From W3C Wiki

Derived from RRSAgent minutes


See also: IRC log


Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk, elf-pavlik, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, Sandro, rhiaro, AdamB, tantek, +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +


<trackbot> Date: 26 May 2015

<jasnell> hhalpin: didn't say it wasn't.

<rhiaro> jasnell, hhaplin: that reinforced to me that we don't need two separate things

<hhalpin> Jasnell, I think the 'activity' model is quite useful

<jasnell> rhiaro: they aren't two separate things, that's the point

<jasnell> Activity derives from Object

<jasnell> every Activity is just a specialized form of Object with specific semantic detail

<hhalpin> Any volunteers with a scribe?

<cwebber2> jasnell: raised it

<cwebber2> ohhhh! it's meeting time

<cwebber2> sorry, dialing in

<jasnell> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 32 karma

<hhalpin> Scribe: aaronpk

<rhiaro> tantek was here a second ago

<scribe> scribenick: aaronpk

<tantek> Zakim: unmute me

<tantek> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 26 May 2015

<hhalpin> Minutes are here:

tantek: first order of business is approval of 2 weeks ago minutes. any objections?

<cwebber2> +1 on approving

<hhalpin> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<elf-pavlik> +1


tantek: not seeing any objections and some +1s, approved minutes
... looking at actions pending review


actions pending review

<tantek> action-14

<trackbot> action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW


tantek: harry anything to report on action 14?

hhalpin: yeah that's been done for a while, the answer is yes

<tantek> action-34

<trackbot> action-34 -- Pavlik elf to add explaination to the spec about multiple serializations used in examples -- due 2015-02-10 -- PENDINGREVIEW


tantek: anything you wanted to point out, elf?

<KevinMarks> aadd is me

<hhalpin> RESOLVED: are approved

tantek: let's set the status of 34 to open, awaiting a pull request from elf

<hhalpin> No updates for me on context URI, given versioning discussion.


<trackbot> action-41 -- Harry Halpin to Review with wendy to figure out best way forward with microformats -- due 2015-03-10 -- CLOSED


hhalpin: already completed

tantek: did you record the conclusion in the action?

hhalpin: it was recorded in the issue, but not the action

<hhalpin> I think it's been discussed that normative referening of microformats are OK.

AnnB: is there confusion between 41 and 14?

<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-05-26

hhalpin: the microformats issue is closed as ok to reference, the jsonld one is open in elf and sandro's hands

<elf-pavlik> we can close action-14 since we have action-63

tantek: if it's in elf and sandro's hands we should open it

<hhalpin> They got a new ACTION, happy to close the current one.

hhalpin: we gave them a new action, so can close the current one

<tantek> action-14

<trackbot> action-14 -- Harry Halpin to Set up json-ld context for namespace -- due 2014-12-02 -- PENDINGREVIEW


<tantek> issue-38

<trackbot> issue-38 -- Do we need to add a version number to the as context uri, to avoid breaking software when new terms are added? -- raised


tantek: sounds like this action is not complete but has outstanding issues to resolve, fine with assigning it to sandro

<hhalpin> Sandro?

tantek: that takes us back to 14
... 41... harry said this one is closed because it's okay to reference microformats

jasnell: regarding 14, that was a very specific issue abotu getting the context document at the URL, and that has been done
... the other issues are independent of that fact

<hhalpin> yep, I put a context document there but wasn't sure if that was right URI due to this versioning discussion

jasnell: that document will need to be updated next time we publish a working draft

<hhalpin> I'm happy to close 38 but in terms of a context URI, we do have a functional one

<hhalpin> it may not be perfect

tantek: action-52

<hhalpin> :)

<tantek> action-52

<trackbot> action-52 -- Harry Halpin to Discuss re github -- due 2015-03-25 -- PENDINGREVIEW


tantek: action-52
... this was also harry

hhalpin: we set up the github repos and clarified the difference between the official w3c repos that only the editors can contribute to, and the more free-for-all w3csocial that anyone can contribute to

tantek: for new people joining the group, is there a link to that clarification that we can put in this issue and on the home page?

hhalpin: i can do that

<tantek> action-60

<trackbot> action-60 -- Pavlik elf to Draw Follow vs. Subscribe with account having multiple feeds allowing subscription independently -- due 2015-05-26 -- PENDINGREVIEW


elf-pavlik: finished this today, and will send to everyone later today

tantek: thanks elf, let's close this

<KevinMarks> reading scrollback, surely chess already has a more compact text form than posting boards e2-e4 etc

<tantek> close action-60

<trackbot> Closed action-60.

