See also: IRC log
<cwebber2> present~
<tantek> scribenick: cwebber2
tantek: the first thing is that
cwebber2 had an item to propose
... the other first thing is to discuss the as2 features from
rene but he's not online
jasnell: he did document it in a github issue
sandro: let's give him a few hours
tantek: I agree
... there were a few things added to the agenda
... integration user stories. Is that you bengo ?
bengo: yes
tantek: how much time do you need? 10 minutes?
bengo: yes
tantek: and cwebber2 how much time do you need for the activipy demo
cwebber2: 10-15 minutes
tantek: I propose we do those first to give time for rene to show up
bengo: so there's a sorting user stories wiki page
<tantek> 10 minutes for this item
bengo: this one is close to what we're doing at our company, we give people javascript snippets that people put on their site, templatized
<Loqi> Bgoering made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87029&oldid=87028
<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87030&oldid=87029
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87031&oldid=87030
bengo: want to ask how this would
work. lots of discovery stuff is about delegating servies
... frequent problem at big companies is the person who
installed a cms no longer works there
... so webfinger (?) type things are useful in that you don't
need to muck with the headers, etc
... so service discovery is something I've talked about a lot,
rather than just point to an activitypump endpoint, they want a
traditional comment setup type thing
... how do you do that with this
sandro: is the comment box normally an iframe
bengo: in our case no, most cases
yes
... in our case it's mostly because customers like to use css
to arbitrarily change things even though that makes our lives
hard
sandro: so do users have accounts on your or their system
bengo: it's pluggable
... when a user does something that needs to plug in, it gets a
token, and ..?
... a lot of our things our these things but have been done
internally as a proprietary way
eprodrom: it's an interesting use case because many things do stuff like reviews, likes on a page., etc
eprodrom_: there's a few ways it
could work
... on pumpio if you want to do something on a remote site, you
log into their server via your server, via outh
... so their server acts like a client to your server
... it's a complicated mechanism, there are other ways it could
work. There are some other patterns you may want to
implement.
... I don't know if you collect posts around the web but you
could do that too
... I think that's actually an interesting case for the
api
... my gut feeling is that it requires things like a global
firehose that everybody aims their public posts towards
... and whoever wants to can drink from that firehose
... but I think it' an interesting issue
... might be worth sketching out as a little api type protocol
situation
<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to bring up comment services via webmention
bengo: I think there's enough of existing specs where we could boot something up and see if indiewebbers and (?) want to do it
<aaronpk> http://webmention.herokuapp.com
aaronpk: there are som eexisting
examples with webmention, like ^
... if you set your webmention endpoint to that, it pulls in
the comments to put them on the page
... kind of like disqus, it shows the comments there
... we have the mechanism to show the comment form and
stuff
... the nice thing it lets the author choose where their
comments are bieng collected
... as opposed to "use twitter and tweet on the hashtag and
we'll pull it out"
tantek: are you able to show examples of people using this bengo?
bengo: yes *posts above link*
<aaronpk> all the comments on http://www.kevinmarks.com/ are pulled in via that herokuapp
bengo: in that case if you sign in on the page it does an arbitrary auth thing
tantek: ok any other input you want to the working group?
bengo: I think I got it
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<wilkie> rhiaro++
<Loqi> rhiaro has 189 karma
*technical setup*
<scribe> *postponed until magical arrival of vga cable*
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87033&oldid=87031
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
<tantek> any word from Rene?
tantek: ok, then let's jump right into federation protocol, which is our next agenda item
eprodrom: I'd like to talk for a
couple minutes for what our plan is for tackling federation
protocol
... esp when we have a lot to do as in terms of syntax and
api
... sorry to be blunt, but it's the optional item on our
charter, but I think it's likely the last rather than the
immediately last piece
tantek: ok for 5 minutes to discuss this beforehand?
aaronpk: ok
tantek: ok 5 minutes on agenda prioritization
<tantek> rhiaro, can you scribe?
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
cwebber2: Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
aaronpk: my take on it is why a social api is useful it's not too useful without federation
<rhiaro> micropub depending on what comes out of aaron's brainstorming. If it turns out we can do those things in one fell swoop, it would be kind of nice and nice to not force ourselces to not work on them if is actually most efficient for us to address them together
aaronpk: I agree there's value in
it, but I think it's not a very good goal to stop there
... for me a lot of the goal of this group is to do
federation
... and I don't want a repeat of oauth where nothing interops
because there was no attempt to do it
<ben_thatmustbeme> finally catching up on all the logs, i had an app that did server to server micropub for syndication to twitter, the negotiation of access keys was the most annoying part really, but once that was done, it worked fine
eprodrom: so I think that by far
the great majority of social programming is done as
client/server apis, there are very few very small client/server
apis comparativley
... while most of us come from that federated social web world,
while that might feel like the most important goal, I feel like
the federation thing is the treat for us is all cool and fun,
but I think giving the dessert first is a bad idea
... we do things like we tangle up the social api and
federation
... but I think attacking federation at this point is not the
best use of our resources
... I'm happy to go at it but it feels like a big stretch
... and I'd like to talk about what process we have to do
it
sandro: who's the market for the API without federation?
eprodrom: so who would use it?
take for example a new social network, which those launch all
the time
... secret, instagram, periscope, etc
... having a standard api that's close to hand might be what's
used
... that might be a market is what they're doing
sandro: and the benefit is it's
less work to adopt their own
... ?
... I guess you're suggesting it's not cost effective to switch
to the standard
... and the new folks don't know they want it
eprodrom: yes, and I think it's easier to do incremental adoption
sandro: in the needs document, federation is 1, 2, and 5
eprodrom: yeah, I think also managing profile stuff
aaronpk: follow-up question evan, the value is to design the api
eprodrom: it's not me saying this, it's the charter
aaronpk: my follow up question is
you also see as part of that the value is someone's building an
amazing iphone app that does video editing in a new way
... is the value that they can already do a web api they can
point to?
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87035&oldid=87033
aaronpk: and someone wants to
build something but not use the mobile app... ?
... there does seem some value in having federation
standardized
... you're able to swap out what servers you're using
eprodrom: that's exactly it, you can use off the shelf libraries and etc
<kevinmarks> I am now
eprodrom: both on client and server side
<kevinmarks> muted and video off
eprodrom: I think there's a
number of ways you could do something that doesn't have
federation at its core
... for companies, individuals, everyone
<kevinmarks> as the train is in noisy level crossing mode
eprodrom: I think ultimately form
a procedure standpoint, we have 3 deliverables, are not at CR
for any of them, we have one that's optional, and we have
worries about what to do about all of them is useful
... I'd like to hear we start federation protocol because XYZ
not be cause we think it's cool
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<kevinmarks> if we want to do a micropub+webmention+webaction demo later, I have all the bits for that set up
<tantek> kevinmarks - if you want to do that, could you add to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_technical_items ?
cwebber2: I think a couple of things. 1) most of the companies that ar eputting out things like this probably don't want to use an off the shelf mobile app anyway, because they want to control their brand in some way. Although it is true that when media goblin implemented the pump api we were able to use existing clients and it just worked
<tantek> q/
cwebber2: that is pretty cool, but one concern is that it would take a lot of work to try to decouple the client to server stuff in AP
<kevinmarks> hi wseltzer see you in 40 mins or so
cwebber2: I also worry that in
terms of motivation to stay active in this group, it's going to
be hard to stay motivated if federation is not on the
horizon
... My interest drops dramatically. That's the whole reason I'm
int he group.
... If federation looks like it's not a likely target it's
going to reduce the amount I'm enthused to stay involved. I
want to keep it on the horizon. It's a high priority / life
goal for m to advance that
<cwebber2> scribenick: cwebber2
bengo: aside from social api
benefits of the next api benefits etc, I think it's useful for
reusable readers/writers etc, but also because web components
that real enterprise buyers will have motivation to use
... those same benefits could come from a standardized api,
might not benefit from federation
... my other question is evan, are you just not eager to talk
about it for 4 hours right now?
eprodrom: I'm more concerned over
months and years than the next several hours
... we are at 5 drafts that we're working on, and we're going
to start a new process for federation protocol
etc
sandro: I think we concluded that the user stories covered both
eprodrom: I think we said it's topology agnostic
sandro: right, so that means we can just say applies across servers
eprodrom: that sounds like a good thing to do
tantek: so that's basically a requirement for a user story
eprodrom: so federation is server
to server level, so I assume it has more to do with server
protocol than about user interaction
... so we already have what we need?
tantek: as part of our charter,
webmention was part of our protocol, same as we accepted as2 as
a draft, so proceeding a similar track as as2
... there's no sense of exclusivity for sure
... but I understand there's a concern about the amount of time
on it
eprodrom: so I'd just like to
hear what our plan is from the next few months
... are we choosing webmention immediately?
tantek: I didn't hear that,
eprodrom: so we're going to look
at alternative systems?
... I propose we talk about how we're going to do this
... I suggest you add that
tantek: that sounds more process oriented than tech oriented
<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-12-01#Proposed_admin_items
<bengo> It would be interesting to resolve finalizing reader/writer Social API stories above federation, which could just be standardizing processing rules for that API
sandro: that's what we're talking about now?
tantek: no this was 5 minutes to express concerns
eprodrom: will add to proposed admin items
tantek: based on concern over how much time, let me ask aaron how much time we need
<bengo> e.g. decouple delivery/notification rules of ActivityPump from describing POST /outbox and expected semantics/errors
tantek: how much time do you actually want?
