31 May 2016
See also: IRC log
- tantek, wilkie, rhiaro, dmitriz, ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk, eprodrom, cwebber, bengo, annbass
- eprodrom, tantek
- Summary of Action Items
- Summary of Resolutions
<wilkie> I can scribe
<tantek> scribenick: wilkie
<ben_thatmustbeme> i can stay on a bit longer probably but i'll be in the car at that point
tantek: I don't hear eprodrom
... one thing was ben_thatmustbeme asked for reordering the agenda to place jf2 first because he has to leave
eprodrom: are you chairing this meeting?
tantek: I was until you showed up
eprodrom: the idea is to have ben_thatmustbeme tell us what he proposes
ben_thatmustbeme: yes, I propose to have jf2 move to a working draft this week
ben_thatmustbeme: I asked for people to have a look at it for this week
<tantek> this is a FPWD (first public working draft) AFAIK
eprodrom: just quickly, has everybody read the current editor's draft?
<KevinMarks> I have
<sandro> (haven't read this draft)
<ben_thatmustbeme> tantek, yes it would be
<tantek> I have
eprodrom: kevin, you are co-editor, so I would hope you've read it hah
tantek: has it been stable for a while or has there been changes?
ben_thatmustbeme: there have been minor changes. there is a note in the document to say it is meant as a note. no substantial changes.
aaronpk: I remember that the changes made have been made based on implementations using it
<sandro> why not rec track?
<tantek> because we accepted it in December as Note-track
eprodrom: I haven't read the document yet. have you aaronpk?
aaronpk: yeah, skimmed it. and re-reading it.
eprodrom: so we are making this a note ben_thatmustbeme?
ben_thatmustbeme: yeah we agreed about this at the last f2f
sandro: anybody remember the reasoning for that?
ben_thatmustbeme: partly time constraints, and so it doesn't seem as a competitor for as2
sandro: that makes sense
... the reason I ask is it is easier to start on the rec track than to switch later
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish current Editor's Draft of JF2 as First Public Working Draft in Note track
sandro: not wanting to mislead makes sense
eprodrom: I put up a proposal to add this working draft to the note track. does that make sense, ben_thatmustbeme?
eprodrom: unless there is any other discussion before we engage with this, please give your votes
<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 (obviously since i proposed it)
RESOLUTION: publish current Editor's Draft of JF2 as First Public Working Draft in Note track
eprodrom: unless we have anyone else who feels strongly about this... going once, going twice...
... going to mark this resolved [reads resolution]
... so I got 12 minutes after the hour. hopefully you can make it to your closing, ben_thatmustbeme
sandro: before publishing we need to know what the name is going to be
... we can do that later but it's easier to do it now
tantek: does a short name work?
tantek: does jf2 work as is?
tantek: so should we say if anybody wants to propose alternatives, they can do so
sandro: this is kind of an odd name. it usually stands for something
<sandro> json-microformats2 ?
eprodrom: it is jf2 because it is mf2 with json right?
<tantek> "unify various simplified versions of the Microformats-2 representative JSON format"
sandro: I was thinking "json microformats 2"
... that is, if I had never heard of jf2 before
eprodrom: once it has a URI it is kind of engraved in stone right?
<tantek> ok with that too
sandro: yeah, kind of
... not impossible to change later, you can forward the URL
KevinMarks: this isn't too bad. we had some other acronyms that were much more adventurous.
<tantek> sandro does it help to allow for either? in case w3c management doesn't like our first choice?
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: publish JF2 FPWD with short name "jf2"
<sandro> +0 seems harmless
eprodrom: let me see if I can form a proposal... with what do you call it.. "short name"
eprodrom: alright that proposal is up
<tantek> +1 and also ok with sandro's proposal "json-microformats2"
eprodrom: alright. unless there are any objections, I will mark this resolved.
<KevinMarks> we had proposed JFDI but that was not wholly serious
RESOLUTION: publish JF2 FPWD with short name "jf2"
eprodrom: [reads proposal]
<sandro> ACTION: sandro get domain lead approval for JF2 [recorded in [|http://www.w3.org/2016/05/31-social-minutes.html#action01]]]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-90 - Get domain lead approval for jf2 [on Sandro Hawke - due 2016-06-07].
<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 147 karma
eprodrom: fantastic. thanks KevinMarks and ben. thanks for your work on the document. looking forward to seeing it live.
