From W3C Wiki

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

05 Jul 2016

See also: IRC log


annbass, rhiaro, sandro, dmitriz, csarven, eprodrom, aaronpk, wilkie, ben_thatmustbeme, akuckartz, Benjamin_Young, KevinMarks, tsyesika, tantek


eprodrom: okay, lets get started

welcome new IEs

<scribe> new person Julian (sp?)

<aaronpk> Julien

sandro: he is in the process of moving this week

<wilkie> I'm glad julien is finally here haha

eprodrom: we will defer the welcome to next week


approval of last week's minutes

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: approve as minutes for 2016 06 28 meeting

<tantek> +1 I have reviewed

<eprodrom> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tsyesika> +1

eprodrom: please do a quick review

<annbass> +1


RESOLUTION: approve as minutes for 2016 06 28 meeting

<tantek> (I'm particularly interested if the editorial change to AS2 was accepted)

closed issues for AS2

eprodrom: as we take as2 to CR, one of the things we have to show is that any comments on spec have been resolved to the commenter's satisfaction. Doesn't mean they have to be happy with the results, but at least they acknowledge the issue was dealt with
... amy has been following up with everyone

rhiaro: after last week we gave them another week. At this point everyone has had at least 2 weeks. in my messages I said that any silence we would just close them


rhiaro: I would propose we finalize by close all the remaining as commentor timed out

eprodrom: amy, you said everyone had two weeks?

rhiaro: they had one week, and then we extended them more

eprodrom: do we need to agree to close them out?

sandro: I don't think so ... (couldn't hear)

<wilkie> that sounds more than reasonable

<wilkie> rhiaro does such good work

eprodrom: as editor i think we have the concensus to close them all out

<annbass> Sandro -- can't hear you .. Or very barely (can others?)

eprodrom: lets talk about the PR from bengo


<wilkie> sandro is very quiet yeah

eprodrom: here is the PR itself and the PR was merged but have not pushed a new version of the WD
... i will put those other changes on the agenda at the end
... at least with repect to that PR, it has been closed

sandro: the most important part is there be a draft that is ready for CR
... then if we have approval it will go out

eprodrom: explain to me processwise, would that be a WD that says CR, or an ED that says CR

sandro: neither, its a document that says CR
... its as if you were going to do a publication through echidna, but it doesn't handle CR

eprodrom: i can do that this week.

sandro: it would be great if we could have it before the meeting tomorrow

eprodrom: that sounds fine
... since we are on AS2
... i wonder if we could stay on as2 for a moment

rhiaro: i have another thing on as2 issues


rhiaro: dret raised an issue, we discussed last week, but you weren't here evan, just wanted to make sure you saw it
... its editorial so we can deal with it later, but just wanted to call your attention to it

eprodrom: i've just read this, let me just review the core doc very quickly

<sandro> aaronpk, can you get me a July 12 CR doc, too ?

<aaronpk> for micropub?

rhiaro: its more just a clarification point

<sandro> yes

eprodrom: it makes sense as people trying to push arrays through AS2 validator, but it would need to be a collection
... i'm okay resolving this as some text calling that it

rhiaro: sandro, do we need all issues closed before CR call?

<aaronpk> yes, i have some minor edits to publish so i will want to publish a new WD first

sandro: no, as long as its clear its editorial

eprodrom: do we need a resolution of any type on that?
... i'm going to reopen this and i'll resolve it after the meeting

<sandro> not if the commenter is happy

<ben_thatmustbeme> i don't think we need a resolution on it

eprodrom: i can just resolve this quickly after
... i'd like to talk about a couple of other items that were closed out


eprodrom: first is 328, which is test documents of known invalid documents


eprodrom: i created about 20 documents that would be useful for testing failures, bad documents
... they are in a subdirectory, specifically called out as failure ones
... they are all valid json, but not valid as2 docs


eprodrom: the other issue i closed out this week was a link to the validator, its now in the readme for the test directory
... i think that closes those two out
... i just wanted to call those out here and see if they were satisfactory to aaronpk and sandro
... if so thats all we needed to discuss for as2 today. i


linked data notifications

rhiaro: over the last few months we have been working on a LD notifications spec, it sends JSON-LD objects around
... we'd like to bring it to the WG as an ED and see how far we can get with it

<aaronpk> eprodrom++ for the AS2 failure examples. looks great

<Loqi> eprodrom has 34 karma

eprodrom: this is a generalized notification protocol. Is it within our charter? is it something within our sphere of work to work on?