<Loqi> Aaronpk made 1 edit to [[Socialwg]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87036&oldid=86942
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87037&oldid=87035
aaronpk: I have a couple issues I
want feedback on
... I also want to clarify process stuff about webmention
spec
tantek: how much total time do you want
aaronpk: I imagine an hour is fine
tantek: any objection to slotting an hour time?
sandro: that's fine
tantek: let's timebox yours to an hour. is that okay eprodrom ?
eprodrom: sounds great
<jasnell> btw, given that I have a 3.5 hour drive home, I'd like to try to get on the road home a bit early today, if at all possible, I'd like to see if we could handle the remaining AS2 issues a bit earlier in the agenda
sandro: let's do demo after break (vga cable had arrived)
aaronpk: a lot of people read
over webmention doc, lots of issues filed, lots of good
discussion
... trying to work before this meeting
... before we do that, I wanted to clarify the place the spec
lives etc
<kevinmarks> when is break? I added a demo suggestion to the items
aaronpk: after last call I made for issues only
<tantek> kevinmarks, we'll take a break at 10:50
<Loqi> I added a countdown for 12/2 10:50am (#5772)
<kevinmarks> OK, I'll be there by then
aaronpk: my proposal is to move from w3c issues to my personal account on github, so it follows same protocol as activitystreams (under jame's account) so there's no confusion over who's the admin of ther epo
repo
aaronpk: I'll have to do the work of moving the actual spec contents to respec format, I'm planning on doing that on github because that's an easy way to manage source code, so that's then the source of the document using the normal workflow, and if I have trouble I can ask james
<kevinmarks> if you want to schedule a few minutes for a webmention micropub demo
sandro: so if you move the repo
aaronpk: all the issues will
stay
... I don't want to fragment the convo too much
... that also means the indiewebcamp wiki, which is where the
spec is canonical right now, will have to figure out how to
deal with that
... if we write that in the github html source, have to figure
out how to move to the indieweb (?)
... I think that's outside the scope of this group though, I
mostly wanted to make sure the described worklow makes
sense
... since AS2 does that too
... happy to make chairs admin on the repo
tantek: I'm not hearing
objections to use same workflow as AS2
... I think we can accept it if no concerns
jasnell: no concerns, I think
having it with full chair access helps
... that's something you might want to consider, with full
rights
... having someone else there with same permission level helps
balance that it's not just you
... that's my recommendation
tantek: that cover yer spec process issues/
?
aaronpk: yes it does
... let's get onto the guts of it then
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/5
aaronpk: this has always been a
vague par to fthe spec, verifying that source links back to the
target
... in the land of html, it's easy to do that
... but if we're talking about other types of source
docukments, need to see if it needs to be spelled out more
explicitly
... that doc links to another doc
... if that's clear by content type, then it doesn't need to
be
sandro: I think it's not well
spelled out
... my instinct is there's motivation to spell it out but as I
commented
... if there's a way to do webmentions, a blog system that does
webmentions, to know if it's conformatnt to the spec, have to
define what is a link that does webmention?
... if I have a piece of software with a webmention endpoint,
then we should agree on what counts as passing verification
aaronpk: right, first step of processing webmention is to see what's in it
<Loqi> Kmarks2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87038&oldid=87037
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87039&oldid=87038
sandro: first exmaple is relative
URIs
... eg, "is this string in there, the url doesn't appear there,
but it's absolutely specified"
aaronpk: ok so we don't need to discuss the actual contents right now, but worht specifying...?
tantek: is it reasonable to say you raise issues as helpful...?
sandro: you get my point it's not just about verificaiton, but aloso when do you send the webmention
aaronpk: ok
... yeah
... 17 is a similar one
bengo: webmention does seem
useful as a way of doing an "FYI" standard
... I kind of agree that it's possible to recommend specifying
algorithms
... webmention as FYI in a timely manner, that's separate from
specifics
<kevinmarks> is the verification part going to be normative?
<kevinmarks> or suggested
bengo: there seems like a way to separate FYI from each content type
sandro: for instance in json-ld to find out if there's links or not you have to do full expansion
tantek: similar for html parsing algorithm you have to do media type parsing
sandro: I don't know the right answer but conceptually here's webmention on this matrix, and here's webmention for each other possible media type
tantek: perhaps the general
approach that sandro / bengo 's mentioning is apply webmention
FYI, but if per media type processing to do, write an example
for each media type
... then add after that and say, for other media types, handle
their processing model for each term
... as bengo said for each media type it's worth
processsing
sandro: maybe spec says it can
apply to each terms
... but conformance is weird maybe
... so it's a sender/receiver for different types
<kevinmarks> what do we mean by 'each media type' - would we process a QR code?
bengo: but even ?? ships
... if it's already should, it's specific about each type
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/18
aaronpk: that brings me to
something related, which is 18 from wilkie
... I think gist of this is that is there a way the spec can
limit the amount of work receiver has to do
wilkie: yep
<bengo> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sporny-http-proofs-01
aaronpk: because anyone having to verify document, can link a document, which could even be a 1gb document...
wilkie: I'm looking for some bullet points saying "this could happen, here's how to avoid some obvious/easy ways to get hut"
sandro: for example, never bother to fetch more than a megabyte
aaronpk: so this seems not part of the algorithm, but
tantek: it's a MUST vs SHOULD
sandro: alternatively you could
say it's only defined for the first megabyte
... another technical solution is you could say include
range
someone: *trollish laughter*
aaronpk: I'll try to find some way to avoid falling into a pit of processing
tantek: maybe send two megabytes and see what happens
sandro: many redirects is another thing
wilkie: if anyone wants to give permission to have their webmention endpoint to be possibly broken
sandro: so another way to put it, do I have the legal authority to post whatever I want to an endpoint?
tantek: for a lot of these things
you can see if there's prior art in pingback or etc
... it's very mature
sandro: it's also discarded
tantek: unmaintained
sandro: who should review
webmention? particularly, what ietf groups might get upset, so
we can approach in the appropriate way
... the kind of people who will say "this is crazy, you can't
do this"
<ben_thatmustbeme> totally confused myself on start time
sandro: they look at pingback and say nobody should do this, we'd like them to have them say "oh this is (good?)"
aaronpk: (what to display after you receive a pingback) was left out of pingback
sandro: jasnell you have some
experience with the http working group right?
... if we could have them not hate it that'd be nice
jasnell: we could float it, experience has been mixed
wseltzer: if it's something you want brought to ietf apps-area discussion that's the right place to raise an issue for people to review
tantek: maybe consider that for draft advancement
jasnell: the apps working group
might... hm.... might be a more appropriate venue. But I think
it could rabbithole very quickly...
... nneither is ideal, but of the two, apps might be it
sandro: we could find liason types
jasnell: I'm very familiar with both groups so I can do that....
tantek: is there an appropriate
maturity schedule needed to do that review?
... need is before CR? I'm sensing there's an opinoin that
having review soner could be helpful?
sandro: related thing is, how
this is framed/scoped as... is it for everything on the
web?
... it's grown out of the social use cases, but you could
mention things that grew out of social or not social
... do we want to say we don't care about some of those others?
i don't know the righ answer
... it's simple/elegant enough it might be able to, but we
might see it hits other issues....
jasnell: that's a common problem for apps group, scope bloat
tantek: sounds like you're asking for a scope section
sandro: I'm... not sure scope
section will help.
... quesiton back here is does anyone have interest in selling
it more broadly? or are we too concerned about feedback?
aaronpk: within the realm of social web stuff, I don't know if it's appropriate for other uses stuff
sandro: one relatively harmless
way to do it might be to have a w3c staff technical ...?
... any group can say we'd love w3c staff to look at it
but
... could be kinda interesting
tantek: best before or after first working draft?
sandro: probalby after
... I don't think there's much risk
<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to comment on security review
wseltzer: another productive
avenue of review could be in security, and how will this
actually worked when deployed at scale across a variety of
malicious mentioners and mentioneees
... what could one feed to someone else's verifier to have it
blow up etc?
... we have Privacy IG and Security IG that WG can invite at
any time to review
bengo: just thought, should it respec the robots.txt for ...?
aaronpk: whether to respect robots.txt ...
sandro: robots.txt is about crawling
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/9
<kevinmarks> No-one is on reception, can someone let me in?
aaronpk: this one is issue #9
<kevinmarks> Never mind
aaronpk: issue #9 is about
talking about parmeter name, source, target, and fact that they
aren't actually URIs
... I don't... things seem to be working just fine as
strings
... is there some way to get around this the way the json-ld
workaround to wokr
bengo: I got the author to agree later to language they would do
melvin would resolve "we can convert this to semantics"
sandro: we should pick a namespace
bengo: not actually the protocol that needs to change
<bengo> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/9#issuecomment-159961360
aaronpk: if not pingback what's the proper name
tantek: namespace for what?
aaronpk: for the terms source, targget
sandro: they're link relations from webmention...
aaronpk: so string source is not a fully qualified uri
rhiaro: same as AS2, default namespace
sandro: I don't think it really matters, but it doesn't hurt to give a default namespace
tantek: I recommend you follow up with jasnell
<rhiaro> w3.org/ns/...
<ben_thatmustbeme> presumably we don't actually need to send that namespace correct?
bengo: needs a version ;)
<ben_thatmustbeme> or rather the context?
tantek: now you're borderline trolling ;)
<rhiaro> ben_thatmustbeme: right
<sandro> right, ben_thatmustbeme
<rhiaro> just for receivers if they want to add it upon receipt
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/13
<elf-pavlik> webmention seems to represent a link, how about using terms from as:Link ?
aaronpk: let's talk about issue 13
<jasnell> fwiw, I've actually been playing around with an experimental draft for processing form data into json-ld
aaronpk: right now every
implementation afaik assumes only one webmention endpoint
... and only pings that one
<kevinmarks_> mine doesn't
aaronpk: maybe correct anser is use first one you bump into
tantek: but there's implementation agreement?
kevinmarks: mine doesn't do that,
it pings all
... did it in response to tantek's comment
aaronpk: but when you discover a webmention endpoint do you discover one
kevinmarks: no it does as many as
it can
... an experiment, but useful use case is when transitioning
from one endpoint to another
tantek: do you feel strongly about that enuf to make that a should
kevinmarks: you may want to ping more than one
<ben_thatmustbeme> are we bothering with queue?
kevinmarks: the one I gbuilt stores entirely in ???
aaronpk: my inclination is if you see value in multiple webmention pings, you can't acutlaly guarantee sending it to all of them, so you're better off sending to one
<ben_thatmustbeme> nevermind, aaronpk basically said what i was going to
aaronpk: the most reliable way is
to have single webmention endpoint
... that's the only way to guarantee they all get the
webmention
kevinmarks: the other thing is to
potentially handle webmentions for ones who haven't installed
it yet
... it's slightly off, but you could imagine a webmention
sender automatically pings webmention services in case they
have it there
aaronpk: kind of like pinging archive.org(?)
kevinmarks: potential utility in queueing, but not sure it's core enough to try to get everyone else to do it too
aaronpk: another risk that having
senders send multiples, you might potentially send
thousands
... kind of tempted to limit to just one first
... good things to document
kevinmarks: if we do adopt the
well-known approach to finding it, we do have the posssibility
of doing ...(?)
