From W3C Wiki



Social Web Working Group Teleconference

28 Jul 2015

See also: IRC log


jasnell, aaronpk, kevinmarks, Arnaud, Sandro, rhiaro, ShaneHudson, ben_thatmustbeme, tsyesika, wilkie, wseltzer


<sandro> trackbot, start meeting

<trackbot> Date: 28 July 2015

<tantek> trackbot, start meeting

<KevinMarks> says no more Zakim

<trackbot> Meeting: Social Web Working Group Teleconference

<trackbot> Date: 28 July 2015

<sandro> We still have the zakimbot for queue management

<sandro> fwiw

<tantek> present?

<sandro> ummm

<aaronpk> i thought present+ was just for the logs

<sandro> nope.

<ShaneHudson> Yeah I'm muted, can hear you fine

<aaronpk> i can scribe

<scribe> scribenick: aaronpk

<tantek> scribe: aaronpk

tantek: participation is limited to members, so please hang up if you are not a member

approval of minutes


tantek: any objections to the minutes?
... or any +1s

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> sure


<akuckartz> +1

<ShaneHudson> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tantek> RESOLVED: 2015-07-14 minutes approved

tantek: i'm going to declare the minutes have been approved


Activitystreams 2

tantek: first item is a pull request


tantek: most likely added by james

jasnell: yeah it was added by me. it's a follow-on to the previous conversation
... about the purpose of a colection
... the previous converstaion, rather than adding a type identifier or purpose identifier, the preferred approach would be using a propertly, link-rel aproach
... that's what this does, to idenity 4 common types of colections
... inbox, outbox, relationships
... and store, which is a link to the collection that has all your stuff like albums or posts
... this is pretty stragithforward, adds 4 properties
... deprecates replies in favor of inbox
... rather than having a replies collection you have an inbox

<KevinMarks> -1 on inbox over replies

jasnell: i saw some discussion on IRC about this before

<jasnell> the WD were published last week btw

tantek: yeah the IRC logs should be recorded, let's assume the IRC logs are there unless someone finds a probelm
... okay i see one -1 from kevinmarks

KevinMarks: my concern here is we came up wth reply in the first place based on existing naming practices across social networks
... there's a distinction between reply and inbox more than just the name
... an inbox is directed at an individual, a reply is directed at a post
... conflating the concepts is confusing implementation detail with a meaningful distinction

tantek: do you have ea counter proposal to james' changes?

KevinMarks: i'm not sure why he's deleting replies as well as adding inbox
... i don't think you can subsume replies with inbox without losing that distinction
... i woudl say keep replies as well

jasnell: we have the existing in reply to property
... if something is posted to the inbox with the in-reply0to property you can infer it's a reply

<wilkie> I think the idea is to do filtering of inbox items into whatever you want?

jasnell: so we have the ability to maintain the distinction without having a separate collection
... inbox becomes more generalized

KevinMarks: so yhow would you express a collection of in-reply-tos

jasnell: you could do it as an extension, or find a way in the api to dfilter by that

KevinMarks: i'm not finding that convincing
... when you build something very large like twitter, you end up constructing an inbox/outbox model which is howyou do caching
... but that is not structural

tantek: james what was the motivation for this change?

jasnell: it's going through and pointing to the different collection types for discoverabiilty
... the api is working with different collection types


jasnell: the pumpio API is an example, they have differnet ideas of your inbox and outbox

tantek: so this is an attempt to normalize AS2 with pump?

jasnell: yeah

<KevinMarks> "replies Used to provide information about the thread of discussion associated with a given object. Typically, the objects contained will have an implied inReplyTo property value equal to the object containing the replies property."

jasnell: normalize how we discover these separate types of collections

tantek: we don't have formal API requirements yet, we just have approved user stories
... although someone could take the approved user storeis and write up API requirements
... and for each requirement, cite the user story that provides that requirement
... but i haven't heard anyone step up to do this

<ben_thatmustbeme> I see it as moving to a more generalized "inbox", something like "webmention endpoint" in the indieweb side of things

tantek: bbut if that did exist, you could cite it as an api requirement

jasnell: if we need to hold off and wait til the api matures more that's fine

tantek: we also have another agenda item to rename the inbox user story
... maybe that will help inform this
... so unless we can come to a quick resolution i don't think we can come to consensus on this call

