Social Web Working Group Teleconference
25 Aug 2015
See also: IRC log
- eprodrom, tantek, Arnaud, csarven, Ann, ben_thatmustbeme, jasnell, wilkie, rhiaro, tsyesika
- cwebber2, ben_thatmustbeme
- Summary of Action Items
<rhiaro> elf-pavlik: I replied to your email about liking things, finally :)
<Loqi> rhiaro has 153 karma
<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85419&oldid=85410
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 2 edits to Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85421&oldid=0
<eprodrom> trackbot, start meeting
<trackbot> Date: 25 August 2015
<cwebber2> present! cwebber2
<sandro> I'll try, Elf
<Loqi> sandro has 21 karma
<eprodrom> tsyesika, problems connecting?
<tsyesika> eprodrom: trying now, sorry was a little delayed
<cwebber2> I can scribe
<eprodrom> scribenick: cwebber2
eprodrom: thanks everyone for coming, I believe when we laid this out this will be the last of our summer meetings
... so we may have one more skipped meeting next week, then back on regular schedule
tantek: that's what I have too
eprodrom: first order of business, always nice and easy, is to review the minutes from the last meeting
approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
eprodrom: which was two weeks ago
... just puttin' that topic in there
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to approve
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
<elf-pavlik> i didn't see them on wiki still 15min ago
eprodrom: these got posted late, just a few minutes ago, but if you can review...
<tantek> elf-pavlik: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: approve minutes of Aug 11 2015
eprodrom: barring any other votes, I will mark this as resolved
<csarven> 0 Not happy, but whatever.. lets see whatever is promised.
<elf-pavlik> +0 i'll just trust the crew :)
eprodrom: csarven, are you on the line? I'm not sure what you're saying
csarven: yes, so I'll go along with the decision, I'm just not happy with how it turned out
eprodrom: sounds good
... I understand, is that because of how it went through or the late minutes? if at a 0 I'm not going to continue working on that
... so let's move on
... another thing to discuss is the face to face
eprodrom: registration did open for TPAC in the last week or so
... if you do go, you need to register, helps to get everyone on there so we know who will be participating there
... I have regrets, we do have some remote participants
... if you will be participating remotely, that will help too
sandro: I think I'm not going, I'm hesitant to buy a ticket until critical mass, but if we all do that it doesn't work
... so talking I said I'd go if enough others go
... so if you're waiting for critical mass, ok
<Loqi> sandro has 22 karma
sandro: if you're waiting for travel approval, or if saying your deadline, maybe say that there
... I want people to buy tickets if there's not a meeting
eprodrom: is there a possibility we won't have a meeting?
<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85422&oldid=85391
<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-08-11-minutes https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85423&oldid=85421
eprodrom: is there a critical mass we need to have, maybe 10 participants and local?
sandro: remote people, it can be really hard to be up for all those hours
... in the boring you can't hear things kind of way
Arnaud: let's be clear, there are 5 people listed, there may be 3 if not more people
... if that's the case it might not be worth having
<csarven> Is there a min count or certain individuals/roles must be present?
Arnaud: it would be helpful if people would indicate
<jasnell> I will not be attending in person. Can attend remotely.
Arnaud: we should make this a 2 phase commit thing
<eprodrom> s/2 face/2-phase/
Arnaud: so if we need critical mass, we can confirm then everyone buys tickets
<csarven> jasnell update the wiki please so that it is tracked.
eprodrom: let's see if there's a something we can introduce to get number of commitments by a particular date
... would 6 weeks be a reasonable time commitment?
<tantek> eprodrom: maybe by the next telcon?
<tantek> yes we're ~9 weeks out
sandro: my formal deadline is 4 weeks
... that was a please not a you must(?)
eprodrom: that's a pretty strong date
Arnaud: september 8th seems like reasonable deadline
AnnB: tsyesika and elf-pavlik are waiting to dial in
Sandro: : I was never gven the host code
<elf-pavlik> !tell harry we need host code to diall out from WebEx, could you please share it with sandro and chairs? thx! http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-08-25/line/1440522820835
<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
tantek: do we need a critical mass or do this in 2 weeks
cwebber2: who's talking?
sandro: could everyone please update saying what their status is doing an update to the wiki
eprodrom: please do update to the wiki by end of meeting
<tantek> sandro then evan
eprodrom: in sep 8 meeting we'll make a decision go / no go
<AnnB> @tsyesika, are you on the call?