... we may want to discuss about related things
tantek: there's order already for
discovery
... sounds like you're close to proposed resolution
aaronpk: I think so
... so, you MUST ping first on you find, then document reasons
for not require multiple
tantek: implementation guidance?
aaronpk: yes
sandro: I hadn't thought of well-known, I'd like to have it at end, but it woudl be nice to never have to do discovery again
tantek: the stableness of well
known is well known
... google kept breaking it
sandro: they weren't updating their well known?
tantek: correct
... so if the large corporation handling large centralized
place, yeah they oculdn't
... if google can't get it right, then
kevinmarks: not everyone there knew about well known
tantek: that's a data point
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/4
aaronpk: so this is an interesitng one, it basically shows whether webmention payload should be allowed to have other content types
it's basically url source and target
aaronpk: it kind of looks like a
minimal activity, where there's an id and an object
... what if you want to send activity as a paylod
... now it looks like federation protocol sending activities
around
... interesting idea, quickly growing out of scope
... quickly growing into its own protocol with its own security
concerns and etc
... it's potentially an even biger rabbithole
bigger
kevinmarks: that makes sense
aaronpk: easy one
<aaronpk> https://github.com/aaronpk/webmention/issues/1
aaronpk: last one: issue #1 about
property parameter
... don't bother reading whole thread... several months ago ??
gave source and target
... basically switched to rel, where to find the link
... if in-reply-to on page, what do you parse to get key
in-reply-to(??)
... if my webmention payload contains rel="in-reply-to" you
don't need to look at all links on pag
ee
page
augh
aaronpk: thing that got me to
really understand what this is about is to include rel
parameter page may mean multiple things
... one is in-reply-to and one is ??-of
... one means reply one means like
<kevinmarks_> like-of
aaronpk: if you want to send two
webmentions to that you could
... if you tell me where to look in the page I can look and
then stop
sandro: in practice how do you do that
aaronpk: stop as in most peoples' code when they look beyond "what does this mean" they have "is it a bla, or a blah"
<kevinmarks_> I implemented this in http://mention-tech.appspot.com
rhiaro: if it's json you can just look
<kevinmarks_> and it was very confusing
aaronpk: right in microformats
world you can look
... look for one key you're looking at
kevinmarks: I implemented this and to see what it's like
rhiaro: the idea is you send
whatever you want
... you send what's in the document. if they receive what you
understand then it's up the target anyway
... if it's rdfa you send rdfa prop, of microformats you send a
microformats propoperty
azaroth: seems like slipper slope towards oauth
aaronpk: couldn't you use a fragment on url as subject?
sandro: this seems like the perfect kind of at risk thing
rhiaro: that was my lsat point
aaronpk: I think if it goes in
the spec it may be a suggestion
... they MAY prioritize that
... with assumption most implementations won't include
sandro: with assumption we might take it out of the spec later
aaronpk: that seems like a good path forward
<Zakim> ben_thatmustbeme, you wanted to discuss my concerns with it
ben_thatmustbeme: ok, so my concerns are that 1) especially with like-of it becomes possibly not even on that page
<bengo> verification is already not required
ben_thatmustbeme: so if they see
like coming in and that's all they care about well
... then it becomes why not send comments as well
... it sends info about it instead of the actual stuff
tantek: do you have a counter-proposal?
ben_thatmustbeme: I queued up
before marking at risk
... someone could send you the wrong type
rhiaro: you always run the risk without validation
<bengo> It all already says 'you cant trust the ping', you SHOULD verify it
<kevinmarks_> like me - I record it without valdiating it
rhiaro: someone can still process
incoming webmention as a REPLY
... they could still violate the spec
aaronpk: seems like good reasons
on both sides
... looking for feedback from implementers might be right way
forward
... as an extension what does it look like? a type hinting
extension?
<wilkie> I feel like in the context of the Social API that you would want to parse the entire page anyway. to pull out ALL comments and ALL likes that refer to you (with the same url) and represent them.
kevinmarks: yes and property is
not a good description (??)
... for me that makes more of an extension
cwebber2: wilkie: you mean federation api right? :)
rhiaro: one suggestion in that
thread is for those who don't care about semantic content you
just send it ...?
... I think it would be useful to get more feedback from
different perspectives
<ben_thatmustbeme> other issue with one proposed advantage of it is that it allows you to dismiss types you don't support, but thats just as premature as accepting likes without verifying them
tantek: I'm queed to talk about htat which is that we have more extensions already
<tantek> http://indiewebcamp.com/Vouch
<bengo> wilkie agree
tantek: that's Vouch
<wilkie> cwebber2: webmention would be the federation on top of the social syntax for servers that aren't known/trusted/discovered
tantek: it already has multiple
implementions
... for those who see value in it, they have the burden of
writing it up first
... rather than burdening you with trying to interpret their
wishes
... if that's something the community wants to do in core
well....
... I want to resist the default tendency to mark everything at
risk, I was criticized for that, and I think it was a legit
criticisms
... also a good way to get person proposing to think more
formally
<azaroth> +1 to tantek
tantek: rather than getting you to distribute the work
rhiaro: it is written up, where does it go then
<rhiaro> It is already written up at csarven.ca/webmention
tantek: in a separate spec
rhiaro: so published where?
tantek: wherever person wants
rhiaro: it's already up
<kevinmarks_> it's currently written up at http://csarven.ca/webmention
tantek: give it a name, say its extension
rhiaro: I just dropeped a link
<ben_thatmustbeme> i wouldn't call that at all spec like. It generally explains it
tantek: doesn't look like a
spec,, make a separate spec
... not just a bunch of thoughts
<ben_thatmustbeme> but what do you do with it if its not found? what do you do if it is given, also that page talks about making target optional
tantek: I think jasnell_ is
resistant to add stuff to as2 core, that's not a bad
pracrtice
... call for review
<ben_thatmustbeme> indeed, link to extensions in the spec +1
<Loqi> kevinmarks, we'll take a break
<Loqi> Countdown set by tantek on 12/2/15 at 9:52am
bengo: add a registyr?
tantek: specs are registries by default
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note we have at least one Webmention extension already, Vouch, with multiple interoperable implementations, seems like other additions should also start
sandro: if you're going to have extensions, what's the extension mechanism
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to ask who runs the registry for webmention extension field names
sandro: it might be the IWC wiki,
because htat seems to be the answer. I don't like it, but
that's how it is
... I don't understand why there's an extension mechanism in
there
tantek: ther'es no formal webmention, you can just do it
sandro: but there's no way to
detect who's implementing extensions
... so if two people come along and use vouch with conflicting
terms, there's no way to do it
azaroth: I believe that's issue 9 which we won't tlak about
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss extensions and #9
talk
sandro: converting to URIs is one way to solve this, having a registry is another
bengo: one way to do it is what does this support
sandro: we could add those to the link
bengo: configuration endpoint
<bengo> accounts.qa-ext.livefyre.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
<bengo> https://accounts.qa-ext.livefyre.com/.well-known/openid-configuration
tantek: we've had fewer than one
extension per year, so I don't see any benefit for an abastract
solution
... so far everyone knows about every extension
azaroth: so if everyone that we know
tantek: if million people implement webmention I'll be impressed
<jasnell_> one possible approach is to have the discovery mechanism to allow a site to declare a prefix for a particular base URI mapping... for instance, "xyz-" = "http://xyz.example#", then a parameter named "xyz-foo" would expand to "http://xyz.example#foo"
<ben_thatmustbeme> i think a registry of "extensions fields" and links to extension in IWC wiki would make a lot of sense
aaronpk: effectively for now, the
spec becomes registry of extensions, around CR we can
revisit
... I saved that one for last because I knew it would be
tricky
... talk about it on the next calll
sandro: goal is for working draft?
tantek: do we want to say we have a certain a mount of time?
sandro: let's wait
aaronpk: I can get it by... I'm
not james so I can't probably do it during the rest of the
day
... I'll try to have it done by next telecon
... I probably won't have it done by next telecon
tantek: let's agenda to update and discuss at next telecon
<aaronpk> ACTION: aaronpk publish new editor's draft of webmention before next telcon [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-81 - Publish new editor's draft of webmention before next telcon [on Aaron Parecki - due 2015-12-09].
<tantek> any word from rene?
<tantek> reconvene at 11:05
<Loqi> I added a countdown for 12/2 11:05am (#5773)
<eprodrom> I sent Rene an email; let's see if it produces anything.
<tantek> thanks eprodrom
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87040&oldid=87039
<kevinmarks_> if I webmention people from the logs, what happens?
<Loqi> reconvene
<Loqi> Countdown set by tantek on 12/2/15 at 10:57am
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<ben_thatmustbeme> for demos could we turn talky to projector?
<tantek> ActiviPy demo, showing a combination of ActivityStreams, Linked Data (through json-ld) and Microformats (through JF2) support - Chris Webber
<azaroth> ben_thatmustbeme: is that better?
<ben_thatmustbeme> thank you whoever that was :)
cwebber2: Activipy started off as a validator, then a generalised library for doing AS2 stuff
<ben_thatmustbeme> yes
<azaroth> :)
<ben_thatmustbeme> azaroth++
cwebber2: But expands out into a linked data representation, but as of this morning alos handles microformats (jf2)
<Loqi> azaroth has 10 karma
cwebber2:
Readthedocs.org/activipy contains a full tutorial and
documentation
... But I'll show you
... It has all the vocabularly loaded into it, including
descriptions, making good use of our free software
license
... So self documenting
... import library, call vocab.Person and it shows the
description
... Can set values of properties for AS2 classes
... Can get json-ld version, but doesn't do expansion until it
needs to
... Provides different ways of representing an activity
... Can feed in JSON itself, or use a more pythonic
constructor
... In this one I'm creating a note, with a URI, setting all
the properties
... It's composed of several python objects
... eg. has a person object
... so can expand out
... and can access individual properties
... and can acess object to get python representation
... all immutable, so change a value spits back a new version
of the object
... so very efficient
... what's neat about this is... I can get types, and it gives
you, but no json-ld expansion
... But the moment I do types_expanded, it does json-ld
expansion
... Moving off the idea that theoretically it's just json until
you need extensions
... So it already knows all the vocabulary
... Has all the objects, properties, short ids
... So what can you do with an environment?