<KevinMarks> I'm looking for definition of inbox that is as clear as the 1.0 one for replies

jasnell: the PR describes where i'm at

KevinMarks: i' see that we have existing AS 1.0 replies thing which is very detailed, i don't see an equivalent in defining inbox in that way

jasnell: inbox is intentionally defined as a generalized loosely defined concept
... that can contain replies as well as other things

KevinMarks: it sounds less loose to me
... part of this is inbox implies a receiving end. a reply can happen anywhere, but an inbox is a queue of things that have come from outside thaty ou have to dela with

<ben_thatmustbeme> naming issues with "inbox"

KevinMarks: in distributed stuff, replies can exist anywhere on the web, but inbox is a queue of things locally

jasnell: i don't see those as being different things
... a reply you're going to receive, so they're conceputlaly identical

tantek: let me see if i can find a way to move forward
... kevin can you come up with a counter proposal or a proposal in addition to james' changes ijn the next 2 weeks/

KevinMarks: i'll have to read it in more detail
... i appreciate it sounds like i'm arguing about the names of things, but i am arguing they are structurally different

<rhiaro> Can you have a Replies collection for a particular post, but not an Inbox collection for a post, Inbox just for a person?

tantek: the burden is now on you to come up with a propsoal for how the spec should change to indicate they are different concepts
... and we can look at that as agroup

<ben_thatmustbeme> rhiaro, thats a good point

KevinMarks: i'll look at the change in more detail

<scribe> ACTION: KevinMarks to provide counter proposal or proposal in addition to James' PR [recorded in [[1]|]]]

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

<tantek> item: AS2: Status of publication of editor's draft?

status of publication of editor's draft

<jasnell> they were published last week

jasnell: i would like to start a regular candence of once a month publishing a new draft



tantek: congrats for another working draft, appreciate your work on that


<Arnaud> it's in the agenda: Published: and

<akuckartz> jasnell++

<Loqi> jasnell has 28 karma


tantek: okay good, i agree once a month is a good thing

<tantek> item: AS2: Proposal to replace media type "application/activity+json" by "application/ld+json" plus profile

re-open proposal to replace media type "application/activity+json" by "application/ld+json" plus profile

tantek: raised by andreas


tantek: i pointed out we don't have any new information, but then andreas documented the new information
... i'll let andreas present this

akuckartz: i'll try to keep this short
... this one issue was created a while ago


akuckartz: which was closed because there was no further discussion or actions
... not based on the content of the discussion
... i raised this issue of the media type in the SoLiD community and there were several people who agreed it would be better for the linked data community to have the jsonld media type
... what i'm interested in is it would be good to have more arguments in favor of having the special AS media type
... the main issue that was put forwrad in this issue was the problem of two information models

<jasnell> I'm -1 on removing application/activity+json, but +0 on adding the application/json+ld+profile.

akuckartz: but we alreadya have multiple communities with information models and jsonld is the way to combine the communities
... my proposal is to reopen the discusison and collect more information

<jasnell> the impact is specifically on the API

<jasnell> essentially, it would mean allowing the API to accept: application/json+api;profile=<> as an alternative to application/activity+json

tantek: okay, sanyone have anything else to add?
... if not, we can leave the wiki page open to continue to collect the different options

<melvster> just the wiki page I posted earlier:

tantek: and advantages and disadvantagses of each
... doesn't sound like we have a consensus yet

jasnell: i'm definitely -1 on removing activity+json media type, but allowing json+ld+profile we can do that also if that makes it easier for the json ld folks
... all it takes is adding a section to the spec about the profile parameter and what it means

tantek: you're requeting we ge tsome additional spec text provided as part of a proposal?

jasnell: yes

tantek: does that sound reasonable?

akuckartz: sure

<KevinMarks> I thought the point of using a specific type was that implied a profile, without having to include it?

tantek: why don't we leave the wiki page open for contributions for two weeks and re-evalutate it then
... is that a reasonable step forward?