<tsyesika> AnnB: i am
<AnnB> oh good
eprodrom: any fixed goals for the face to face?
tantek: we should at least collect agenda proposals
AnnB: seems like there was good synergy at paris meeting with tech communities presenting how they were doing things
sandro: the whiteboard exercise was great
tantek: how do we keep that momentum going forward is one way to look at the opportunity of the next F2f
sandro: a hackathon before and afterward may be the way to do it
<Loqi> hackathon has 1 karma
eprodrom: I added an agenda section to the wiki page
cwebber2: arg :)
eprodrom: I'll take an action personally to add items to agenda, see how they go from there
... hopefully that will push us on participation
... I'd like to move forward on activitystreams
Activity Streams 2.0
eprodrom: would like to take a moment to ask jasnell to give us an update on where we are. last meeting I think we tried to discuss what possibilities there were to go forward toward a CR
... I think the challenge was closing issues on github
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85424&oldid=85419
<Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85425&oldid=85424
<Loqi> Jsnell made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85426&oldid=85425
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85427&oldid=85426
<Loqi> Alehors made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85428&oldid=85427
jasnell: the primary outstanding PR right now on github is refactoring of the paging model
... status of the ?? group is using the collection model as part of their api
jasnell: in response to that feedback I got a revised version of the model, seprating collection from individual page
... PR is sitting out there right now for 3 weeks, doesn't appear to have significant review
... but if folks could take a look at it...
jasnell: the other open PR there is the example changes that I still need to review
eprodrom: so the PR with the collection changes, should we or could we discuss now? is that a good use of time?
... might move us a bit forward...
eprodrom: if people are ok with doing that, maybe what we can do is come to a conclusion in-meeting
... and adopt/pull the PR?
<jasnell> sorry, didn't see that eprodrom had already posted
eprodrom: does that sound like a good way to do our time? esp if moving AS 2.0 forward, might be a good way to use next 10/15 minutes
jasnell: can give a quick rundown
eprodrom: sounds great
jasnell: original paging model for AS2 was have collection object, collection object had array of items
... had subset of collections in items
... so collection object might have 10 items of next/previous items
... challenge with that is the way it was defined conflated logical collection with page which they aren't
... from a basic json point of view that's ok but
... from a rdf point of view, not ok
... we've had that feedback before but at the time chose not to persue changes
... the edit at this point introduces a few new concepts
... including collection page
... nad now an ordered collection page variant
... can still have individual, but if you want subsets, can use collection page
<elf-pavlik> relevant issue from Hydra CG discussed over a year ago https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/42
jasnell: to view changes, check out branch, called revfactor-paging
jasnell: you can view changes in browser, they are fairly extensive
... not a huge difference, but they are moved and clarified down to the collection page level
Arnaud: a comment, I'm not against current proposal but want to gie you history on LDP paging, we originally started with something similar
... Where all paging mechanism was done in content
... but we got pushback with timbl by saying you're polluting content
... so we moved all the paging stuff to HTTP headers
<Loqi> Arnaud has 24 karma
jasnell: and that approach involves ??? headers
... like link rel previous rel next kind of thing
eprodrom: if you don't mind I'd like to describe AS 1.0 collections, allllmost the same as what we're describing
<elf-pavlik> relevant discussion to 'polluting content' in Hydra CG list https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-hydra/2015Aug/0037.html
eprodrom: this seems a huuuge step forward in clarity, making it easier for producers/consumers to manage
... giving pages their own class and reifying them, aI also like that we've maintained the ability to maintain the entire collection in the whole object
... so we haven't forced paging for collections of 5/10/15 items
... so I for one think it's a big step forward, the big question arnaud brought up is whether we need to look closer at LDP paging
jasnell: so I view LDP paging as orthogonal; it's compatible. LDP paging is mainly off of link header, we can make use of that
... we've already prototyped that it does work
... so we can have collection page and still have link headers at the sme time
... permit implementers to choose which they want
eprodrom: whoa, that's an interesting question
... idea is we'd support LDP paging as part of collection mechanism if you so chose?
jasnell: yeah we don't have to spec it, implementer can use them together if they choose
<csarven> There is a tradeoff. What's the intention for paging? UI or machine consumption?
<wilkie> wouldn't that need to be spec'd for interop?
eprodrom: ok but if I was a consumer and trying to read a collection you published, would I have to understand both LDP paging and AS paging?
jasnell: well you could understand just one
sandro: how do you know which you need to understand
... you need both?
<elf-pavlik> csarven, why do you need different pahs for machine and person? hypermedia++
sandro: either the server has to emit both, or the client understands both
eprodrom: I think that is something we might need to call into play...
... james, is there a way we can go...
<jasnell> a client GET's a collection, it can look at the headers if it wants, use them if they are there
eprodrom: one option is to ignore LDP paging, the other is to spec out how interop works
<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss should paging belong to API? (IRC only, sorry but WebEx host code issue got me :( )
<jasnell> otherwise, they look for the collection paging properties in the json-ld
eprodrom: elf-pavlik: you're on the q
<elf-pavlik> I would like to propose leaving paging to API and not data syntax
<elf-pavlik> since it deals with *interface* not modeling domains
<sandro> +1 paging is an API issue
<elf-pavlik> do we need it if we have direct access to dataset?
<tantek> cwebber2: that was me that asked about link prev next, not jasnell
cwebber2: tantek: I'm haivng trouble discerning between you, sandro, jasnell today :)
<csarven> elf-pavlik If direct access, yo ucan control that through the query mechanism for instance.
<tantek> can we get a URL for that WG note Arnaud ?
<wilkie> cwebber2: tantek and jasnell sound a lot alike
Arnaud: I"m not arguing that we do LDP paging, it's a workingg group note, so we published it to the working group note, it's been months in the LDP workign group working on paging, and I'm looking at this saying "oh my, here we go again..."
... there are issues related to separation of concerns taht come in here
<elf-pavlik> tantek, this one? http://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/
<tantek> cwebber2 no prob. will try to announce my presence
Arnaud: this may be in line with API
<tantek> elf-pavlik: I don't know - hence why I'm asking Arnaud for a citation
Arnaud: and whether or not you can separating the ??
... what lead LDP group to headers is it allows it to move to a lower level(?)
... that's why we moved to this
... I'm not pushing for one, I think we should go with one rather than 2
eprodrom: it looks like we're coming up with many alternative proposals
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept PR #119
eprodrom: I'd like to make a proposal to accept PR as documented
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: accept PR #199
<elf-pavlik> I would use as rulle of thumbe for social syntax: "what construct i need to express data and use it if i can download the whole dump of given dataset"
eprodrom: I'm not sure if we need to close off discussion, but I would like to make this what's on the floor right now
<tantek> +0 haven't had time to review, but no objection, trusting editor to keep things moving forward
<csarven> 0 Haven't reviewed.
<rhiaro> +0 haven't reviewed
<Arnaud> this seems to be progress anyway
+0 haven't reviewed but I am near +1 because it sounds sensibleish?
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to state that paging and collections are two different things. plumbing/API vs. user-level concept.
<elf-pavlik> +1 tantek
tantek: I don't know if this will help, but talking about paging and collections, the paging does seem like it's a data acdess kind of low level thing
... so that seems like something I'm ok with that moving to the api, as opposed to that being defined in AS
... collections to me are much more of a user thing
... I'm going to post a collection of stuff
<csarven> I also think that paging seems more appropriate for the API.
tantek: so I'm advising we don't conflate those two
<elf-pavlik> can we make straw man pool if we can move it to API ?
<wilkie> +1 seems fine enough. I could see this being placed in the api instead since CollectionPage etc will be ephemeral.
tantek: which might allow us to keep collection posts in activitystreams while moving paging to a different level?
eprodrom: so if we have a URL like (two above) I think the core proposal would have us return a page for the first item and a collection for the second item
... obviously these are examples for proposals but not API (?)
... so even if we think paging is something API handles, that would be if we think page representations should be different than non-page representations (??) it would be useful to have object classes for both of those
<elf-pavlik> similar proposal for Hydra *API* https://github.com/HydraCG/Specifications/issues/42#issuecomment-40717244
cwebber2: I'm not totally sure I got that right eprodrom, please review
eprodrom: has everyone chimed in on the proposal who will like to?
is everyone chimed in who would like to make a decision?
<elf-pavlik> API may need to add AS2 independent vocabulary terms, i don't think we should shovel something in there 'just in case we need it'
<Loqi> justincaseweneedit has -1 karma
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: accept PR #199
eprodrom: so we're at 10:40, we have two other AS2.0 discussions
as:Like vs as:like
eprodrom: first is about likes, as:Like vs as:like
<eprodrom> elf-pavlik, please explain
<elf-pavlik> i couldn't join call due to missing host code for dial out :(
eprodrom: elf-pavlik, please explain
... elf-pavlik, how would you like to proceed
<elf-pavlik> i would invite everyone to read email and social-vocab illustration and prepare for discussing it in 2 weeks
<csarven> He suggested earlier that we can put it off to the next meeting
eprodrom: you can type or make proposal
<eprodrom> elf-pavlik, how would you like to proceed? You can type, or make a proposal, or we can defer until next week
eprodrom: or we can defer until next week
<elf-pavlik> in *2 weeks* ?
eprodrom: ok we'll move to next week
... next proposal also proposed by elf-pavlik
<eprodrom> elf-pavlik, shall we move the next proposal to next week?
<Arnaud> right, s/next week/next call/
eprodrom: would like to move next proposal to next week
<elf-pavlik> our wiki currently says "2015-09-08 Telecon (no 2015-09-01 call) chair: Tantek"
eprodrom: yes I'm sorry, next call not next week
<jasnell> fyi... I will not be here for the next call
<jasnell> will be attending NodeConfEU
<eprodrom> elf-pavlik, waiting for your response to move on
<elf-pavlik> i put it there after exchanging emails with harry on mailing list
<elf-pavlik> yes lets postpone it for when we get hold of webex host code
eprodrom: in absence of response, will move it to sep 8th timeframe
Social API user stories
eprodrom: would like to move on to next topic about social apis user stories
... AnnB asked that we discuss these user stories
... so AnnB ?
AnnB: my question was in regard to interest group, we originally understood request from working fgroup to work through esp stories with minor objections
... so users could agree with user stories esp with relatively minor objections
... we have to have the people who are the objectors engage
... so question is, is that useful for us to do, and if yes, can we use every other working group meeting
... I guess we're coming towards end of summer schedule so
AnnB: but is it useful for working group to try to resolve the user stories
<tantek> I thought that was going to happen last week - but heard nothing
eprodrom: will resolve question with a question, here's a set of user storeis which are +0 or 0 means "I don't care enough to fully object to let it go through"
... are we trying to resolve those also
eprodrom: or also -1 or -0s
AnnB: we were focusing on "minor objections" stories
AnnB: when you read the objections they tend to be about language nuances rather than about whole concept of the story
... so it seems relatively easy to resolve those objections
tantek: in my experience many of those had loose language like "solve the problems of the whole world" which is beyond charter, so given dialogue around user stories was around "this user story was approved so we have to do everything possible around them"
... not sure how to resolve, but want to raise
... consternation around inbox problem is an example
eprodrom: suggestions on how to proceed, here are examples with not all +1s but +1s and 0s
<tantek> indeed we should look at the 0s
<tantek> and see why
eprodrom: we have not accepted those, Annb is it your understanding we can or should? i thin kwe should
Annb: i'm looking for indication on what the IG should tdo that's valuable and supports the IG
<rhiaro> If another batch of user stories get formally 'accepted' I'm happy to go through them and do api requirements extraction as before
annb: the entirely positive are entirely positive, no objections, but the +1s or +0s, I look to you to sort this out
... and question raised, how rigid are these, are they locked in stone or?
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to Socialwg/2015-10-29 https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=85429&oldid=85428
eprodrom: you asked a question I wanted to make sure you were aware, we have a list of approved user stories, we 've mapped these out as the ones we've agreed to implement
... this is the magic list
<elf-pavlik> we can label stories with MUST || SHOULD || MAY and make sure we have implementation for MUST and our decision don't block anything needed for SHOULD and possibly bear in mind to not block MAY
eprodrom: there sis expectation that those user storeis not in those approved list we either need to resolve as rejected or accept
<rhiaro> I like what elf-pavlik said
eprodrom: we do need to get to a sorting process
eprodrom: I think SWAT0 was an important one
... second one was a sorting user stories entirely postiive, we accepted all of those
... what we haven't accepted are the other ones on those page
... if there's a process, I think a process as a group would be proposing then accepting those stories
... I think it would be unlikely to do it in a different way
tantek: no problem
AnnB: I have a quesiton, can I clarify
<elf-pavlik> +q to ask if accepting a story *obligates* us to show working implementation based on delivered specs before claiming victory?
AnnB: so the approved user stories, I think we can see swat0, are those one and the same as the ones that were entirely positive
... user posts a note, reading ((?))
eprodrom: yes those were entirely positive, in july/june we voted whether to accept, and we decided to accept those ones in particular
annb: yes I understood that part, what I thought was the baseline was those were the entirely postivie and swat0, I think that for future work the IG was to work on ones that weren't entirely positive
... so we don't want to do work that's not valuable
... seems interesting to work on, but if not valuable it's not valuable
... also sound is breaking up fo rme, not sure for everyone else
tantek: yeah, so I was going to point out regarding user stories, there's a bit of difference in how we resolve user stories than other ones, I'd look at the ones we had +1s, and why would there be 0s or -1s. if its' all +1s and +0s, what's the problem, but compared to ???? and -1s
... the traditional way is traditional w3c thing is if nobody objects move forward
... but I said that's a bad way to move forward
annb: a number of things were like "there's an attachment in the middle, but should it really be anywhere", that's easy to resolve
<jasnell> dropping. have another call I need to prep for
eprodrom: I understand that, that's a reasonable way to sort them, but there is like 100 of them
annb: yeah evan, aren't the sortings that ben_thatmustbeme were like that
eprodrom: yes but tantek is saying whether or not the ???
tantek: I was just answering annb's question
... I was just saying, pick at ones that have ones that have more +1s, rather than "least objections"
eprodrom: sorry to do this but will jump to front of queue
eprodrom: I'm going to propose we extend by 10 mintues
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: 10 minute extension of meeting
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: 10 minute extension of meeting
<ben_thatmustbeme> scribenick: ben_thatmustbeme
cwebber: i was going to say that, if the IG finds many of these are easy to resolve, I would trust the IG to find the ones that are most close to being resolvable
<Loqi> cwebber has 3 karma
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 42 karma
maybe the best thing for the IG to do is to find those that are most likely to resolve, and make edits as needed and propose them back to the WG
AnnB: We were accepting the catagorization that ben_thatmustbeme was working with and we were just going down that list. I think what you are proposing is to go through the list and just find those most likely to resolve
<cwebber2> AnnB: that sounds good, we were accepting the categorization ben_thatmustbeme came up with, we started with the minor objection group and bring them forward
<cwebber2> eprodrom: so I gave an example of one that has mostly approval, but it had "why not do this but do text", and easy resolution is "just do text", but you do need some responsiveness from the people who did the objection
<scribe> scribenick: cwebber2
AnnB: you're describing what we think is a good process, we don't want to make a resolution for tantek on how to fix it, we'd ask him how he thinks we can resolve that
eprodrom: so maybe a process we can use is that the IG will continue to go through these, and at intervals where there are issues resolved, we can bring back to the WG, and we can vote to accept / not accept
AnnB: main request I have from the WG, we need to talk to you
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections and propose user stories for acceptance
AnnB: we're happy to coordinate, but we need that kind of support from individual objectors
eprodrom: (repeats proposal above), does that sound reasonable?
AnnB: yes with the caveat that participants must help resolve
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections with the help of WG members and propose user stories for acceptance
eprodrom: how about this one ^^^
<elf-pavlik> we can agree to void objection if person objecting not engages in clarifying them (via github as we agreed) in timely manner < 1 week delay
eprodrom: cna I get a straw poll?
<ben_thatmustbeme> though i would say, if you don't get a response from some individuals, still propose edits, may still be worth the work put in to it
eprodrom: I'm getting all +1s so that looks strong
<eprodrom> RESOLVED: ask the IG to continue to resolve objections with the help of WG members and propose user stories for acceptance
cwebber2: I agree ben_thatmustbeme, if the IG feels comfortable with ti
eprodrom: so great thanks so much AnnB
<rhiaro> AnnB: good point, I'll review
<Loqi> AnnB has 29 karma
AnnB: I want to also ask if anyone has a particular story to resolve, point us at it
... IG is continuing,
eprodrom: so ??? would be a good time to help resolve
AnnB: our meeting on wedsnesays is 1 hour earlier than this, for west coast it was a bit early and in europe a bit late
... but we'll do whatever
eprodrom: if you can keep us up to date as time changes
AnnB: we'll ping individuals
eprodrom: awesome, thanks so much AnnB
... great, well I feel like we got to a resolution here, if there are no objections would like to close up the meeting
... if that seems reasonable, thanks all for coming
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
AnnB: thanks, and thank you eprodrom !
Summary of Action Items
[End of minutes]