<elf-pavlik> trackbot++

<Loqi> trackbot has 1 karma

<trackbot> Sorry, Loqi, I don't understand 'trackbot has 1 karma'. Please refer to <> for help.

<tantek> action-63

<trackbot> action-63 -- James Snell to Work with sandro and elf pavlik to set up new context uri -- due 2015-05-19 -- PENDINGREVIEW


tantek: this is the one it sounds like you were done with

jasnell: i think elf created this and assigned it to me
... the other conversation abotu whether we need a different URI for versioning. i didn't understand why this was created
... there's nothing to do except updating the context document when the draft is udpated

elf-pavlik: we can close it, we discussed it after the telcon last week

<tantek> close action-63

<trackbot> Closed action-63.

tantek: okay if you both agree let's close it


issues pending review

tantek: only three! that's good


<tantek> issue-16

<trackbot> issue-16 -- better separate grammar/vocabulary and improved spec structure -- pending review


tantek: erik raised this
... is erik on the call?

<elf-pavlik> we can check with Erik via mailing list to verify if we can close it?

<wilkie> doen't look like he is in irc either

jasnell: waiting on specific recommendations. i'm happy to accept pull requests but i haven't received any
... there were comments on having the spec be structured better but no concrete suggestions

<elf-pavlik> i suggest setting it back to open

tantek: i'm seeing a pretty long set of emails related to this so i'm not understanding the goal of this issue

<ben_thatmustbeme> this looks like a catch-all issue

jasnell: i've already restructred it a number of times, but it'd be great if someone had specific feedback and suggestiosns

<ben_thatmustbeme> given the number of related emails

<hhalpin> I would propose without specific feedback we eventually close it

tantek: this issue isn't really actionalbe it sounds like

<eprodrom> +1

tantek: anyone disagree with harry's proposal?

<cwebber2> +1

<tantek> close issue-16

<trackbot> Closed issue-16.

tantek: let's go ahead and close it

<tantek> issue-29

<trackbot> issue-29 -- Removing Activity Types not used by User Stories -- pending review


tantek: noting that james is happy to accept PRs for specivic feedback
... this sounds like a lot of work

jasnell: this is not really a *lot* of work, just need to reconcile the objects in the spec with the stories we accepted

<hhalpin> Upon first look over, the user types looked pretty close to what was required in user stories

tantek: it sounds like we accepted this and your'esaying that everyone takes an action to remove types?

<hhalpin> Should probably be kept open and someone *other* than jasnell should check it

jasnell: i can go throguh it myself, if folks are happy with me making those decisions

<tantek> " The candidates for removal are: Achieve, Claim, Reservation, Arrive, Travel"

tantek: the issue has a specific list of things to remove

jasnell: those have been removed

<hhalpin> Then close it out

tantek: then let's close this as completed, and if there is specific feedback we can look at it later

<tantek> close issue-29

<trackbot> Closed issue-29.

<tantek> issue-35

<trackbot> issue-35 -- Simplify the Actor Types -- pending review


jasnell: we simplified them by removing half of them

tantek: thanks james, let's close this one as well

<tantek> close issue-35

<trackbot> Closed issue-35.

<elf-pavlik> tantek++

<Loqi> tantek has 194 karma

tantek: normally we look at raised issues next

raised issues


<trackbot> issue-25 -- What syntax is (syntaxes are) to be used in the social api (eg microformats vs json-ld; form-encoding vs json-ld) -- raised


tantek: we should probably accept this as part of the quetsions the group should answer

<elf-pavlik> +1

<hhalpin> Again, so far it's JSON-LD mandatory, everything else is optional

<cwebber2> +1

<eprodrom> Ugh

<jasnell> 0


<tantek> issue-25

<trackbot> issue-25 -- What syntax is (syntaxes are) to be used in the social api (eg microformats vs json-ld; form-encoding vs json-ld) -- raised


eprodrom: is the question to this group is too complex?

tantek: the question this is asking is the group should decide what syntaxes should be used int he social api
... we haven't made this decision yet
... based on some of the discussions, it's reasonable to open this and accept it assuming those folks continue forward

eprodrom: sorry i was mixing up 25 and 35

<eprodrom> +1

<tantek> open issue-25

<tantek> issue-38

<trackbot> issue-38 -- Do we need to add a version number to the as context uri, to avoid breaking software when new terms are added? -- raised


tantek: this was blocking other actions, but james you were saying this was a non issue?

jasnell: we discussed this before, deciding to mint this context uri back in october, we decided not to include versioning information
... it wa sdecided then to just have a URI that says activitystreams without version

<cwebber2> yes fall back!

jasnell: and it does mean that when we get to CR we limit backwards incompatible changes

tantek: can you word that as a proposal in IRC?

jasnell: the proposal is don't open this issue

<hhalpin_> Don't open issues that have been previously closed without very clear reasoning

<hhalpin_> bblfish, so we're keeping version numbers out of the URI with the current AS 2.0 draft

<elf-pavlik> JSON-LD @context != namespace !

bblfish: i don't think it's a good idea to pub version numbers in namespaces

<KevinMarks> only add a version number for breaking chanegs

sandro: once we get to rec, what is the story going to be once we want to make a change
... this is also a json context uri

<elf-pavlik> let's open it!

bblfish: is there a way to deprecate terms?

sandro: foaf is not a recommendation

<jasnell> let's not attempt to solve problems that don't exist yet. AS3 can mint a brand new URI if necessary

tantek: it sounds like what you're saying is there is a path forward that doesn't require version numbers
... so for the purposes of this issue, i'd like to close it summarily
... elf harry do you have opinions that warrant opening this?

elf-pavlik: to clarify, we don't talk about namespace in jsonld context, it's worth keeping this issue open because we don't have a strategy of how to manage jsonld context

<bblfish> ok, so I don't know how contexts work in json-ld work

elf-pavlik: the other example is the people in the credentials group use version numbers in their context, so we can ask why they use that
... it's not about hte namespace of the terms but about the jsonld context which isdifferent

bblfish: i think i need to find out what jsonld context are

<Arnaud> seems like versioning will remain a dividing issue forever

<elf-pavlik> i can take action

tantek: elf it sounds like you think this is enough of an issue that you want it assigned to you

<hhalpin_> My two cents is if we do a breaking versiioning change, we just use normal W3C process.

jasnell: what we're talking about is the normative context document. nothing stops implementers from creating their own modified version of it, that extends but does not modify the base terms

<tantek> hhalpin_ I tend to agree

<cwebber2> jasnell: I've done my part to suggest dropping something from the spec ;)

jasnell: they can put it wherever they want, they can put it in the context URL of their implementation
... using a different context URL is already possible withotu changing our default one
... the fact that our default one only deals with AS2.0 vocab we aren't making any backward compatible changes to the vocab past CR, so we don't need version number there
... everything elf wants to do can already be done without making a change to the context URI

<bblfish> that also makes sense

<elf-pavlik> can we open this issue and discuss it further?

jasnell: the context document can live wherever

<hhalpin_> In particular apps they can change the @context

<hhalpin_> For application-specific apps

sandro: if you change the bytes in the context you use, then the consumers won't do the right thing

jasnell: the spec says you can create your own context as long as you don't redefine any of thecore terms

<bblfish> I suppose if we want people to read the JSON as JSON-LD then the context thing may be important for people who don't know the LD part?

jasnell: i can create one context document that imports another
... as long as they don't redefine one of the core terms it's all good

sandro: it sounds like if we want to add more terms to the core, then they will have broken the rules for extension without knowing they did

jasnell: if those changes are backwards compatible then what's the problem

<bblfish> IS this a problem to do with non JSON-LD parsers?

hhalpin_: until we have a good case for changing thet erms in the context dynamically, then we have a w3c process for changin....
... so the question is do we want to be able to change the terms in the base after we pass CR
... i don't see a good use case for this, since the context is already extensible
... if there is a good case for this then we can visit this after CR and make a note

sandro: i don't think we want to freeze things, since it will take at least 2 years to make any changes by that proess

<hhalpin_> I think we could discuss this indefinitely :)

tantek: it sounds like there is sufficient debate on this
... i'm going to propose opening this and assigning to sandro

bblfish: i think it would be a good idea to have a debate on the mailing list about this

<elf-pavlik> ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [recorded in [[1]|]]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Document why some of json-ld authors use v1 etc. in context uris [on Pavlik elf - due 2015-06-02].

<jasnell> -1 to opening, it's entirely unnecessary to keep open at this point

<hhalpin_> Maybe an ACTION on Sandro and elf to actually figure out a driving use-case and then edits to the spec?

<elf-pavlik> hhalpin_, i just took action

<hhalpin_> It's a generic problem bblfish

<bblfish> ok. need to learn more about json-ld

<hhalpin_> regardless of whether one is using RDF or JSON

tantek: it's hard to not open the issue if people think there is something to debate

<hhalpin_> They can open it, but they need to have a concrete proposal.

<Arnaud> anyone is free to propose closing any dormant issue

<tantek> issue-39

<trackbot> issue-39 -- Do we need the overall system to be robust even when nodes fail? -- raised


<hhalpin_> that is very vague

<elf-pavlik> +1 sandro

<cwebber2> ,q

<Arnaud> and the chairs propably could probably do a bit of dusting off and come up with a list of such issues

<cwebber2> +q

<jasnell> propose extending the call 30 minutes

<elf-pavlik> +1 jasnell

<eprodrom> jasnell: +1

<cwebber2> last meeting we resolved to do activities at the end, right?

<cwebber2> er

<cwebber2> issues

<bblfish> agree close it

<hhalpin_> Happy to extend for 30 minutes but yes, we've opened a bunch of issues that need closing

tantek: i suggest we close issue 39 because there's no information about who it's from

<hhalpin_> In general, we should be much more parsimonious with issues

bblfish: usually issues are opened in other groups after debating on the mailing list
... it seems like here issues are brought up before they are even debated

<tantek> close issue-39

<trackbot> Closed issue-39.

<tantek> issue-40

<trackbot> issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- raised


jasnell: the post activity was part of AS1.0

<hhalpin_> My suggestion would be, once we get an API document FPWD, we stop using tracker as much as possible and just move it all to github

jasnell: as the default activity
... we have "create" "add" as separate more semantically specific activities

<rhiaro> +1 Create over Post

jasnell: there's obvious confusion with "post" used in other contexts

<elf-pavlik> +1 deprecate Post

jasnell: can be deprecated, doesn't cause much harm and simplifies

tantek: that makes sense, will open this

<tantek> issue-41

<trackbot> issue-41 -- PubSubHubbub license clarification requires contacting current editor Julien -- raised


tantek: this one came up because we were mistaken about who was editing pubsubhubbub right now
... there are some of us who would liek toconsider PuSH in what we're working on
... harry this probably involves you

hhalpin_: there's a normative dependency between the new version by julien and the old version
... and because there's no licensing attached to the earlier one

<cwebber2> -q

hhalpin_: the answer is we can reference julien's version informatively no problem
... but we cannot push it in as a working draft until we clarify bradfitz commits

<elf-pavlik> +1 open

tantek: are you okay with reopening this?

<cwebber2> +q

tantek: i'd like to request you contact julien directly to try to resolve this

hhalpin_: i've already done this once, bradfitz already said no

tantek: because julien is editing this now

<cwebber2> > eprodrom: In previous telecons we've gone over raised issues, but that's been controversial. What I'd like to do is do that at the end of the agenda if we have time

hhalpin_: it doesn't matter if julien is editing, becasue it refers to a previous document that we don't have any licensing on

<cwebber2> from

<cwebber2> was that for this meeting or for future meetings?