akuckartz: perfect for me

jasnell: yes and i'll re-open the issue on github

tantek: thank you both

Social API


tantek: any update on the brainstorming document?
... i thought i saw all 3 ofyou on the call

rhiaro: there's nothing in particular to update, there's been some requests to add solid stuff into the api outline document

<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-07-28

rhiaro: but nobody has offered to do that

tantek: thanks, any questions about the brainstorming docs or specific requests?
... okay next item

<melvster> FYI: apache who were doing some work on the SoLiD documentation in the API have left the WG

Rename inbox user story

tantek: i added this agenda item
... to Rename Inbox user story to what it actually is: "Read Social Streams" (or "Social Streams Reader")
... b based on some of the comments from the original voting
... it seems like the term inbox is causing misunderstanding about what this user story is about

<tantek> item: Social API: Rename Inbox user story to what it actually is: "Read Social Streams" (or "Social Streams Reader")

tantek: and assumptions beyond what is in the user story
... let's open up the floor for discussion
... go ahead and q+ to provide feedback in any way

ben_thatmustbeme: i had brought this up wa while ago. if it's just the name of the user story and doesn't affect teh functionality, i don' tsee any problem

<ShaneHudson> +1 to changing just the name

tantek: i think in general, because the contents and steps were voted on and approved, it's out of scope to alter that
... if there's an alternative user story there's the other page for that
... this proposal is just about changing the name, keeping the steps as writtne

<rhiaro> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme

aaronpk: i just wanted to add my +1 to this, because the framing of "inbox" comes with this baggaghe of email-like which is not in the intent of the story

<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk

KevinMarks: folowing what i was talking abotu earlier, the nuance is the sense of direction
... sergey desribed twitter as email wihtout a "to" address
... but there is a mechanism to read it
... even tho it's not directed to you
... the power of this model is that they don't behave in the way of having an "unread" count
... you could do that, but it's underminig the more subtle distinction which is that we hve a web of things people say
... and some of them are in response to each other,
... but taht shouldn't create a burden on the person to respond to it
... calling it inbox brings back that email-centric framing that the web and social web transcends

<ShaneHudson> Agreed about the email mindset being awful

<akuckartz> melvster stated that discussion was initiated on the mailing list.

tantek: given the input so far let's put this to a straw poll

<melvster> -1 already implementing using the term 'inbox', I did not expect user stories to change at this point, any change would be more work, is the current naming a show stopper for any other implementers?

PROPSED: rename Inbox story to "Read Social Streams"

<ShaneHudson> +1

<KevinMarks> +1


PROPOSED: rename Inbox story to "Read Social Streams"

<melvster> oops


<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<melvster> -1 already implementing using the term 'inbox', I did not expect user stories to change at this point, any change would be more work, is the current naming a show stopper for any other implementers?

<tantek> +1

<rhiaro> melvster: the story isn't changing... the contents of the story are the same

<ben_thatmustbeme> JUST THE NAME

tantek: i want to clarify, the user story itsefl is not changing

<wilkie> +1

<tsyesika> 0

tantek: so anyone implementing the steps in the user stlory will not need to change their work
... but this is about the WG as a whol ebeing better about communicating what we're working on

<akuckartz> -0.5 lets see what happens in the the mailing list discussion

<KevinMarks> can you link to maling list discussion akuckartz ?

<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick:ben_thatmustbeme

aaronpk: i just want to point out that the mailing list dicussion that is being brought up on irc is not really a discussion, it is a single email by melvster which has had no replies. At this point there has been more discussion of this topic in IRC and on the wiki and on this call.

<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk

tantek: melvster are you on the phone?
... anyone else understand melvin's objection?
... the user stories aren't actually changing
... wanted to see if there was any other aspect to his objection that we're not taking care of
... andreas you wanted to see what happens in the amiling list discussion
... aaron pointed out that the discussion has occured on IRC and this phone call
... do you have a specific objection to make that we should record?

<rhiaro> ^ and the wiki

akuckartz: there isn't that much discussion on the amiling list as a whole as far as i see it
... my point is we should perhaps not decide on what to do today but keep it open for two weeks and then decide

tantek: if we had new information i would tend to agree

<tsyesika> well people can -1 when approving the minutes for next meeting?

<KevinMarks> the email says inbox is poorly defined

tantek: but i feel like we have enough consensus to declare today

<tsyesika> if they've missed this because of holiday

tantek: absense of discussion is not usually a readson to hold things up
... is that reasonable?

<KevinMarks> whereas the social stream story is clear

akuckartz: that's okay for me

tantek: alright let's go ahead and declare that reslved then
... if someone does come up with new information deserving to reopen it, we can do that

RESOLUTION: rename Inbox user story to "Read Social Streams"

tantek: we can implement that witha change ont he wiki

<melvster> wait; which of the two suggestions are we renaming it to?

tantek: let's keep the fragment IDs so existing links don't break
... i can take care of that
... we just took the first suggestion
... and gives a "nod" to the history of RSS, the coincidence of acronyms
... any volunteers to edit the wiki accordingly?

<melvster> well my -1 stands ... no one answered if anyone is implementing this user story

<ben_thatmustbeme> I'll take care of it

tantek: thanks ben
... just for the minutes, melvin is stil indicating he has a -1 and the reason I chose to override that as chair is my understanding of what he wrote in IRC is his understanding is the user story is changing and that is not true, it's just the name
... melvin perhaps you can join the next call if you have new information t o add so we can reconsider that

<ben_thatmustbeme> melvster: how could what is basically a rename of a URL possibly EVER effect your implementation / code ?

<melvster> how could it not?

<tantek> item: Social API: Complete: moved approved user stories to the "approved" section on the wiki

Complete: moved approved user stories to the "approved" section on the wiki

<melvster> naming is a large part of what standards is about


aaronpk: its just what it sounds like. I didn't see anyone had done it yet even though approved, so i just went ahead and corrected the wiki with the 8 approved stories

tantek: great okay

Charter license update


sandro: i've done my part, it's in the hands of w3c management
... i expect it will go to the AC later this week

tantek: great
... do you know how long we might expect that to take for the AC to look at and approve/reject?

<KevinMarks> I think counts as an implementation of Reading Social Streams

sandro: i believe it's 4 weeks

tantek: whatever we can do to minimze the time, if there's something we can request..

sandro: feel free to talk to the AB to say we don't need an AC review

tantek: this is a good test case to suggest process improvements
... let's see how this goes and document it and se how we can make it go more smoothly in the future
... we expect it to go to the AC this week, they'll have 4 weeks to look at it and vote on it, and at the end of that, it will take nother couple weeks to turn the crank and update the charter

<Arnaud> +q

tantek: if there are any objections before hand we can relate that to the WG

Arnaud: i was wondering, i didn't see the final decision on what we put before the AC
... is it just the license?

tantek: jsut the license

<KevinMarks> woodwind implements all of that, though 5 would only be security by obscurity for now

sandro: did you revise the wiki page with the schedule?

tantek: if there's an action for me let's record that

<sandro> ACTION: tantek to update [recorded in [[2]|]]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-72 - Update [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-08-04].


tracking actions / issues


tantek: no pending
... no actions pending review

<Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 2 edits to Socialwg/Social API/User stories


tantek: anyone want to declare victory on open actions / issues?
... alrigh we've got 9 minutes left
... i'll confirm the next telcon is August 11, and Arnaud wil be chairing
... so no telconference next week
... any other business to bring up? or we can close the call and end early

<ShaneHudson> I have to leave now anyway. Thank you tantek

tantek: okay not hearing anything, so i'd like to thank everyone who joined the tel conference
... there's only so much discussion we can do on email and irc, so your participation on the conference helps us make progress
... i appreciate you taking time out of your day to join the call

<akuckartz> bye!

tantek: have a producte two weeks and we'll talk to you on august 11th!

<tsyesika> bye :)

<wilkie> thanks :) bye

<wilkie> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 912 karma

<tantek> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 913 karma

<tantek> ben_thatmustbeme++

<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 106 karma

<tsyesika> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 914 karma

trackbot: end meeting

<tantek> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: KevinMarks to provide counter proposal or proposal in addition to James' PR [recorded in]
[NEW] ACTION: tantek to update [recorded in]
[End of minutes]