... You want to do something with the stuff, and you might want
to expand the vocabulary
... So what i did this morning is an environment for jf2
*live demo woes*
scribe: the environment knows
about all the classes available to it
... So I create a very specific jf2 object and set
properties
... Can switch between python object and json
... and I can get a linked data representation of the jf2
... All I did was declaritively describe the vocabulary
... use the context taht ben wrote up
... and now it's composable with AS2
<kevinmarks_> this is very neat
scribe: You can mix and match
with AS2 now, and other linked data
... But that's not all!
... One of the motivators was writing a validator that could
extend to new vocabularies
... Python object inheritance model didn't work in the first
place, because AS2 can have multiple types for objects
... We want to be able to do method dispatch. If you're
assuming a python or java style inheritance model, methods get
attached
... But we still might want eg. all collections to have certain
methods available to them
... So Activipy includes a method dispatch system based on
environments
... Uses the dumbest key value store possible. Serializes to
key-value stor saved on disk. dbm
... Say you're doing an application that's streaming a bunch of
objects and you know how you want to save them, maybe do
functions on them, and save to database
... Now I've got a note that's an AS object, and we want to
serialize it to our database
... this note has its own environment
... the environment is the dbm environment
... can now do method dispatch on it, with save
... So now I've saved it to the database
... now I can pull it out by id, which is URL of the note
... You can have different applications that share vocabluary,
and hook up different methods depending on the
application
... Really flexible, can fit changing vocab of
application
... So you can do it with AS2 based stuff, embed jf2 inside the
same thing, alongside as2, and expand to linked data
... Pretty cool!
... The jf2 support was literally checked in this morning
... All I had to do was add that vocabulary
... Looks almost like the other one
... You can compose it together with AS2
... The worlds are brought together
*applause*
scribe: It's on pypy
... can install and use today
... 0.2 release - jf2 will be in next release
... It can pull in jf2 json that's json-ld encoded
... assuming that ben roberts' thing actually matches jf2
document, which isn't verified, it'll do the same thing
... Basically just json-ld with an implied context
... This is the implied context, that ben put together. Had to
make one change
... as2 context fix, then just worked
tantek: code knows about implied context?
cwebber2: that's right
... in environment
... context uri is ben's uri, implied context being jf2 context
uri
<bengo> https://github.com/w3c-social/activipy/blob/master/activipy/jf2-context.jsonld
cwebber2: Previously had it hard
coded to be AS2, two line change to give it any implied
context
... So you can pass it
... 2 commits this morning
sandro: the architecturally
correct thing to do is media types have implied context
... operating system maps file extensions to media types
... so it should be able to read file extensions to get implied
context
tantek: if it has an explicit context it just works?
cwebber2: right
... either you have something set up so it goes to fetch it, or
it alraedy knows about it
... I have it set up so it already has it, so never has to
fetch from the web
... if you you pass it a url you already know about, it can use
that
tantek: Any questions for chris?
<tantek> 10 min. demo of existing webmention+micropub federation using woodwind, known and other indie sites. Also webaction example Kevin Marks
kevinmarks: This is woodwind,
which is kylewm's feed reader
... I've subscribed to a bunch of sites and it gives me their
posts
... If I click on a post, this little thing pops up which is a
box, with three buttons - post, repost, like
tantek: this is in your reader?
kevinmarks: this is kyle's
website, not mine
... If I put in a response, it sends a micropub post to my
website
... Post appears on my site
... and sent a webmention to jeremy
... my site should have sent a webmention in response to
getting a micropub request
... (it didn't, sending one manually)
... Back in reader, sending reply to kyle
*live demo woes strike again*
scribe: Shows published on site,
webmention appears on kyle's site
... kyle's site shows reply thread/context
... The other thing you can see in a few places
... If I look in safari at this page, you can see reply,
retweet, favorite on jeremy's site (adactio.com)
<tantek> s/webintent/webaction
scribe: actually wrapped with web
action
... so in chrome, with extension(?) his buttons are replaced
with my buttons
... You can do it without a plugin
... But then the like goes to my site, instead of twitter
... directly from jeremy's site
<wilkie> http://known.kevinmarks.com
scribe: THe point of this demo
which is not working as well as I would like, is to show that
we have multiple implementations of webmention receiving and
micropub
... so it's possible to embed the posting ui on one site and
have it post to another
... and have it federate back again
tantek: which is the part that's showing federation? so thats' on topic
kevinmarks: Depends on the
definition of federation. My sense is that I'm reading
something on one site, responding to it on another site, and
having that information show up on the first site
... I'mr eading in one place, responding inline, which pings
mine ,which pings his, so reply shows up there
... Mine doesn't show context, but there's a link back to what
I'm replying to
<bengo> https://kylewm.com/2015/12/he-s-been-talking-about-service-workers-a-bit-is
kevinmarks: Webmention based
commenting
... Different peopl ehave different versions of how much
context they display
wilkie: how does it work? it gets a webmention...
kevinmarks: it gets a webmention. What it says here is... this is marked up with microformats in-reply-to classes
bengo: then kyle stores a copy of it
kevinmarks: *parses page into mf2
json*
... So you can see what's going on, shows all the
properties
... So on his side he is parsing it, then storing the reply in
a way that makes sense for him, to display
... You can send a webmention for a larger entity and you want
to do more thinking about how you're going to extract the
content, but for short notes it works quite well
wilkie: wondered if there's anything written explaining that
kevinmarks: there's discussion on
the indieweb wiki on how to make sense of replies
... The general assumption is the easy thing is you can take
the name
... The common type of a content type post is a h-entry, which
will ahve a name
rhiaro: how to parse/mark up is deliberatley not in the webmention spec
<ben_thatmustbeme> jf2 version http://stream.thatmustbe.us/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fkylewm.com%2F2015%2F12%2Fhe-s-been-talking-about-service-workers-a-bit-is&op=mf2-jf2
<ben_thatmustbeme> :)
<cwebber2> ben_thatmustbeme: btw where should I submit a patch to your jf2 context?
bengo: rdfa or microformats explain how to parse/publish as options
<cwebber2> it totally worked minus one short thing
kevinmarks: so another one, here's my reply saying yes I'm coming to this event, which has an rsvp yes on it
<bengo> (or microdata)
<ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2, in the next couple days i will be moving in to a more specific repo for the spec, but for now, https://github.com/dissolve/socialstream/issues
<wilkie> I suggested what I thought the process was: you get a webmention and pull down the source page and look for links to you (in-reply-to, like-of) and work backward to determine the context
<wilkie> I guess you can go backward until you find something you already know... to determine the conversation thread etc
kevinmarks: So aaron parses my reply and can show that I'm attending
<tantek> kevinmarks: shows federated RSVPs to an event
<ben_thatmustbeme> or more specifically https://github.com/dissolve/socialstream/blob/master/jf2.jsonld
kevinmarks: The webmention part
is - these two are linked in some way, try to make sense of
them
... the like, repost, etc we've built separately
... Other rsvps on here are coming in from facebook via
bridgy
... bridgy translates silo mentions into webmentions and sends
you those
tantek: wrap up, thanks
<ben_thatmustbeme> kevinmarks++
<Loqi> kevinmarks has 185 karma
<ben_thatmustbeme> cwebber2++ for last demo
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 60 karma
<jasnell_> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/266
<tantek> rhiaro++ for scribing
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
<Loqi> rhiaro has 190 karma
<tantek> cwebber2++ for scribing
<Loqi> cwebber2 has 61 karma
jasnell_: I'm happy to summarize rene's issues
<tantek> AS2 Extension questions/issues from Rene
jasnell_: He's opened a number of
issues with new terms to add to the vocabulary
... based on the discussion on those proposals, Rene asked what
is the principle between vocabulary and extensions
... Rene wants to have a documentation of those
guidelines
... Conversation has been between Rene and myself
... I have said we should be conservative in expanding the
vocabulary
... Default position is to reduce, not add new classes
<tantek> +1 on pull things out and simplify rather than add things new
jasnell_: Hopefully when Rene reads the minutes he can correct if necessary
<azaroth> (that :) )
<jasnell_> eprodrom: can we create a wiki page to document the current status ?
eprodrom: can we document scope for vocabulary?
<cwebber2> :)
tantek: This would be appropriate to discuss in the draft
jasnell_: are we in agreement on that position?
bengo: It sounds like our
principle is don't add anything that doesn't meet that
bar
... but what is that bar?
jasnell_: I'd like to leave that open
sandro: Do we have a registry for extensions?
<tantek> related: https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/261
sandro: if good extensions come up, we may add them to the next versions
jasnell_: I have a list of items
removed from the spec already, which could go to an
extension
... What is the process for registering extensions
... If it is a workgroup-managed thing, can we discuss the
process?
sandro: We can keep a list of extensions personally, or by the group
jasnell_: I have a list of other extensions
sandro: Do you own activitystrea.ms domain?
jasnell_: No, Chris Messina has
it
... but he will let us directly update it
bengo: A reasonable bar is approved user stories linked from the home page of the wiki
<bengo> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Approved_user_stories
bengo: if any of those can't be described using the vocabulary, then that makes sense for an addition
jasnell_: in the list of
proposals we have for adding vocabulary, we have 3 that might
be worth discussing
... Evan suggested a Blog type
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss dropped terms, changes from AS1?
tantek: There's a section in the vocabulary about AS1 properties. Do you have any plans to include a section of changes, including dropped classes or properties?
jasnell_: Currently that table is
not in the editor's draft to simplify
... Considering creating a separate document to show
differences, how to deal with differences
... Still debating whether I'll have the time to write it
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
eprodrom: I wanted to talk about
what sandro mentioned, having an extensions area that we may
bring into the as2 vocabulary
... although it seems like a nice mechanism, wouldn't the
namespacing effort make that not backwards compatible?
... if I had a geo store item that got widespread, it would not
be identicaly to a store that ended up in our core
sandro: I suggest we keep namespaces intact, which suggests that either we use their namespaces or we suggest people use a w3c namespace for their extensions
jasnell: as I understand it, we're not creating a extension namespace that people add terms to, but people add their extension with their own namespace
eprodrom: I don't see pipeline of
get a popular extension and that moves on to be in core
... That doesn't seem important to me, but don't want to extend
that as a possibility if it is hard to do
sandro: say in our doc if you think this extension is going to be popular and might be in future version, use a namespace that is going to b epersistant
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
jasnell_: we can have the registry have its own context document
<azaroth> +1 to jasnell
jasnell_: if an extension becomes
popular enough, the registry context can import it
... There could be a curated list
... It gives us an ability to promote popular extensions
consistently
sandro: if that's true, it should be a curated list by the WG or a CG
<Zakim> sandro, you wanted to suggest the bar for inclusion is 2+ independent implementations
sandro: if there are 2 implementations of a particular term, it should be included
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to respond to sandro to suggest 2+ _promises of_ implementations at this stage
sandro: or maybe a larger N
azaroth: If we have promises of implementations, then that makes more sense
sandro: if you're not going to write it, then that doesn't give us a lot of security that it's worth doing
tantek: I'd say deployed, not written
bengo: What about stuff that was implemented in AS1?
tantek: implementation
documentation for AS1 is poor
... implementation links are poor, broken
jasnell_: except for in-reply-to,
all other extensions of AS1 are out of AS2
... most implementations of extensions of AS1 are not in
AS2
... The registry has an implied context, then implementation
can use terms from the extensions
sandro: Doesn't that suggest changing the media type?
kevinmarks_: As part of your implementation test, you'd need publishers and parsers
sandro: I'd set the bar at 2 publishers and 2 consumers
jasnell_: That's the bar for
adding. For terms already in the vocabulary, we are getting the
minimal level of interop for most common cases.
... Minimal stuff doesn't get pulled out if we're not going to
use them
sandro: it'll get pulled out when we go to PR
jasnell_: Every term in there is optional
<Zakim> kevinmarks_, you wanted to distinguish publishing and parsing implementations
jasnell_: Implementers don't have to support them
kevinmarks_: If this is a bar for adding new things, then we should use the bar for deleting old things
jasnell_: we've already pulled
things out like that
... if we think some terms might be useful, we can reserve
them, saying we might use them in the future
http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html
<cwebber2> eprodrom: doesn't have the open farm game vocab ;)
<cwebber2> I guess we'll need an extension for that :)
ACTION eprodrom compare AS2 vocabulary with pump.io's use of AS1
<trackbot> Created ACTION-82 - Compare as2 vocabulary with pump.io's use of as1 [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-09].
<cwebber2> (yeah it was an extension originally I know)
eprodrom: this document is useful http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html
sandro: This is useful
jasnell_: We could do this in the wiki
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note at-risk vs pumpio
tantek: the first time we talked
about what it would take to get AS2 to CR, I suggested we mark
everything as at-risk
... Now, I think we should take stuff to at-risk that's not in
pump.io
sandro: we need to review this in CR
<kevinmarks_> so would sending PR's to http://dret.github.io/W3C/SocialWG/AS1-in-AS2.html be useful for eg bengo to do for his implementation
kevinmarks_: can we get information from bengo on this? Can we send PRs?
sandro: How do we update this document?
bengo: We don't use a lot of different verbs
<kevinmarks_> https://github.com/dret/W3C/tree/master/SocialWG is the repo
bengo: We do have an ongoing project to exercise more verbs
tantek: There's a proposed agenda
item for discussing federation protocol
... 10-minute break
resume at 12:20
<Loqi> I added a countdown for 12/2 12:20pm (#5774)
<tantek> eprodrom++ for minuting!
<Loqi> eprodrom has 27 karma
<wilkie> how does loqi know what timezone we are in
<Loqi> resume
<Loqi> Countdown set by eprodrom on 12/2/15 at 12:10pm
<aaronpk> shh it's a secret
<rhiaro> loqi knows all
<wilkie> does Loqi understand what is on the agenda? is Loqi scared? is Loqi trying to be useful?
<jasnell_> Loqi is becoming self aware
<jasnell_> SkyLoqi
<wseltzer> scribenick: wseltzer
<tantek> Discuss process for Federation Protocol. --Evan
eprodrom: processes we've
previously followed, esp for Social API
... review of non-standardized implementations
... about 20 APIs, a number of formats
... collected candidate specs and then reviewed
... we're trying to run in parallel or converge candidate specs
for Social API
... similar for Social Syntax
... Is this also the process for Federation Protocol?
sandro: strawman proposal: don't
distinguish between API and federation
... over past few months; activitypump, solid are both; Social
Protocols doc is both
... not closing the door, but until we see a different
proposal
eprodrom: saying we won't support unfederated social API?
aaronpk: my understanding was that while developing specs, we won't treat them as separata things, but that doesn't mean the result is combined
eprodrom: so one doc?
sandro: we have 3 stacks, keep
thinking about them together
... Social Web Protocols doc -- perhaps reorg so API sections
first, federation second
tantek: I heard, we've done a whole process for API, re-use that for fderation
cwebber2: most of the work on federation has already been considered, discussed in many conversations
<tantek> cwebber++ for Star Trek reference
<Loqi> cwebber has 5 karma
eprodrom: we haven't looked into
details of what's required for federation space
... you can't use webmention for subscribing to remote
feed
... so we haven't fully considered federation
... what does it mean to read a remote feed?
... thesse are reqts of what a federation protocol do, not nec
reflected in usec ases for API
cwebber2: starting to break
things into levels
... I think it's feasible to keep going that way
<kevinmarks_> the webmention bug on known.kevinmarks.com is fixed now
cwebber2: rather than saying
federation stuff is off the table
... we're already making progress
tantek: I didn't hear eprodrom
say federation is off the table
... but exisiting rqts not yet reflected
cwebber2: can we say that moving forward with API, editors are encouraged to keep working with federation?
eprodrom: that we mix up the 2
deliverables we're supposed to produce?
... We don't have rqts for federation protocol; we don't have
significant analysis of what's out there
... I'm not trying to stop federation
... but asking for systematic analysis, not just byproduct of
API wokr
... good protocol that people cna implement
sandro: Like you, I think federation is important; it would be interesting to analyze
<kevinmarks_> stop trying to make federation happen
sandro: also think each of the 3
stacks has already come up with a solution they think
works
... we're all talking about federation; could probably do it
better, but that sounds like R&D
eprodrom: we did analysis of API, syntaxes
aaronpk: have we used that?
tantek: for API we did
... AS we chose to move with because so much adoption
already
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to acknowledge Evan's concerns that we have not yet captured explicitly all the desired requirements for federation, and propose we come up with a way to collect
tantek: Existing federation solutions may not be solving all rqts Evan sees as necessary
<eprodrom> Review of social syntaxes
<eprodrom> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_syntax/Patterns
tantek: We did lots of reserach
for API
... user stories, gathering, voting, etc. took lots of
time
... I wouldn't want to repeat all for federation
... and yet we need method to address Evan's issues
... hope we could find some middle ground; some user stories
illustrating federation
<kevinmarks_> http://i.imgur.com/9nOuB7F.jpg
cwebber2: user stories designed to be topologically neutral
<kevinmarks_> sorry
cwebber2: Evan, what ground od we need to cover; how to use work already done?
eprodrom: List of requirements for federation:
<tantek> feedback on replies, hmm, sounds like Salmentions
eprodrom: e.g. @@ remote access to replies
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87048&oldid=87040
<Loqi> Rhiaro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87049&oldid=87048
eprodrom: comment remotely,
remote interaction with local site
... which are in-scope, which out
cwebber2: I think everything you said is captiured in user stories
eprodrom: but not expressed as
protocol requirements
... could we do minimal amount of work, eg. wiki approved in a
telcon?
tantek: one possible way of
turning rqts into something more concrete
... do you think we could come up with user stories to
illustrate federation?
... assuming there are holes, what additional miminal user
stories would we need to cover rqts?
... can you do the diff, and see what's missing from current
user stories for federation?
... add the misssing stories?
cwebber2: I think I mostly understand it, there are propbablyu some holes in the understanding
eprodrom: I'm thinking we take a
number of federation protocols to the public/w3c, and say "this
is a federation protocol", they'll ask "what does that
mean"
... we want to be able to say "here's what we considered;
here's what we left out"
sandro: first reax, use cases
cover them all
... each stack has a topology
... yet solid and indieweb have basic one-user-one-site
eprodrom: solid is everything mediated through the client
tantek: webmention demos going through proxies
cwebber2: strawman: take evan's
concern that not everything has been addressed, and try to
address
... ideally through user stories, or supplemental requirement,
by a deadline
<melvster> Im not sure either statement is accurate: solid does not mandate one user one site, afaik, and the technology can be deployed on the server or the client, typically it's on the client to be user centric and offer more control, but that's not a must
cwebber2: discuss
... only if not already exposed by existing user stories
eprodrom: current user stories
are topologically neutral.
... e.g. 2 players in a "following" scenario, harder in a
federated situaiton
tantek: I think we're using "topoligcally netural" differently
<kevinmarks_> we have done SWAT0 with both all indieweb players and with a facebook player https://snarfed.org/silo-swat0-on-facebook
cwebber2: we were saying, you should be able to take all these stories and assume users are on differnet servers, so must be federated
eprodrom: that igves different scope of work
tantek: provide lots of rqts for federation
cwebber2: so show that all the user stories, including gap-fillers, are met
tantek: if someone tags and
responds, that's SWAT0
... following a person is approved user story
eprodrom: we need a remote follow
cwebber2: current user story covers, if you say diff servers
<bengo> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/User_stories#Following_a_person
cwebber2: could formalize: you
ahve to assume users are on different servers
... and b) give opprotunity to plug the gap
... [repeat]
... a) for your spec to qualify as federation...
<kevinmarks_> that one says "company social network"
eprodrom: does that mean we're soliciting new specs?
cwebber2: we're taking existing stacks
<kevinmarks_> which is not topologically neutral
cwebber2: unless there's a really good case for new
eprodrom: will we be adding new parts?
<tantek> approved user stories: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Sorting_user_stories#Entirely_Positive
sandro: Protocols document has indieweb stack, etc
eprodrom: expanding from micropub to indieweb stack
cwebber2: are you happy with loose description of "indieweb stack" ?
tantek: I'd prefer to avoid that characterization
<ben_thatmustbeme> micropub was never a federation api, its social API isn't it?
<rhiaro> eprodrom: https://github.com/rhiaro/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/blob/gh-pages/indiewebspecs.md
<aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme, yesterday cwebber asked if micropub could be used for federation
<aaronpk> that's the context of that comment
<ben_thatmustbeme> ah
cwebber2: more inclusivity; but not actively searching new approach
<bengo> "Federation with Microformats2"
<ben_thatmustbeme> okay, yead i read the logs on that
<kevinmarks_> well, there's syndication in micropub
cwebber2: proposal b) if gaps,
opportunity to propose things not covered by existing user
stories
... do those proposals get there?
eprodrom: why not take tiem to
think it through?
... having already implemented 2 federation stacks, it's not an
easy process, doesn't just fall out of user stories, so worth
thinking through
... don;'t want to force on the group, but think hard about
what uiser stories imply about server-server
communication
... and requriements: discovery, identity,
... if we pursue each of 2.5 stacks is the best way to go
forward, let's, but think abou tit
cwebber2: what' smissing?
eprodrom: looking at other
federation stacks that have been tried before, user stories,
come up with requirements for federation protocol.
... I think that's weeks, not months.
<kevinmarks_> http://indiewebcamp.com/swat0
kevinmarks_: one possible
approach is SWAT0 on indieweb, wehre we asked what do we need
fore ach person in the graph
... mapping was informative
... we found a few new pieces we needed to implement
... how would you expand story into sequence of steps.
tantek: eprodrom has built many
of these systems
... so I'm willing to believe that verything doesn't
necessarily fall out of user stoires
... wilkie has built a lot too
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss Evan's doesn't just fall out of user stories, looking at other federation stacks that have been tried before
bengo: can you add more of that knowledge to the not-existing stories
tantek: I agree we're missing pieces
<bengo> https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/Federation/Requirements&action=edit&redlink=1
tantek: but I don't think we need
such thorough research as previously
... open the door for a few weeks
... ... additional user stories for federation holes is
reasonable; good place to cite prior efforts
... e.g. in the past, this story was implemented by PQR
... implementations as background to user story
eprodrom: I thin that makes sense
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to turn conversation into real proposals
cwebber2: since I'm making three proposals, I should type them out
eprodrom: I suggest that we ack
that we're unlikely to solicit other federaation protocol
proposals
... besides activity pump, solid, indieweb cluster
<kevinmarks_> indieweb components?
eprodrom: pulling in lots of things there
<rhiaro> indiewebstuff
<tantek> (aside: indieweb has tended to use Webmention + Salmention + PuSH for Federation use-cases)
<kevinmarks_> not so much a stack as a jumble
eprodrom: we'll move forward with those, review other feed proposoals, review of user stories with critical eye ot federation
<tantek> kevinmarks, or building blocks
eprodrom: we probably won't implement federated search
<ben_thatmustbeme> was that wseltzer's phone?
eprodrom: idea that federation is "doing whatever social does on the web" is a long reach
<ben_thatmustbeme> oh, n/m that was on talky i think
eprodrom: so describe what we ned
to do
... I'll take th lead
<sandro> +1 eprodrom taking the lead on writing the list of which features are in bounds and which are out of bounds
eprodrom: remote subsscribe,
remote feedback, access to profilees
... and "this is what we're not trying to do" e.g. federated
search
... so list, agree on telecon, and them move forward
... reasonable next step?
<kevinmarks_> as in tantek.com/2015/224/b1
tantek: would you be open to be curator?
eprodrom: yes
sandro: I can't think of a user
story
... each feature that's out of bounds needs a paragraph
explaining why it's out of bounds
<cwebber2> ack that we are unlikely to solicit other protocols / the bar is very high; as a side effort do review of other federation protocols, consider user stories with critical eye to federation, being critical of inbound new requests for expanding scope of the group (Evan will take lead / be "curator")
cwebber: ^
... 1. we are unlikely to solicit other protocols / the bar is
very high
... 2. as a side effort do
review of other federation protocols, consider user stories with critical eye to federation, being
critical of inbound new requests for expanding scope of the group (Evan will take lead
tantek: those sound like guiding principles
sandro: is pubsubhubbub part of the stack?
cwebber2: if indieweb stack does so
tantek: table that discussion
cwebber2: things we agreed at Boston meeting
<rhiaro> scribenick: rhiaro
<bengo> This page now exists and has some related work: https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Federation/Requirements
<Loqi> Bgoering made 3 edits to [[Socialwg/Federation/Requirements]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87058&oldid=0
cwebber2: Can turn these principles into actual proposals?
tantek: thought I heard that from evan, with modified suggestsion from myself and sandro
eprodrom: I'll see if I can do a proposal
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel develop requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts
tantek: you're volunteering for that right?
eprodrom: yes
<cwebber2> social register machine
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts
tantek: make that an open call
fro requirements from the wg, and trust you to curate the input
you receive
... and from sandro, any non-requirements you document with a
paragraph explaining why
sandro: with bodies
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements
<cwebber2> +1
tantek: how much time for call for reqs?
eprodrom: next month?
... next 4 telecons?
<sandro> +1
<wilkie> +1
<tantek_> +1
kevinmarks: will need more than a month
<tsyesika> +1
eprodrom: not a great month to get work done
<bengo> +1
<kevinmarks_> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<aaronpk> +1
RESOLUTION: Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements
<scribe> ACTION: eprodrom to Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (ActivityPump, SoLiD, Micropub/IndieWeb building blocks) and in parallel Evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-83 - Continue developing federation aspects of existing candidate specs (activitypump, solid, micropub/indieweb building blocks) and in parallel evan will curate requirements from user stories and other federation protocol efforts, with documented reasons for non-requirements [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-12-09].
*adjourn for lunch*
<ben_thatmustbeme> @here, as I already have wget copies of all old socialWG minutes, would it be useful to put a page together for WG resolutions and what meetings they were in?
<aaronpk> oh yes we were just talking about this
<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: that would be amazing
ben_thatmustbeme, aaronpk: was it azaroth who said he has a script for this already?
<melvster> I'd like to clarify one point. Solid is not bound to the one user one site policy. It would be essentially incapable of widespread adoption if it were, because it would be impossible for social nets like facebook, google, twitter, icloud etc. to adopt. If that's a limitation (actual or perceived) it should be looked at. But im not sure it is.
melvster: that discussion was rapid and could have been minuted in more detail. Thanks for the clarification for the minutes!
<melvster> And in practice Tim's profile is on w3.org with a bunch of other people, so in reality I think that's not the situation
melvster: I don't think anyone actually in the room thinks that, we know solid allows both multi user and single user
<melvster> ok cool
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Federation/Patterns]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87062&oldid=0
<melvster> the other part is about Solid being client side technology ... I can see why it gives that impression because most of the demos are client side apps ... but the same JS could actually live anywhere ... e.g. on a server running node, on a different server running node, in a desktop say electron app, or anywhere else ... when you want performance you'll probably use a server, when you want user control you'll probably use the the client ... in short, Solid
<melvster> is super flexible and probably covers the topologies of both of the other two stacks
<ben_thatmustbeme> huh, rhiaro, eprodrom, azaroth, it looks like there would be a lot of manual checking with that, but i'll throw a quick fetch of what i get in to the wiki, and we can work with it from there
<ben_thatmustbeme> just literally grepping all minutes for 'resolved:' (case insensative)
<eprodrom> melvster: sure
<aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme: do you have a permalink associated with them that you can also add?
<ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk: i'll have the link to the document, i don't have link to the specific lines
<eprodrom> But there are things like, if I post a note, the server would take care of distributing that note to all of my followers
<eprodrom> In SoLiD, that is up to the client
<eprodrom> Sorry, rhiaro just corrected me, there is server-to-server communication using WebSockets
<melvster> eprodrom: it's good that you raise that, it ties in to my previous point. When a user posts a note, it happens on the server. Now all that is specified (loosely) is that some javascript (or other language) will then act on that posting and then federate out to followers. In the case of systems with few followers you can 'get away' with that JS living on the client. In the case of larger user bases, it's probably going to mean the JS has to live very
<melvster> close to, or on the server (or server farms). So there is architectural flexibility much like 3 tier MVC programming vs fat clients. Solid allows both. Hope that makes sense!
<melvster> eprodrom: in practice, because solid is young, we've not dont much of this kind of stress testing, but we'd like to see more of it happen as the work progresses
<melvster> and yes solid can communicate via websocket and/or HTTP
<Loqi> Eprodrom made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/Federation/Patterns]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87063&oldid=87062
<bengo> https://aaronparecki.com/notes/2014/09/10/1/webactions
<melvster> it strikes me that IWC is more the one user one site policy, AP is more the one site many users ... solid is either
<aaronpk> plenty of indieweb examples of multiple users per site in IWC, (*.withknown.com, *.wordpress.com, etc)
<aaronpk> it's just that when they federate, they use the same protocol as they would if they were on different domains
<melvster> i should probably replace 'site' with 'origin'
<melvster> or in IWC case, 'homepage'?
<melvster> but we could probably not expect facebook to adopt the *.facebook.com policy for every user
<aaronpk> the IWC specs don't actually care about whether something is in a subfolder or not, a URL is a URL
<melvster> any examples of that in the wild?
<melvster> ie multiple users on the same origin?
<aaronpk> you can find some of those here http://indiewebcamp.com/irc-people
<ben_thatmustbeme> aaronpk, eprodrom https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/resolutions
<ben_thatmustbeme> don't know where you want to link that
<aaronpk> ben_thatmustbeme++
<Loqi> ben_thatmustbeme has 125 karma
<ben_thatmustbeme> needs a lot of cleanup still
<ben_thatmustbeme> and i'm sure there are some missing
<aaronpk> lol "with unanimous silence, we've approved it"
<melvster> hmmm 'own your data is one of the principles of the IndieWeb and is an encouragement to always post content directly to your own domain'
<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: really nice!
<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: one thing is that URLs are being handled weirdly
<eprodrom> The full <a> is in there
<eprodrom> Rather than just the URL
<melvster> 'Examples of what doesn't count: You post some notes on your own site, and some notes directly to Twitter'
<ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom: yeah, i know thats just a quick dump, there is certainly cleanup to do
<aaronpk> melvster, i'm not sure what point you are trying to make
<ben_thatmustbeme> and i've already found others
<bengo> ben_thatmustbeme is there a github repo to which I can make pull requests of https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-Syntax-Brainstorming/wiki/jf2#context ?
<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: OK. Let me know when you're tired of re-dumping and I can edit by hand
<eprodrom> Oh, am I still the scribe?
<Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 2 edits to [[Socialwg/resolutions]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87065&oldid=0
<wilkie> I can edit by hand
<eprodrom> ben_thatmustbeme: OK. Let me know when you're tired of re-dumping and I can edit manually
<wilkie> hand
<tantek> zakim talk to the hand
Let's give everyone a big hand
<aaronpk> i raise my hand
<eprodrom> lower hand
<eprodrom> hand
<eprodrom> lower hand
<jasnell> we've got to hand it to the developers
<aaronpk> upper hand
<cwebber2> aw
<aaronpk> !tell Zakim good morning
<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
<tantek> !tell Zakim hand
<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
<aaronpk> oh no
<Loqi> Zakim: aaronpk left you a message 16 seconds ago: good morning http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093231431
<Loqi> Zakim: tantek left you a message 44 seconds ago: hand http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093242149
<aaronpk> (everyone waits for Zakim to say something before we can continue the meeting)
<cwebber2> in socialwg russia, zakim queues zakim
<Loqi> :)
<wilkie> lower upper hand
<azaroth> :(
<tantek> zakim hand
<wseltzer> i/*adjourn for lunch*
<aaronpk> i?
<bengo> forgot we actually have a bit of as2-ish like that
<tantek> who is syncbot?
<cwebber2> syncbot: hello!
<syncbot> Oh hi cwebber2!
<cwebber2> syncbot: source
<syncbot> I'm a little irc bot for 8sync! Patches welcome / happy hacking!
<syncbot> My source: https://notabug.org/cwebber/syncbot
<syncbot> 8sync's source: https://notabug.org/cwebber/8sync
<jasnell> Zakim why you no queue yourself?
<tantek> !tell syncbot hello
<Loqi> Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next
<jasnell> Zakim y u no do queue yourself?
<Loqi> http://meme.loqi.me/4eXaYt73.jpg
<azaroth> And then we told them, RESOLVED: ...
<Loqi> http://meme.loqi.me/4eXuJ4NS.jpg
<cwebber2> syncbot: botrival
<cwebber2> nope
<cwebber2> syncbot: botrival
<syncbot> *engages turing test with trackbot*
<Loqi> syncbot: tantek left you a message 3 minutes ago: hello http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-12-02/line/1449093573562
<syncbot> *stupid puppy look*
<cwebber2> syncbot: help
<syncbot> I can't help you... I can't even help myself!
<tantek> syncbot, what is your function?
<cwebber2> syncbot: d20
<syncbot> cwebber2: *rolls*... you get a 2!
<cwebber2> loqi: botsnack
<azaroth> syncbot: dfate
<syncbot> *stupid puppy look*
<azaroth> syncbot: df
<syncbot> *stupid puppy look*
<cwebber2> azaroth: roll-fate
<cwebber2> oops
<cwebber2> syncbot: roll-fate
<syncbot> cwebber2: Rolling at 0: [_] [+] [-] [+] -> 1! (average)
<azaroth> :)
<cwebber2> syncbot: botsnack
<syncbot> *eyes treat suspiciously... then furiously devours it!*
<cwebber2> syncbot: sorry, time to kick you out
<syncbot> *stupid puppy look*
<wseltzer> [Lunch is over]
<inserted> scribenick: wseltzer
Arnaud1: jasnell wanted to talk
activity streams, and he needs to leave
... how much can we discuss without overriding agenda
tantek: I relinquish my time in
favor of AS2
... return with AOB if time
Arnaud1: more to talk about re API and federation protocol?
<ben_thatmustbeme> eprodrom, cleaned up more https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/resolutions
Arnaud1: f2f meeting
schedule
... github workflow
... so for the next hour, we can talk AS2
... Anything else not on the agenda?
<Loqi> Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/resolutions]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87066&oldid=87065
Arnaud1: hearing no additions,
let's move forward
... Good progress yesterday closing AS issues, let's
continue
Arnaud1: James, over to you
jasnell: most pressing issues:
adding new things, or bringing back things that were
removed
... about 3 we should discuss individually
... Propose we start with bulk issues
... If objection, pull it out of the list for discussion
<jasnell> Specific types of Offer? - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/175
<jasnell> Account / accounts - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/235
<jasnell> Assign activity (bring back) - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/240
<jasnell> Confirm Activity (bring back) - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/256
<jasnell> CheckOut / CheckIn activities - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/242
<jasnell> Blob Types - https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/223
jasnell: as posted to irc ^
... 175, author activity. eprodrom wondered if we need specific
kinds of offers
s/authors/offers/
jasnell: I think we should drop
offer
... I'm recommending we close all these
... Account. none of our use cases call for it
... Assign and Confirm previously removed from vocab for lack
of broad interest
... Checkout, Checkin. source-control use case
... blob types, proposal was unclear, no justifying
use-cases
... PROPOSED: close the set due to lack of
action/justification
<tantek> +1
<aaronpk> +1
<jasnell> +1
<wilkie> +1
<bengo> +1
jasnell: all can be done as
extension if someone wants
... to eprodrom, do you ahve specific types of offers?
eprodrom: in the example, URN
product-offer
... examples should use core vocab if it exists, if not, are we
covering schema of the verb
jasnell: we're only covering a bit of the idea
<azaroth> +1
jasnell: in general offer should be marked at-risk
eprodrom: that sounds ok to me
<cwebber2> +0
eprodrom: I'd rather put at-risk than define fully
<eprodrom> +1
jasnell: hearing no objectins, mark the above set closed.
RESOLUTION: mark the above set closed
RESOLUTION: mark the above set closed: 175, 235, 240, 256, 242, and 223
<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/208
jasnell: Also recommend closing
208 without action
... proposal to revisit a fundamental design point in RDF
... since RDF is optional, nothing to do, close
PROPOSED: close 208
<tantek> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<jasnell> +1
<azaroth> +1 to closing rather than starting again
<eprodrom> +1
<wilkie> +1
<bengo> +1
<sandro> +1
<aaronpk> +1
Arnaud: Challenge, when we close
issues when the person who raised it is not present in the
discussion
... likely a bit of resentment at not being able to defend
jasnell: this issue has been on github for a while
Arnaud: At least I'd like the
justification we agreed on to be recorded
... can we agree on the reason to close?
<ben_thatmustbeme> also, we have a system for that, object at next meeting before approval of minutes
jasnell: as I said, the RDF modeling is optional, non-normative
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87067&oldid=87049
<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87068&oldid=87067
azaroth: it's a total recasting of the spec to say that things that are currently classes should be relationships
jasnell: it goes back and changes fundameental design
sandro: no justification given for reopening this previously settled issue
Arnaud: also, the issue lacks description of the rational for reopening
rhiaro: there's a bunch of
dsicussion in github
... sounds as though it's going back to AS1, which was
presumably changed for a reason
Arnaud: there's a link in the
issue to a wiki page
... describing a model he thnks is better without xplaining the
benefit
rhiaro: I think he's saying the benefit is types of properties we can reuse for direct relations
<azaroth> +1 to bengo
<bengo> wiki page proposes "If we have Follow, we need isFollowing and isFollowedBy relation"
<bengo> that's state, not atomic activities (like log objects)
<bengo> that may or may not still be true or guaranteed to have not been reversed
jasnell: while it could be better in some use cases, that's not drawn out, unclear they're core use cases
<bengo> state is harder than activity objects
<bengo> make scope had
<bengo> *hard
Arnaud: can we agree that we're not convinced possible benefits justify reengineering the data model at this point?
<sandro> yep
RESOLUTION: close issue 208
rhiaro: it could be reopened as an alternative
<bengo> updating a stateful social graph from activity objects out of scope of this syntax
sandro: it could be a straightforward transform
jasnell: next set of proposals
<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/268
<sandro> (from RDF to RDF)
jasnell: 268 is one I'd like to
see happen
... removing existing content object, flatten hierarchy,
simplify vocab
... Content obj in vocab now is non-functional abstract
... duration could move up a layer, eliimnate layer of
abstraction, simplify
... clarify use of dimensions
... overall, think it's an improvement.
... I have a current;y open pull request
PROPOSED: close the issue, dropping content objects
eprodrom: to make sure I
understand issue, content is intermediate abstract type
... prperties used by it will be sent to object or used on
clasees
<tantek> +1
eprodrom: since we dont' have range specified for CRUD verbs, no reason to maintain
jasnell: right
... only three properties. Height, width, duration
... height and width move to link
... dureation moves to object
<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to clarify properties -not- on the subclasss
<eprodrom> +1
jasnell: duration not on link
<azaroth> +1
<aaronpk> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<wilkie> +1
<sandro> +1
<rhiaro> +1
Arnaud: please vote
<cwebber2> +1
<bengo> 0
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87069&oldid=87068
RESOLUTION: close the issue, dropping content objects
<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/157
jasnell: 157, opened by
eprodrom
... do we need a blog object type to repreesent that common use
case
... I'd like to propose either website or site
... currently have a "page" type
... site as same level of generality
eprodrom: motivation was that
first example in core was using extension type for blog
... if it's such a good exmample, maybe it should be in vocab,
or change example
<bengo> Site is in our domain: https://github.com/gobengo/activity-mocks/blob/master/mocks/livefyre/site-post-collection.json#L3
eprodrom: I like change to use ordered collection, rather than blog, in example
<bengo> (as1)
eprodrom: as that's the only place "blog" is referenced
Arnaud: which do you prefer?
eprodrom: jasnell's pull request
replaces "blog" with "ordered collection". that makes sense to
me
... I prefer ordered collection.
PROPOSED: close 157, replacing example with ordered collection
tantek: collection vs ordered collection?
<azaroth> +1
jasnell: blogs tend to be ordered by date
<eprodrom> +1
jasnell: and it's just informative
<tantek> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<wilkie> +1
<jasnell> +1
<aaronpk> +1
<cwebber2> +1
Arnaud: everyone agrees?