... anything else on jf2?
... alright. great. let's move on to next/first item: minutes from last week
Approval of Minutes of 05-24-2016
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: adopt https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-24-minutes as minutes for 24 May 2016 meeting
eprodrom: [reads proposal]
eprodrom: given we have overwhelming support, we'll mark this as resolved
RESOLUTION: adopt https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-24-minutes as minutes for 24 May 2016 meeting
eprodrom: we're going through these quickly
... another item on the agenda is next week's f2f
... I don't think there is further discussion to have about the f2f. but this is a good time to bring those up
tantek: we are starting to put together the specific agenda for the f2f
... one thing sandro and I noticed to cover is implementation updates and so we put that first for monday morning
... for the most mature/advanced specs going toward the newer/less-implemented latter in the process
... chairs are actively putting the agenda together
tantek: if anybody has things they want to discuss, add them
<tantek> next Monday
eprodrom: all right. great. any other issues we need to discuss for next tuesday
... thank you... next monday.
<tantek> we are expecting possibly 2-3 more attendees
eprodrom: I think our attendee list is stable. if you are on the fence or considering, get your name on there because we are planning.
... if there is no other discussion on this, I'd like to move on to as2
Activity Streams 2.0
eprodrom: two weeks ago we decided to publish new working drafts of AS2
<tantek> (and last week we agreed also)
eprodrom: we have the core document (i've dropped the URL) and a vocabulary document
... and they are up on the IRC channel
... these are not materially different from the version we've had as an editor's draft for the past weeks
... there were validation issues and small changes but nothing noticeable by anybody not a as2 validator
<tantek> (only editorial markup changes)
eprodrom: it has been reasonably stable
... yes, editorial markup changes, thank you tantek
... the question from last week was whether to move as2 to a candidate recommendation
... in march in the last f2f we resolved to take it to CR following correction of some outstanding issues, which have been addressed along with additional ones since the f2f
... the intention was to discuss taking it to CR today
<tantek> only one open isuse: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to discuss normative references
sandro: one small problem that is trivial to fix is when you go to CR you have to fix up the normative references
<tantek> (editorial non-blocking)
sandro: we saw this with webmention
... basically w3c wants to make sure external specs are as stable as this spec
... when I looked at the normative references... all the ones in vocab are fine, but core had 2 normative references that looked problematic
sandro: but I think they are easy to solve
... all are w3c or ietf standards except for as1 and CURIE
<tantek> can we drop CURIE?
<tantek> that seems confusing to have it referenced separately than JSON-LD
sandro: but where as1 and curie are used are in non-normative references or, for CURIE, to note json-ld supports them
... I think we can just take out the CURIE reference
<tantek> as1 as informative makes sense
<sandro> +1 tantek, take out "(or CURIE's for short) [curie]."
eprodrom: as what we can do is make as1 an informative reference, which I think I can do
... and the second is to remove reference to CURIE
<tantek> good catches sandro
eprodrom: it is mentioned as an aside, so we just remove the aside and the reference to it
... so those are two important issues to handle right now
... my question is if we decide to go to CR today can we do so conditionally that we resolve these two
sandro: we can go to CR given we do the changes decided at this meeting
... maybe there will be other issues today
... just dropping the issue links into the channel
... there was one more issue that rhiaro raised a few days ago
eprodrom: I think it was about JSON-LD... well, rhiaro, if you are here, can you give us an overview?
rhiaro: the json-ld version on w3c is not up-to-date. we can easily fix that.
eprodrom: it is just an update process, but we should probably get that done.
... sandro, can you follow through on that?
sandro: I can definitely do that
eprodrom: sounds good
... let me know if there is anything I can do for that process
... that file has been updated so it is best to use the one on github right now
... I feel funny being both chair and advocate for this, but hopefully we can handle that.
... if tantek wants to chair for this we can do that
<tantek> chair: tantek
tantek: I think you are doing great but I can do that if you want
annbass: eprodrom, I sent you in snail-mail some english type edits. did you receive that?
... I didn't have a chance to read through this version.
... I'm just looking at misspellings and words being left out, etc.
eprodrom: I did receive those. sorry I didn't mention those. they were all editorial changes... super helpful.
... some have been changed already, some have not. I want to get the ones that haven't into github issues.
annbass: I leave this to your judgment. I want to know if we need to do a re-read. any before CR?
sandro: no. editorial changes don't need that.
annbass: ok. I'll make an effort to go through this version.
... so, if there is no further discussion, I would love to propose the current working draft as CR. I forget the exact phrasing for the options we have.
tantek: so, we are proposing to take the current working draft with the edits agreed in this meeting to CR.
<tantek> PROPOSED: Take current WD of AS2, with edits agreed in this telcon to CR
tantek: and those edits include the normative references: one being made informal and one being dropped.
<tantek> PROPOSED: Take current WDs of AS2, with edits agreed in this telcon to CR
annbass: it is both documents, right?
<sandro> +1 both core and vocab
tantek: that's why I wanted to update that proposal
<cwebber2> my second +1 was to updated proposal, not stuffing ballots ;)
tantek: looks we have the vast majority of people in the call which is awesome
<annbass> +1 and +1
RESOLUTION: Take current WDs of AS2, with edits agreed in this telcon to CR
tantek: I'm going to mark this resolved. thank you every one. congratulations to the editors.
sandro: we need to draft a transition request
tantek: right, like we did for webmention and make that call
... I think that means, eprodrom, you can make those changes to the draft.
... I don't think we need to republish with that
sandro: did you publish those changes
eprodrom: I did, they are live
... unfortunately I have one more thing we need to discuss before we do that
... at our last meeting, there was discussion about moving our github repos to the w3c organizational namespace
... I'm not sure where we closed on that
... as we move to CR, does that become more important?
... just because the github repos are embedded in the document
... if we were to do that, we should do that now before publishing a new WD
sandro: so. w3c has an organizational committment to preservation of info and data.
... most w3c working groups use repos under the w3c organization and the team has set up an archiving system to archive those repos.
... during the webmention transition call it was brought up that we aren't doing that for this group's work
... I made an action item to look in if we can do that and the team said 'no, if you want to archive that you should move'
... as a decentralization guy I'm inclined to say 'no!'
... there are options but I haven't looked at them much
... one of the tools I found written in a language that scares me and it puts the issues inside the repo which seems elegant
... basically if one person wants to figure this out and run this either on a w3c machine or your own that you can curl when you need
... anybody want to help me with that?
eprodrom: tantek, you are still chairing?
eprodrom: ok great. I appreciate the concept of decentralization. keeping us decentralized on the same centralized code-hosting service, I'm not committed to it.
... unless jasnell has a strong objection, I'd prefer to use the w3c namespace.
... github has some mechanisms for redirects when you reassign the owner of a repository
... I believe it will retain the issue history, etc. they do a pretty good job of it.
... I'm not proposed to it for as2
sandro: that's true. the movement from one editor to another editor highlights why you may want to do that
... I don't think we should twist aaronpk's arm to do the same thing
tantek: eprodrom, it sounds like you have a specific proposal to make
eprodrom: yes, I propose we move the official repo for as2 to the w3c [github] namespace
tantek: can you give me a url for the proposal
sandro: one slight glitch on that is that I see this already exists
<rhiaro> Don't we need to go to /swwg/activitystreams?
sandro: seems like harry made this a year ago
<rhiaro> the other WGs have all their drafts in one sub directory I think
sandro: it might be hard, but maybe we can just delete the existing one and then make a new one
aaronpk: yeah, you just need to delete the old one first
sandro: ok, yeah
... oh, rhiaro is saying it goes under the workgroup name?
tantek: sounds like rhiaro has a counter-proposal. can we get that in IRC
<rhiaro> Yeah I agree with the things that are a bad idea about that
<rhiaro> Just saying
aaronpk: that sounds like a bad idea because it seems issues get merged into a single repo
sandro: no, we definitely want separate repos per spec
aaronpk: I see a bunch of seperate specs
<rhiaro> I was thinking of https://github.com/w3c/web-annotation
sandro: I see some repos for groups and some for specs and I think repos for working groups is a bad idea and they didn't realize it at the time
tantek: looks like annotations did exactly what you say is a bad idea
sandro: no, yeah. and I see people talking about this and they have to tag issues.. yeah
tantek: it's a pain
sandro: I think using short-names, and yeah for activity streams we merge two into one, but we can do that
tantek: do we use one URL for both of them... is it activitystreams or activitysteams dash vocab?
eprodrom: I can live with either. let's keep it under activitystreams then
tantek: one repo then?
eprodrom: yeah one repo
tantek: activitystreams slash vocab?? sorry, I'm looking for specifics for the minutes
<aaronpk> then merge activity-streams-vocab into there?
sandro: so I'm renaming the old repo to the new repo, right?
eprodrom: and the directory structure would stay the same
<eprodrom> activitystreams-core -> core
<eprodrom> activitystreams-vocabulary -> vocabulary
<aaronpk> it looks like both specs are already in the same repo? https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams
eprodrom: yeah, they are both already in one repo right now
aaronpk: we are just renaming one repo then?
<tantek> PROPOSED: move AS2 WDs repo into the w3c namespace, to https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams with the directories activitystreams-core renamed to core and activitystreams-vocabulary to vocabulary
tantek: eprodrom, does that match your understanding?
eprodrom: perfect and very specific
RESOLUTION: move AS2 WDs repo into the w3c namespace, to https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams with the directories activitystreams-core renamed to core and activitystreams-vocabulary to vocabulary
tantek: that looks good. I'm going to resolve that.
... is that all, eprodrom?
eprodrom: we will need a proposal to publish a WD with those changes
tantek: from the new repo?
annbass: small question for eprodrom... from the version I printed that was 40 pages... were there any significant changes to that?
eprodrom: no there were not
<annbass> May 17 version to May 31
sandro: I'm going to delete the repo harry made
... should I talk to jasnell about the changes or what?
eprodrom: I'll talk to him
<tantek> PROPOSED: Publish updated AS2 WDs with the edits agreed in this telcon from its new repo https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams
tantek: ok. the proposal is to publish a new WD with the changes to the repo. when combined with earlier proposal, it is clear this is still what will become the CR.
<sandro> github says: Your repository "w3c/activitystreams" was successfully deleted.
RESOLUTION: Publish updated AS2 WDs with the edits agreed in this telcon from its new repo https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams
<aaronpk> only an owner of the w3c org will be able to move the repo to it, so you'll probably have to give sandro full permissions on james' repo
tantek: I think you have everything you need from the group
<eprodrom> chair: eprodrom
tantek: with the edits and changes, you will have the working draft the group wants to put to CR
eprodrom: I will take over as chair to get through the rest of the agenda
... we have 2 items and I'm concerned that we don't have enough time
... I would like to ask the 2 editors involved to ask if it would make sense to put these on the agenda of the f2f
<tantek> +1 to extend
<sandro> +1 to extend
eprodrom: or we could extend the meeting 15 minutes to address them
<tantek> (or see how quickly they can go)
eprodrom: so aaronpk and rhiaro?
<annbass> +1 to extend
aaronpk: I have a short update but I'm ok to extend
rhiaro: I would like to extend
eprodrom: barring any objections, I'm going to extend the meeting 15 minutes. continuing until 2:15
... since aaronpk is giving only an update I'll put you at the end of the agenda
... so, rhiaro. next up is Social Web Protocols. Could you give us an update?
Social Web Protocols
rhiaro: I rewrote the document. I would like to publish a new working draft. I closed many issues and I was hoping to address the rest.
... annbass gave great editorial changes. I think everybody read it and had time to raise issues.
<tantek> I only skimmed it - seems like a big update
eprodrom: I have not had a chance to read through it fully but have skimmed it and it seems like an improvement in terms of readability.
... from my point of view, it seems like there is a strong argument to going to a next working draft unless significant problems with this version.
<aaronpk> it looks like a big update, i haven't read the whole thing, but I trust amy's judgment on it
eprodrom: another option is to make it required reading for the f2f and propose at the f2f
... I think it is a significant enough improvement to share this with the world as a WD
<tantek> I think publishing is also a good way to get more people in the group read it for the f2f :)
sandro: is there anything in this draft you feel would give people the wrong impression?
rhiaro: there are a few gaps but I have called them out and I think they're fine
tantek: a lot has changed since we published a draft of this. I feel there is more confusion leaving the old one there.
eprodrom: my question, is there any work that needs to be done before pushing this to working draft?
... so it is ready, this version, for a WD?
eprodrom: what I would like to do propose we publish the editor's draft of 31 May 2016 of Social Web Protocols as a Working Draft?
... this is the 2nd WD?