<tantek> +1 on charter question

eprodrom: would another group like LDP group or a community group more accurate?

rhiaro: its not LDP, we leverage it, and its similar, but its not. You don't need to be a full LDP implmentation to be a receiver

eprodrom: i guess my question was more about, it seems to be a general notification protocol, is it right for the socialWG to do?
... i wanted to just hear from the authors what they think of that

rhiaro: i think it is, its compatible with activity pub, its also compatible with the annotations protocol, which is a social use-case
... and any other kinds of social interactions. the actual content of the notification is really broad

sandro: there is a permathread between me and melvin about him wanting webmentions to be something it isn't. I think this is more of what he wants. People come to webmention saying 'can i use this' and they can, but have to do some things. Its a little more straight forward if you have an authentication method already. Also the other thing is that webmention doesn't have that is, that there is some way to fetch those messages after that fact

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to ask about permathread

tantek: question to the authors, does this proposal address melvin's concerns? would this resolve that permathread?

rhiaro: we've run it by melvin and yes
... he has said it looks good

tantek: well thats a good way of resolving that issue

eprodrom: is there an issue on webmention's issue tracker that we can point to?


eprodrom: something we could resolve there

<melvster> my suggestion was to write out an example of what webmention would look like in JSON-LD

<melvster> to that extend I have written out two proposals

eprodrom: maybe we could just explicitly note it in that issue

tantek: but this isn't webmention right?

sandro: yes, but i think this is what melvin wanted to turn webmention in to, but it isn't

tantek: the question is from the process perspective, does this satisfy the commenter?

sandro: i don't htink he has said yet

eprodrom: at our last f2f, we discussed the difficulty we will have to close out the existing documents. does it make sense to take on a new document this late in the game?
... i'm not objecting to this particular doc. I am saying in general for any new documents
... is it ok for us to take on a new document at this time in our lifecycle

rhiaro: i would say, we are bringing more resources in from the solid end in to work on this, so its adding new resources not just more workload

<melvster> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 210 karma

tantek: i think when i made that argument was when Arnaud pointed out that we don't have time to deal with lots of different documents in the group, but we are at least trying to spread around the authorship

rhiaro: this is something i would be working on anyway

tantek: the only real resource this takes up then may be just telcon and f2f time
... if we can resolve that, we can resolve the resource issue

eprodrom: i think we need the editors to at least recognize its possible we don't finish the document as we only have 6 months left

rhiaro: we are certainly prepared to publish as a note if all else fails

tantek: that poses a good follow up then, do you have an intended date for CR?
... i think we had said that anything this late we would push toward note track to make sure to set expectations inside and outside of the group

<annbass> can we let them TRY for CR-track, and then back up to Note?

tantek: do you think this is simple enough to get to CR that quickly?

rhiaro: we are pretty sure we can get our specs to CR by lisbon right?
... we are aiming for that, but if we have to drop to note track thats fine
... its easier to go from rec to note than note to rec right?

sandro: it depends on implementations flocking to it or not

tantek: i think that makes sense. and we continue to focus on any new docs we bring to the group, we let them know its more to keep it to note track
... with PuSH its very well known and has been implmented so the process is very different

rhiaro: we have implemented a lot of it and we have leaned on LDP for a lot of the work, and its just discovery of endpoints and such
... for LDN we wrote it around the implementations we have had for some time

tantek: i think that just leaves the question evan raised about, is it in our charter?
... what section does this fall under

rhiaro: federation
... possibly social depending on how you use it

tantek: you said this is compatible with activity pub, the way you just described it could be client to server or server to server. what does this add beyond activity pub?

rhiaro: activitypub specifically uses json format, thats just a specialized form of LDN. we do content-type negotiation so you can send in other formats

tantek: so its more general then AP?

rhiaro: yes, AP would be a more specialized case of this

tantek: thats one of the concerns thats been raised to date, is that we need to have some kind of story of when we want one or the other
... this seems like its even more confusing of when to use one or the other

rhiaro: my hope with this is take some of the work away from the AP side. We don't want it to be reliant on this spec
... AP has the additional info on what to do after you receive the notification. thats out of scope of this spec

tantek: i think i get what you are saying, i'm in favor of modularizatino in general but i would like to hear from cwebber2
... and how does this impact getting AP to CR
... if this is going to slow AP at risk, i'm a bit more concerned
... i accept that you are working on fitting this all together
... is he worried or not?

rhiaro: i don't know
... he's not on the call today

tantek: i'd like to hear from him before we accept this as an ED

<eprodrom> tsyesika: are you on the call?

<tsyesika> Whilst chris is handling the splitting of the documentation, I don't think it'd put us at risk

eprodrom: that puts us in a little of a bind time wize, but i would like ot hear from cwebber2 or tsyesika on this before we accept it

<tsyesika> I'd support this document

eprodrom: if we have a thumbs up from editors there from AP, i think its time for a proposal

<akuckartz> tsyesika++

<Loqi> tsyesika has 16 karma

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: accept as new Editor's Draft for federation protocol

<melvster> +1

<akuckartz> +1

<tsyesika> +1

<annbass_> +1

<csarven> +1

<dmitriz> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<wilkie> +1

<tantek> thanks rhiaro for answering all the questions - no objections

<sandro> (I don't think it's a question of taking on an additional risk so much as splitting the risk along multiple paths, which might decease the overall risk)

<sandro> +1

eprodrom: if there are any objections to that working please say so now before the immediate+1s

<eprodrom> PROPOSAL: accept as new Editor's Draft for federation protocol

<melvster> +1

<eprodrom> +0

0, i haven't read the document

<rhiaro> +1

<csarven> +1

<akuckartz> +1

<annbass_> +1

<aaronpk> +0

eprodrom: don't need to vote again, minor change there

RESOLUTION: accept as new Editor's Draft for federation protocol

<aaronpk> melvster, does accepting this document close webmention #51 for you then?

eprodrom: we have mostly +1s and some +0s. I'm a bit concerned about the timeline, but accepting we may not take this to CR

tantek: i think aaronpk had a good quesiton on IRC, does this resolve melvster's concerns on webmention

<melvster> aaronpk, if there is a way to map a webmention to a linked data notification, yes

<tsyesika> I read the LDN document, it looks good, similar to what we'd be doing and if it can get that to CR I'd be happy for AP to point to it as the general mechanism that we'd specify how to do it (as amy explained)

eprodrom: i think this does close this out unless there is something else to discuss about it
... it looks like its a yes

document status

<annbass_> Thanks a lot rhiaro (and sarven and whoever else)

eprodrom: do we have any updates on document status

tantek: we were about to publish PTD FPWD and JF2 FPWD but we ran in to apublication holiday we didn't know about

sandro: maybe plan for doing them at the same time on the others, the 12th?

tantek: thats fine with me

ben_thatmustbeme: thats fine with me too

eprodrom: tsyesika any updates on AP?
... she's on IRC actually, so i'll give her a pass

<tsyesika> I've been busy with a family situation this week sorry

eprodrom: is there any other business?

other business

tantek: upcoming F2F in lisbon

<annbass_> How many think they'll be in Lisbon? (Curious)

tantek: i think we have a wiki page for that, i hope so

<annbass_> I plan to go


<tsyesika> I'm going to try to go but I've unfortunately not booked anything yet

tantek: we should start collecting, 'going', 'interested in going' etc
... so we know what size room to ask for

sandro: during the f2f amy and i committed but we had a budget issue and hopefully we will know in the next day or two

tantek: hopefully people can add themselves to that wiki page

eprodrom: thanks everyone for coming

<wilkie> thanks all

<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

  1. approve as minutes for 2016 06 28 meeting
  2. accept as new Editor's Draft for federation protocol