<cwebber2> er

<cwebber2> that meeting

<eprodrom> I think the closest we have is

<hhalpin_> This has been extensively discussed with W3C before launching the WG.

tantek: the point is julien is the editor and the chair of the WG, so he is the one we shuld be dealingwith

<jasnell> -1 to opening this issue at this time until it's clear new information is available

sandro: would you like me to take this?


action sandro to follow up with Julien regarding Pubsubhubbub licensing

<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-06-02].

<cwebber2> -q

<KevinMarks> +1 to sorting this out with julien

tantek: the new information is that we should have contacted julien in the first place, not brad
... rather than making assumptions about the spec we should have contacted the author

<tantek> action-66

<trackbot> action-66 -- Sandro Hawke to Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing -- due 2015-06-02 -- OPEN


tantek: let's close the issue with the related action

<tantek> issue-42


<trackbot> issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised


<trackbot> issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised


<cwebber2> +q

hhalpin_: dual licensing has been discussion, it's beyond this WG to do anything, the answer right now is no, but the answer in the future is likely to be yes
... there's nothing this group can do, it's a w3c issue

<cwebber2> Arnaud: is there a link to this?

<cwebber2> new license?

Arnaud: there's a new license doc that will allow re-use
... in that AC meeting it was reported, so that should solve itself

<hhalpin_> Yes, but lots of groups will do that so it's not a big deal

tantek: i asked wendy about that at the AC meeting, our charter mentions a specific license, so we'd need to do a charter modification
... i too would like to look at the new license but we can cross that bridge when it gets to the WG

<elf-pavlik> +1 extend call

tantek: there was a request to extend the call

<jasnell> +1 to extend

<cwebber2> I would be fine with extending

<eprodrom> +1 to extend

<bblfish> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<wilkie> +1

<cwebber2> +0, it depends on how rhiaro and tsyesika and aaronpk feel

-0 i have to go at 11

<cwebber2> okay it's extended :)

<hhalpin_> Aaron is also probably needed to help do API discussion

<cwebber2> welllllllllllll, doesn't this involve aaron as part of this conversation?

<AnnB> I also have to go, but am fine with extending

Arnaud: if you drop off the call after 11 you probably won't be able to join back, but we can continue

tantek: let's go ahead and extend

<cwebber2> tantek: wait

<tsyesika> aaron would need to be yep cwebber2 and hhalpin_

<ben_thatmustbeme> Arnaud: that hasn't been a problem for me in the past

<ben_thatmustbeme> we did this before and I was able to get back on

<wilkie> I can scribe

<elf-pavlik> wilkie++

<tantek> thanks wilkie

<Loqi> wilkie has 12 karma

cwebber2: is aaron required for the items we have?

hhalpin_: there's the api discussion and the microformat/rdf discussion

<wilkie> yep

<wilkie> let's do it

<tantek> scribenick: wilkie


Social API

tantek: that brings us to social API

<hhalpin_> aaron and rhiaro, could you intro this?

tantek: who wants to go first
... let's ack cwebber2

cwebber2: my +q was from earlier. I suggest either aaron or amy go first.

aaronpk: I'm going to assume people haven't read this yet

tantek: assume they have read it

<rhiaro> I also made some changes to it within the last hour, sorry :p

<tantek> (people were supposed to have read it from last week)

aaronpk: my goal with this was to collect examples of what micropub would look like in json
... to look at the parts of it that were awkward or caused 'discomfort' with people

<KevinMarks> read what? URL? Amy's post?


<cwebber2> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 98 karma

<cwebber2> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 818 karma

aaronpk: amy did a much thorough comparison she just published. i've only had a brief chance to look over it.

<cwebber2> for doing these

<tsyesika> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 99 karma

<cwebber2> also rhiaro's post is really awesome

<tsyesika> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 819 karma

aaronpk: rhiaro? anything you could add to this?

<cwebber2> does rhiaro have voice?

