodrom> LDP WG is working on a simpler format

<eprodrom> bblfish: spec also included conditional updates, ETags, etc.

<eprodrom> bblfish: LDP Next is next steps

<eprodrom> bblfish: including access control

<eprodrom> bblfish: potential for queries

<eprodrom> bblfish: may use query verb

<eprodrom> bblfish: can invent protocols described by the relations

<eprodrom> bblfish: how to send a friend request?

<eprodrom> bblfish: no email or ask for change to file

<eprodrom> bblfish: ping-to relationship

<eprodrom> bblfish: can add new things to the container

<eprodrom> bblfish: in LDP-Next there's a notion of data shapes

<eprodrom> bblfish: restrict the types of shapes in containers

<eprodrom> bblfish: peer-to-peer protocol

<eprodrom> Arnaud: status of LDP

<eprodrom> Arnaud: is now proposed recommendation

<eprodrom> Arnaud: much discussion on what to do next

<eprodrom> Arnaud: working group has decided to ask for an extension of the existing charter

<eprodrom> Arnaud: not to finish but to give everyone time to experiment with what already exists

<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to explain LDP maturity and next

bblfish: does LDP specify much as in terms of side effects from incoming data?

<eprodrom> sandro: march or april workshop to discuss next version of LDP

<bblfish> so in some sense this Social Web WG would be able to help define what LDP needs next

<eprodrom> sandro: has been working on update controls

or is the protocol more of a distributed database, which is side-effect agnostic?

<eprodrom> sandro: need real-time updates

<bblfish> 9 implementations of LDP

<tantek> bblfish - are they well deployed?

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask what types of social content are people (e.g. presenters) posting on their websites using LDP? notes? articles? events?

<bblfish> well if some folks here join, they could be very well deployed :-)

<eprodrom> eprodrom: seems like common patterns

<eprodrom> tantek: what types of content are currently being posted using LDP?

<eprodrom> tantek: are there activity streams types currently being used?

<eprodrom> bblfish: building a blogging engine

<eprodrom> bblfish: mostly FOAF


<eprodrom> bblfish: also AS, images, videos

<jasnell> for my personal blog implementation, I'm starting to use LDP. Using Article, Note, Person, Image, Mention, Post, Respond, Like, Dislike so far

<eprodrom> jasnell: that's interesting!

<eprodrom> tantek: other examples have real implementations

<eprodrom> tantek: people are posting on their own sites today

<jasnell> hoping to have the implementation ready by the face to face, as well as hopefully be able to switch my personal blog over to self-hosted by then

<jasnell> will depend on how much time I have to implement it

<eprodrom> sandro: just starting to be implemented

<eprodrom> Arnaud: out of time

<eprodrom> Arnaud: thanks bblfish for presentation

<eprodrom> ditto! Thanks, bblfish!

<eprodrom> Arnaud: thanks all for joining!

<bblfish> thanks !

wooo \o/

<wilkie> thanks!

happy holidaze

<eprodrom> Thanks Arnaud !

<wilkie> thanks bblfish

<eprodrom> Enjoy your holidays folks

<jessica_lily> happy holidays!

and thx for scribing eva

<eprodrom> Good times to hack!


<eprodrom> cwebber2: thanks for covering me


<tantek> thanks everyone.

<tantek> btw for those in the bay area - the last Homebrew Website Club meetup is tomorrow night @MozSF:

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting