From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

05 Apr 2016


See also: IRC log


annbass, aaronpk, Arnaud, cwebber, Karli, wilkie, shevski, bengo, rhiaro, sandro
tantek, evanpro, jasnell


<cwebber2> added regrets on tsyesika's behalf

<shevski> sandro: you here?

<annbass_> scribenick, annbass_

<wilkie> scribe: annbass_


<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approval of Minutes of 2016-03-29

approval of minutes from 3/9

RESOLUTION: Approve Minutes of 2016-03-29

no objections

review of drafts ..

<sandro> sorry, shevski, got delayed

ActivityStreams .. both jasnell and evanp sent regrets (the editors)

there are issues that need to be resolved

arnaud talked w jasnell yesterday, to understand status of issues


11 open issues

several are just questions or editorial, not blocking issues

those won't be a big deal

three labelled "CR", owned by Evan

<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to Socialwg/2016-04-05

for those, Evan just needs to update draft according to those 3 issues

not really technical, have to do with exit criteria

after those, 3-4 issues to deal with

  1. 289 ... group resolved at F2F, jasnell had a previous objection, but wasn't at meeting .. he now says he'll back off

<bengo> cool




  1. 300 ... scope versus context

<bengo> kk

they are different, but maybe that's not clear

<wilkie> I can scribe then

<cwebber2> I'll leave my comment on ticket

<annbass> scribenick: annbass

proposal: rename "scope" to "audience"

<cwebber2> :)


cwebber: "audience" seems confusing .. in that, the AS vocabulary may overlap and be slightly diff
... not a blocker, but we should consider

bengo: I had similar reaction, but worried it might be late in game to raise it

ann: if it's not clear to several people; might be worth resolving

bengo: probly not worth resolving .. none of our engineers have been confused or have balked

<shevski> they weren't confused by 'scope' ?

arnaud: alternative would be clarify the spec

bengo: maybe add some cross-links

<cwebber2> seems good

bengo: I'll propose that in github discussion

arnaud: we should check with dmitriz, since he raised the issue
... anything else on #300?
... if not, we'll move on

<dmitriz> I'd definitely prefer to see it renamed to audience

<cwebber2> I can represent this

<dmitriz> but clarifying and cross-linking is always good.

arnaud: next 2 are perhaps more controversial


  1. 301

cwebber2: context: earlier we removed all "un___" words (eg undo, unfollow, ...)
... then tyesika and I realized some complexity ..
... if you had a "create" then you'd have to wrap the "undo" around the "create"
... problem is that you might have to dig too far back into history to find the "create"
... actually .. it's not "create", bcuz undoing a create is a "delete"
... maybe undoing a "follow" is better example
... not sure how to represent in AS
... challenge is to figure out how we do things in ActivityPub
... AS allows you to specify multiple types

<cwebber2> the challenge is you have to dig up the original activity to wrap it with undo

(annbass asks cwebber to amplify in minutes)

<cwebber2> unless you could wrap [undo, like]

<cwebber2> etc

arnaud: jasnell wants a concrete proposal on this
... sounds like cwebber has a proposal .. could you add that to github?

cwebber: yes, but how to handle? should we close this one and add a new one? or ... ??

bengo: sounds like an undo on an activity that I can't find .. I'd be ok to receive a 404 or message that it can't be processed for some reason

cwebber: are people OK with combining types?

bengo: I'd be curious what jasnell thinks

cwebber: yes .. I'll put something in github

arnaud: sounds like a good plan
... any other comments on #301?


arnaud: next: #292
... cwebber, can you describe this? you were in the discussion
... jasnell told me, he doesn't think there is a problem on this
... AS vocabulary already supports everything needed.. if it's something else, he'd want a concrete proposal

cwebber: I'm still confused; did he clarify how he thinks everything is already supported?

bengo: I'm not really up-to-date, but I tend to agree with Jasnell's last point (in github discussion)

<lost cwebber's question .. and bengo's answer .. discussing a detailed example of a tombstone>

<if this needs to be captured, someone else should help>

cwebber: when I fetch an object, how do I get <time it was done>?

bengo: to me, if something is deleted, why does it still show up

cwebber: I'm not asking that; I want to know when the thing was deleted
... I don't think this should hold things up, but not clear

bengo: duality between metadata in JSON vs metadata in HTTP

<KevinMarks> replicating a tombstone over a post is safer than relying on it to be deleted

<discussion about doing with 410 or via extension or ... >

arnaud: in thread, jasnell is sugg you get a 404

cwebber: trying to read quickly ..
... he also doesn't specify the time thing

arnaud: he does 2 things: deletes object, but also adds "updated, with time stamp"

cwebber: if you're pulling things from a collection of activities, that makes sense
... yes, works for me
... I didn't understand how the timestamp works for foreign object (?)
... I'm fine to close it

<wilkie> that seems ok

arnaud: conclusion: cwebber accepts jasnell's proposal
... ok, sounds like we can close #292
... quite close to being done with this
... leave AS for today
... moving on.. hoping for test suite update, but Evan not here
... aaronpk -- a couple issues with WebMention, for which you want feedback

aaronpk: we talked about them last week, but just didn't have time to resolve and mark 'closed'

arnaud: ok, sounds good
... any other topics to bring up?
... hearing nothing, we'll close the meeting
... OK, thanks ..


<shevski> thank you Arnaud & annbass :)

<wilkie> thanks

<wilkie> annbass++

<Loqi> annbass has 1 karma

<Arnaud> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. Approve Minutes of 2016-03-29

[End of minutes]