<cwebber2> -q

rhiaro: just experimental. i don't really know what I could add other than it just feels like when i put micropub stuff into AS it was just objects in AS and that felt simpler
... would love to hear anybody else's feedback

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss next steps on that?

tantek: elf?


elf-pavlik: thank you rhiaro and aaronpk for working on that. I already created a few issues.
... my question would be: "what are the next steps on this topic?"

tantek: response?

rhiaro: I think the next steps are for people to start publishing stuff


tantek: sounds reasonable
... henry go ahead

<cwebber2> bblfish: there's interest in LDP being tied in

bblfish: I don't see how you can get LDP tied into that

<cwebber2> bblfish: could you help?

rhiaro: I haven't thought about LDP yet. haven't had time.

bblfish: is it part of your plan? are you thinking of it?

<elf-pavlik> Pull Requests :)

rhiaro: yes. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. haven't had much feedback from those involved with LDP.

<tantek> pullrequests++

<Loqi> pullrequests has 2 karma


aaronpk: there's a section on the github on this that can be expanded for comparison

eprodrom: I guess I'm finding the conversation pretty interesting. I think there is definitely an intense cluster around object CRUD lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) a particular object (note etc)

<cwebber2> all verbs are nouns now ;)

<tantek> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 33 karma

<rhiaro> eprodrom: I agree, like activity vs like post are the same

eprodrom: the difference between like-type activity and like-type post as being very small and insignificant
... we should not ignore the rest of the scope of our user stories and over focus on CRUD type interactions

<cwebber2> eprodrom: (pre-meeting-end, request that before you disappear that we sync up on implementation stuff)

<cwebber2> eprodrom: I did put up the flask thing, and I'm working on some scheme stuff on my own time too :)

aaronpk: CRUD is a good place to start, I feel, but we need to move ahead of it quickly

<eprodrom> cwebber2: thanks, I appreciate it

<eprodrom> Sorry I haven't dug into too much

rhiaro: I agree. add/remove from collections are going to be useful, but I feel most things can be reduced to Post

hhalpin_: I was wondering (I sent an email) if we could eventually get an editor's first draft out.
... two ways of doing this: drive two/three into convergence, or just pick one. I'd prefer the former rather than latter.

<eprodrom> +1

<rhiaro> yeah, I agree with aaronpk re: vocab

<rhiaro> that's what I was going to say

<tsyesika> i also agree for what it's worth

<elf-pavlik> eprodrom, we have another point on agenda for today about that :)

<rhiaro> usecases++

<Loqi> usecases has 1 karma

eprodrom: I hate to be the stickler, but I think that for developers outside of the call, if we publish something that doesn't say this is how we post a note, etc, but rather this is how you do a thing without tying to use-cases, I would be worried it wouldn't be actionable outside of us.
... we need some decisions around vocabulary in there

<hhalpin_> Agreed, we'll need to tie it all the use-cases and specify examples with vocabularies *before* FPWD publication

<eprodrom> +1 for incremental progress

<hhalpin_> However, starting the editors' draft ASAP may help us reach that point

<tsyesika> i think maybe we can converge on the other things and if it comes down to it we can pick a vocab

<cwebber2> eprodrom: I agree, and I think aaronpk is right re: incremental progress

aaronpk: I totally agree, just need to look at places for incremental progress

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss vocab for editor's draft

<eprodrom> Let's just makes sure we don't publish the "Social API that sends a thing to a place to do some stuff"

tantek: I agree if people saw an abstract draft that it would not look good

<hhalpin_> If the big vocabulary difference is microformats vs. AS 2.0 Vocabulary, we can move to that discussion next - as I think elf was interested in RDF versions of microformats.

<eprodrom> progress++

<elf-pavlik> we can jump into this dicussion right now :)

<Loqi> progress has 4 karma

<eprodrom> Bravo to rhiaro tsyesika and aaronpk

<tsyesika> hhalpin_: it's not the only difference but it's certainly a sticking point

<cwebber2> indeed!

tantek: i think that it is good to give aaronpk and rhiaro and LDP people more time to discuss and converge on more concepts.

<rhiaro> we could go forward with some decisions about vocab with some 'at risk' until a decision is made

<hhalpin_> The question is there any sticking points in terms of syntax (HTTP CRUD and end-points?)