<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: publish Editor's Draft 31 May 2016 of Social Web Protocols as a Working Draft
eprodrom: is that right, rhiaro?
rhiaro: yep sounds good
RESOLUTION: publish Editor's Draft 31 May 2016 of Social Web Protocols as a Working Draft
eprodrom: unless there are any objections, I'll mark this as resolved
... [reads proposal]
<annbass> BTW, I thought this doc was really good, and will be really helpful as a partner to the other documents
eprodrom: thank you rhiaro for all the hard work. looks like a lot of effort went into it and I appreciate it.
... that went a lot quicker than I thought which is good news. I'd like to move on to webmention test suite.
Webmention Test Suite
aaronpk: what I did was go through the implementation checklist into todo items for code to write for each
... those are all open issues on the test suite itself
... this process turned up editorial issues in the spec which are issues opened on the spec itself
... I would appreciate anyone to chime in about those issues
... on webmention.rocks right now there are two tests receiving webmentions so you can try those out
... it will actually post comments on your site
... any additional comments on webmention test suite?
tantek: this isn't about the test suite it is about the f2f
eprodrom: oh cool. there is one more item on the agenda and that is document status
eprodrom: I want to touch base with cwebber2 and rhiaro about document status
... I want to ask the editors of documents we haven't addressed already the meeting for a status update
... this is an excellent time to do new versions before the f2f
... cwebber2, update?
<tantek> rhiaro, I'm going to make an executive action, could you add a "Required Reading" to the https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-06-06 similar to previous f2f Required Reading section?
<rhiaro> tantek: sure
cwebber2: I just finished moving and I have not had time. and tsyesika has just started moving. so no updates.
eprodrom: good to know
... aaronpk, any other updates on micropub?
<annbass> it's a moving plague! cwebber, tsyesika and ben_thatmustbeme ... sheesh
<KevinMarks> writing specs and moving house is a theme
<tantek> rhiaro, feel free to add latest editor's drafts of Webmention, AS2, Micropub, Activitypub to that list
aaronpk: I don't think anything has changed since last call. I was working on webmention stuff.
eprodrom: tantek, has there been any activity on post-type-discovery
tantek: yes, I got help from ben roberts on doing a github version of the spec and want to have a version of that for FPWD for the f2f
eprodrom: do you think there will be a version before the f2f to make it required reading
tantek: what I can do is to point you to the wiki. I don't think there will be any non-editorial changes.
<cwebber2> I have to go
<cwebber2> later, everyone
<eprodrom> Thanks cwebber2
tantek: in particular the only piece that will be important to discuss is the algorithm so I'll point directly to that
eprodrom: I'm going to add this as required reading for the f2f next week
... rhiaro, you took yourself off the queue, but I would like to add the latest version of Social Web Protocols to required reading too
<rhiaro> yeah I'll do it
tantek: I asked rhiaro to go ahead and make that section
eprodrom: thank you! one less task for me!
... if there is nothing else, then I would like to call on tantek.
tantek: the last point is for the f2f, many will be here earlier. I want to encourage you all to add arrival dates.
... there will be opportunities to meet up before the meeting
eprodrom: any other business before the end of the meeting?
<tantek> thanks for chairing eprodrom
<tantek> wilkie++ for minuting!
<Loqi> wilkie has 31 karma
eprodrom: if not, I'd like to say thanks everyone for giving more of your time. I think we used it well. I'd like to call the meeting to a close. thanks everyone.
<Loqi> wilkie has 32 karma
<annbass> thanks eprodrom and wilkie!
<Loqi> eprodrom has 33 karma
<tantek> trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
[NEW] ACTION: sandro get domain lead approval for JF2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2016/05/31-social-minutes.html#action01]
Summary of Resolutions
- publish current Editor's Draft of JF2 as First Public Working Draft in Note track
- publish JF2 FPWD with short name "jf2"
- adopt https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-05-24-minutes as minutes for 24 May 2016 meeting
- Take current WDs of AS2, with edits agreed in this telcon to CR
- move AS2 WDs repo into the w3c namespace, to https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams with the directories activitystreams-core renamed to core and activitystreams-vocabulary to vocabulary
- Publish updated AS2 WDs with the edits agreed in this telcon from its new repo https://github.com/w3c/activitystreams
- publish Editor's Draft 31 May 2016 of Social Web Protocols as a Working Draft