Socialwg/2016-08-09-minutes
- DRAFT -
Social Web Working Group Teleconference
09 Aug 2016
See also: IRC log
Attendees
- Present
- annbass, rhiaro, cwebber, csarven, sandro, KevinMarks
- Regrets
Chair - SV_MEETING_CHAIR
- Scribe
- sandro, annbass
Contents
<rhiaro> melvster: just an informal chat about SWP stuff
<rhiaro> not an official meeting
<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2016-08-09
<rhiaro> scribenick: sandro
<annbass> scribenick: annbass
cwebber read LDN stuff .. has questions
if translating between Activity Pub and LDN, then all seems fine
with JSON-LD and Activity Streams .. should be pretty easy
1. what do we think re: inbox .. could we share that between the two of them?
even though they don't apply to LDN?
rhiaro: we have small stumbling block with W3C namespace policy .. working on
... 1. we could get this added to LDP .. you could alias your inbox to ours
... 90% sure that should be OK
... 2. OR .. (early to think about) .. IF W3C namespace policy gets updated to allow <something> .. then maybe Activity Pub terms could be added to AS2 namespace
cwebber: yes, that'd simplify a lot of things for us
rhiaro: Sandro -- how likely is this to happen?
... we don't need a hardcore resolution quite yet .. maybe by end of Sept
sandro: not sure I can say anything now
... assuming someone could amend the policy .. then, does anyone have any issues with using the AS2 namespace
rhiaro: in any case we could use alias for LDP
... therefore they will converge
cwebber: I forgot to mention .. the way the inbox is discovered is diff
... I'd be fine in my implementation to support both ways ...
(maybe cwebber can document the 2 ways)
rhiaro: actually, LDN says there are 2 ways to discover inbox .. if 1st way fails, then you have to do the 2nd way
cwebber: I thought it did specify order
<csarven> https://linkedresearch.org/ldn/#discovery
rhiaro: yes, we changed that in updated version
<csarven> "These may be carried out in either order, but if the first fails to result in an Inbox the second MUST be tried."
cwebber: oh, ok
rhiaro: I guess we need to make that clearer
csarven: is there an issue where the receiver announces a header, but it's only found in body? (not sure I got that correctly)
rhiaro: <explains yes, and how it workds>
cwebber: makes sense
... you specify a 201 be returned to confirm, we should add that to AP
rhiaro: yes, although what's in the notification, is a black box
... LDN lets you send just whatever is relevant to what you're doing
... I've written, but not typed up, how I see this working
... what I'm trying to do, is make it easy enough that AP could use the LDN stuff to do XYZ
cwebber: that is, strip down ASub and use LDN for those processes?
rhiaro: yes
cwebber: hmm, I need to talk with tsyesika and evan .. to make sure there aren't unexpected glitches
rhiaro: of course
cwebber: let's sketch this out next week, when you come visit ... interesting idea; I hadn't thought about it
... let's sketch it out together, and then take it to evan and tsyesika to see if it's feasible
rhiaro: this is part of the idea re: modularization
... AP doesn't have to do <XYZ>..
cwebber: a potential sticky issue, but probly not a blocker...
... modularizing these functions, might fracture <something>
... want to keep it "clean"
rhiaro: yes, I agree
... part of what Social Web Protocols will do is sketch out how the whole system will look
... and one can pick and chooset the pieces
cwebber: cool; I certainly think it's interesting. Not totally sold, but I'm close
rhiaro: great; it'll probably help if I write up my other notes
cwebber: that's it for me; for what I'd written down... anything else to discuss
<sorry>
cwebber: do you get the whole container all at once, or do you get a stream?
rhiaro: trying to find the balance on how to specify that ... I think we have an issue on that
<someone> : does AP address that?
cwebber: uses AS2 version of things, but I guess that's an omission in our spec
rhiaro: Web annotations protocol, uses AS paging
... in order to plug into annotations directly
<melvster> seeAlso: "A new HTTP response code say 209" https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2013Dec/0041.html
<rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web-protocols/issues/36
rhiaro: all the points of alignment are listed in Issue 36
<melvster> "You asked for a large thing, this is the first page of it. See Proposal [1]"
rhiaro: be sure to add or discuss
... I think we've covered the main stuff
rhiaro: next week I'm taking a small trip to visit cwebber, where we can hack on stuff and see if it actually works
csarven: are we OK with the MIME type?
<discussion about options>
cwebber: need to talk with evan and tsyesika, but doesn't seem like a big deal
<csarven> ATM: https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#sending-activitystreams2-support
<csarven> https://www.w3.org/TR/ldn/#consuming-activitystreams2-support
cwebber: how about if we both file an issue on that, but make the point that we both agreed on this call!
rhiaro: great! anythign else?
... let's get to work then
cwebber: great call! see you next week, Amy
trackbot, end meeting
Summary of Action Items
Summary of Resolutions
[End of minutes]
Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.144 (CVS log)
$Date: 2016/08/09 17:52:17 $