<hhalpin_> I didn't see any per se

tantek: would rather see that convergence

<hhalpin_> minus the form encoding

<rhiaro> hhalpin_: I added a bit about endpoints to the brainstorming page not long ago, for AP and MP they're basically the same

<rhiaro> Would love someone to drop LDP into that table

<hhalpin_> That's what I thought was well, so we're probably fine in terms minus the form-encoding of micropub

<tantek> hhalpin_, that's ironic, because form-encoding is part of what makes micropub "micro"

<KevinMarks> did zakim hang me up?

bblfish: I wonder if the vocabulary could be put different. I think the issue is what side-effects exist for publishing some kind of thing. if you post a picture, what are you liable to deal with to do that.

<rhiaro> hhalpin_: also yeah we should do better at documenting our (me aaron jessica) discussions about form-encoding and json, we've thought a bit about this

bblfish: that's the one thing I feel isn't addressed here, but perhaps I just looked too quickly

<hhalpin_> I would be happy to see form encoding, as I think developers want it, although REST folks might be unhappy

tantek: hhalpin_ seems to be discussing things in irc. anything for the record?

<tsyesika> ugh i dropped off

hhalpin_: minus the form encoding bit there isn't much difference between micropub/pump as far as syntax

<aaronpk> bye for now!

tantek: questions before moving to next topic?

<tsyesika> me

<tsyesika> i dropped off

Does as:Follow result in as:Subscribe?



elf-pavlik: we had this conversation on the mailing list
... this is about the distinction between following somebody and following their channels
... there is little clarity that if I follow somebody, what am I subscribing to?
... I don't know if anybody has had a chance to look at it. I posted it quite late.

<jasnell> following objects and subscribing to objects are exactly the same thing really

<jasnell> you can follow a person, you can follow a feed, you can follow any kind of resource

<eprodrom> jasnell: I agree with what you say

tantek: do people need to review the diagram?

elf-pavlik: I think it would be helpful

<rhiaro> jasnell: I think the question is if you follow a person and they have several feeds, how do you decide the default?

<tantek> action all review

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

tantek: let's action that people review the diagram
... elf-pavlik, if you could copy this agenda item forward to next week and we'll assume people have reviewed it by then

Social Syntax


tantek: that takes us to the next topic: social syntax, and subtopic: aligning as2 and microformats

<rhiaro> "works on" is a bit strong :p

<tantek> also related

elf-pavlik: I collected existing efforts and I posted awhile ago the invitation for people could subscribe to each other using these different formats

tantek: we looked at this before and made a table of equivalences on the wiki
... we saw that microformats was a proper subset of AS concepts
... the challenge is when microformats has a clear Atom-style stream that doesn't have the same type of activity abstraction
... the challenges will be similar to those found in interoperating existing formats such as Atom/RSS

<elf-pavlik> Invitation (challenge) addressed at two of Social WG chairs - Tantek & Evan proposing Proving usability of ActivityStreams2.0 and Microformats together by example

eprodrom: not interested in participating in this challenge. I find it condescending and rude. not interested in completing arbitrary challenges. please do not bring it up again. thank you.

tantek: who is 'you'?


<KevinMarks> what was the challenge?

eprodrom: 'elf-pavlik' There is a github issue. I think I responded. But I do not want this to come up again.

<eprodrom> I'm mostly frustrated that it's personalized

tantek: I will point out for the record that previously eprodrom and I have gotten interoperability. there has been no problem in doing so. I'm also not immediately interested in this type of challenge.

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss URIs for microformat terms?

elf-pavlik: apologies to eprodrom. I thought it would be a pragmatic way to address issues of interop. I will close the github issue and not bring it up again.
... my question is that if we had clear prefix URIs we could use them in both. anyone who wants to use them can just use them.


hhalpin_: I think that's a reasonable way forward. there seems to be a lot of overlap. we have to make a choice. a good way is to choose one and make a union and where there is an overlap use microformats terms instead of making new ones.

<bblfish> name space idea seems good

hhalpin_: I don't think it really needs an implementation challenge, we should just make a decision on how we will handle these two vocabularies

<cwebber2> hhalpin_: I'm all for implementation union etc

<hhalpin_> Another way to go forward would just be to merge all stable microformats into AS2.0, and then if there's overlap go with microformats term as that already has wide deployment.

tantek: is that a good enough incremental progress for us to move on?

<cwebber2> hhalpin_: btw pump does already have deployment, so

<hhalpin_> Yes, but AS2.0 is still I think a bit more unstable

<cwebber2> that's true

bblfish: this namespace idea, does this seem reasonable?

<elf-pavlik> h:first-name for example

<hhalpin_> It might be useful to do a straw poll?

<elf-pavlik> h:card , h:event etc.

<bblfish> cool

Intended use of as:Profile

tantek: I don't think we are at the point of taking a straw poll


tantek: next topic is also proposed by elf-pavlik


elf-pavlik: from the F2F we discussed the as:profile idea
... I proposed how it could be used to jasnell that I have my identity on my own domain but I have other profiles elsewhere
... I don't know how this is supposed to be used nor is it clear

eprodrom: I think the idea with as:Profile is that it would be an object (not an actor) that you would be able to do things like update or delete.

<elf-pavlik> as:Actor rdfs:subClassOf as:Object . (AFAIK)

eprodrom: the idea was that instead of having a person object update that same person object to represent profile update, we would have person update profile objecct
... yes, elf-pavlik, those are similar
... we also had tangled in there the concept that you might have a user account with multiple profiles
... or rather a person with multiple profiles so I can have a work profile, friends profile, or maybe a political profile
... we have a few things tangled up in this profile concept


<elf-pavlik> ok for me to continue on gh

<hhalpin_> +1 profile objects, -1 'real identity'

tantek: that brings us to last item about IJSON



<tantek> "I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON") is a restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that software can process it successfully with predictable results."

<tantek> from


hhalpin_: there are overlap between JSON-LD and I-JSON so we can say in our spec that we will use JSON-LD


<eprodrom> Ah, beat me to it!

jasnell: the fact that AS relies on JSON-LD means we have to make sure JSON-LD implementations can read the I-JSON subset


jasnell: it is possible that JSON-LD implementations to not ~output~ I-JSON compatible documents

<hhalpin_> We'd have to do some double-checking in the test-suite that we were I-JSON compliant - it's a small issue, but Erik Wilde supported it as a best practice and I tend to do agree.

jasnell: AS implementations should try to make I-JSON compatible documents. if consensus suggests we should make an explicit note about it, I'm happy to do that.

<elf-pavlik> maybe action?

<elf-pavlik> +1 issue

tantek: the question is what if anything AS2 should say about I-JSON

<hhalpin_> Sounds like its a reminder to check implementations for the edge-cases that I-JSON fixes and add a I-JSON check to the AS 2.0 validator.

<tantek> issue: what if anything should AS2 say about I-JSON? per

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-43 - What if anything should as2 say about i-json? per Please complete additional details at <>.

<bblfish> fine for me, but got no idea about ijson

<eprodrom> ha ha!

<eprodrom> Snuck out of it.

tantek: with that we are at the end of the agenda and the end of our call extension time

<elf-pavlik> thanks everyone!

<cwebber2> thx all!

<bblfish> wave

tantek: thanks everybody. next call is next tuesday, June 2nd

<hhalpin_> trackbot, end meeting

<elf-pavlik> wilkie++

<Loqi> wilkie has 13 karma

<cwebber2> guess eprodrom and I won't be syncing up ;p

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [recorded in]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/05/26 18:33:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Arnaud/tantek/
Succeeded: s/51/52/
Succeeded: s/jasnell/aaronpk/
Found Scribe: aaronpk
Inferring ScribeNick: aaronpk
Found ScribeNick: aaronpk
Found ScribeNick: wilkie
ScribeNicks: aaronpk, wilkie
Default Present: Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk, elf-pavlik, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, Sandro, rhiaro, AdamB, tantek, +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +
Present: Ann jasnell +1.314.705.aaaa Arnaud Marilyn aaronpk elf-pavlik +1.401.305.aabb ben_thatmustbeme Sandro rhiaro AdamB tantek +1.773.614.aacc cwebber2 +1.408.335.aadd +1.514.554.aaee eprodrom KevinMarks wilkie tsyesika +
Found Date: 26 May 2015
Guessing minutes URL:
People with action items: pelf

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]