RESOLUTION: close 157
<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/251
jasnell: 251, language
property
... background. JSON-LD has @language keyword
... that can be used within context
... to specify language of document
... or at value, to set for value
... according to W3C guidelines, every format should have way
to specify language default for each item
... the only way we can do that is JSON-LD
... current spec says it's optional, since JSON-LD is
optional
... propsal from Rob is to add language property
... challeng is that it's not compatible with JSON-LD
tantek: you can't just alias?
jasnell: no
<tantek> sounds like a bug in JSON-LD if it can't handle JSON documents that have a "language" property explicitly
jasnell: @Context processing requires a processing model
sandro: or "use this boilerplate text, put your language here"
tantek: why doesn't it play well?
sandro: JSON-LD has its own way to do language tagging, and this isn't it
azaroth: JSON-LD, all the string
values are now lang-type
... thta doesn't mean you can use it with a web page
jasnell: when I have a JSON-LD
doc that @context Lang=EN, every string will be expanded to a
language-tagged string
... vs if we @@ the strings don't get tagged
... to some of the JSON-LD folks, it's recognized as a
limitation of JSON-LD
... possibly to be addressed in new version, but not there
yet
... so we could go with limited profile of JSON-LD, boilerplate
text
... or we go with the language property, that was in the
original version of AS2, that doesn't play well with
JSON-LD
... JSON-LD implementers would have to do more work with
language property
cwebber2: I understand @language
doesnt' cover all the case we want
... within the scope of things it does do
... is it possible ot alias @language to Language
jasnell: no.
... JSON-LD algorithms will ignore Language except in very
specific places
cwebber2: same for @vocab, @base
jasnell: yes
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note that we could add a 'language' property for JSON processors, and then add extra processing step for JSON-LD consumers to pay attention to the
jasnell: only ID and type can be aliased
tantek: inclusion of lang in HTML
at a document level is at least 1/2 a disaster
... lang=en is meaningless in the wild because it
... is in templates
... if we need to specifry language, we should have a
property
... if that requires extra work for JSON-LD processors, we
should specify the extra work
jasnell: the extra work is not necssarily trivial
sandro: can you do @language in AS per-value?
jasnell: @@
... extension would ahve to define themselves
sandro: so issue is you read i18n
guidelines as saying we need a whole-doc language tag?
... my sense is it does more damage than help, so we shouldn't
do it
jasnell: we could take current
lang defaul tout
... and dont add language property
<azaroth> JSON-LD Playground example of aliasing @language and @value: http://tinyurl.com/zrnxo27
jasnell: explicitly don't provide default language in the format
cwebber2: I think that's better
tantek: I agree
sandro: proactively go to i18n group with this question
<cwebber2> np
jasnell: there's one doc section
with default language context. propose to remove that
section
... and document the reasoning
tantek: anohter way to be
proactive, is document, highlighting for specific i18n
review
... at CR time
Arnaud: what's our position in the meantime
jasnell: in the interime
... remove the current text, close issue 251
PROPOSED: remove the current text, close issue 251
Arnaud: are you happy with that?
azaroth: yes
sandro: and get i18n review
jasnell: this has been messy for
a while
... so I'm happy to see movement
<scribe> ACTION: Sandro to bring issue to i18n [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-84 - Bring issue to i18n [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-12-09].
<jasnell> +1
<azaroth> +1
<sandro> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<wilkie> +1
<rhiaro> +1
note action-84, the "issue" is default language for whole document
<tantek> +1
<eprodrom> +1
Arnaud: seeing agreement
RESOLUTION: remove the current text, close issue 251
<scribe> scribenick: bengo
<jasnell> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/269
jasnell: one way we could deal
with transience is expires
... without necessarily needing processing model
specified
... value would be date and time at whcih it should be
considered invalid. has come up a few times
... was'nt acted upon because no implementations needed
it
... one way of dealing with this
azaroth: are there two implementations of this or promises to impl
jasnell no
eprodrom: this seems like a
informative, nonpresriptive way
... it's elegant way to handle
... this makes the most sense. dont see better alternative
cwebber2: transiency came up. in pump.io you have to leave tombstone behind
cwebber2 that way other things can still reference it
cwebber2: how can you verify
subcomponents of message if they go away
... i had originally thoguht of dealing with this via source
signatures, which are complex
... Expires is interesting but in a federated context it could
create its own complexities
... if you make something and tell another system, but it's
expired by then, the other system doesn't know if true or
false
cwebber2 I'm not sure expires doesn't add more complexity unless thought through more.
<azaroth> +1 to extension and experimentation
cwebber2 use an extension it would be easier to take time to think through
cwebber2: Whether expires, signatures, something else. Leave this as an unsolved problem
sandro: on flip side, can't do as extension
Arnaud: yes you can
sandro: snapchat means expires and transiency is important enough to be Core
cwebber2: It's possible if
activitypump processing rules require it
... (even if extension)
... might even be that we can't solve in this timeframe but do
have to do in core eventually, but we should take our
time
... Each server in federation has a decision to make on
expiry
eprodrom: Please don't say
signatures again (to cwebber2 )
... another form of transiency is very small or not that
important of activities
eprodrom IMing, turned left, turned right, big data stuff
eprodrom expires coul dindicate "this isn't crucial"
cwebber2 ephemeral
Arnaud: Is anything like this in requirements?
Arnaud that would necessitate 'expires'
cwebber2 idk but I've wanted to bring this up since Boston
Arnaud ok just wanted to clarify
jasnell: Worth noting this isn't
first time
... last time we said to pump
... long standing discussion but only recently do prominent
silos impl
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to note that transient *content* (part of a post) is a use-case seen more than just "whole posts", from IndieWeb research:
tantek: even if federation can't validate transient things, may still be useful
tantek like parts of post could expire even if not full post
<cwebber2> reminding myself: can only come from same origin
tantek: In favor of dropping it
sandro: It's complicated, i get
it. But so is rest of vocab. So what's the harm of putting it
in
... gives us a first best effort at it if we let 'expires'
in
sandro whats the harm?
sandro: only harm is if it people interpret as more than it does
tantek: there is harm with every addition
<Zakim> cwebber, you wanted to discuss suggestion of ephemeral on create
sandro it's hard to build a system wihtout this
cwebber2: There may be a way of
doing this without time-based expiration.
... In IMing and Game stuff, you don't need a log of it all
anyway. The server can just relay and give a UUID
... Could just have ephemeral flag instead of expiry date
'DNT'
cwebber2 there wouldn't be a permanent url
cwebber2 only for same-origin
jasnell we can do something like that already
jasnell we have other activities in core like Invite and Offer that have a lifecycle
scribe: there are alreayd use cases for this
<cwebber2> w+
jasnell: Offer may be at risk,
but this could still be useful for Invite
... Not arguing for. Just sayign we can
... but if we add, should mark at risk
... Then in CR if it's not going to work out, we drop
Arnaud: that's reasonable way of moving forward. Draws attention from others
cwebber2: At risk is good
sandro: I'm now more in favor of
not having it
... we need to solidify extensinos so it doesnt matter if in
core
jasnell: Let's not decide to accept/reject yet. And see if there's a better solution
(consensus)
jasnell: we should consider a few
more
... Is there anything else bad in spec to be forwards
compatible? e.g. lists of lists
https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/271
sandro: if they upgrade JSON-LD they'll have to be back compat anyway
jasnell: all open proposals are
closed
... oops one more abuot lifecycles
<rhiaro> list all the things
sandro: we should make a community group that maintains a website that maintains all the terms/verbs/words
<Loqi> http://meme.loqi.me/4eXd_Q8B.jpg
sandro: Thing description status of that thing
Arnaud: how about wiki page?
jasnell: start as wiki, if difficult, then we can adjust and see if CG is necessary
sandro: CG needed (even if trivial) because it gets us a wiki
tantek: siloed wikis are W3 antipattern
sandro: but they can give out
namespaces
... and that helps with extensions using a w3 namespace
tantek: What's wrong with custom elements convention of hyphens
sandro: Because that doesn't help with collissions
cwebber2: And we want JSON-LD expansion to work
tantek: ostensibly cusom elements have solved this
sandro: no x-header (??) are the
real solution
... x-headers are widely acked as mistake i HTTP
... And in this case we have an easier solution than that
... (w3 namespace for extensions)
wseltzer: prefixes are bad pattern
tantek: only for some things
wseltzer: because they require revision later once the old prefix is standardized
tantek: As a trivial counterexample, border-radius in CSS
cwebber2: big db of past accrued activities would be really hard to re-name properties
<azaroth> +1 to cwebber2
cwebber2: We should avoid that if
possible
... CG is reaosnable solution
sandro: Hard for even more reasons
eprodrom: One big apps to is
schema at read
... and avoid db migrations
... *what big apps do
sandro: so whats wrong with CG?
jasnell: just whether the process overhead is worth it
sandro: Process overhead vs extension overhead
Arnaud: Who's signing up to do the reviews of proposed additions?
cwebber2: could just have wiki
page of extensions with their own ns
... not curated by official group but at least the activities
are preserving their contents
jasnell: Other way of not having
it be a WG thing is to make a github project managing
this
... PRs/issues accepted
... this doesn't need w3 tamp
cwebber2: I'm cool with that
sandro: CG overhead is
10min
... and github is compatible with that
jasnell: as long as overhead isn't too much and folks are willing to participate
sandro: same people as adminning a github repo
Arnaud: that's always the challenge. open wiki is open toa bbusers. Control requires personhours/effort
sandro: Should we let them use main namespace
bengo: no
<cwebber2> AS2 Pro namespace, I'm telling you!
jasnell: that could cause
problems for implementations that build that into their
namespace
... something can be in namespace without bieng in jsonld
context
sandro: namespace just means they use it as imaginary prefix
jasnell: idk...
sandro: Let's analyze options later
Arnaud: What should we do?
eprodrom: Is this last one?
Arnaud: We said yesterday we would give folks two weeks to bring up issues so we have to wait now anyway
sandro: A more conventional way
to do this would be to ask editor when they would like next
review to happen
... then 1 week or so before next phase
tantek: publishing moratorium
coming soon
... soon enough that changes just made are of sufficient enough
value that we ought to publish WD with jasnell changes by...
friday
sandro: And then aim to go to CR by early Jan
<wseltzer> [W3C publications moratorium 21 Dec-1 Jan]
tantek: yeah issue velocity has
dropped but if it picks back up we wont go to CR
... it's great there is renewed interest and activity
jasnell: seems reasonable
... remaining issues are mostly editorial
... I think we're done
<tantek> PROPOSED: publish a new WD of AS2 drafts as of / by Friday.
<azaroth> +1
<jasnell> +1
+1
<wilkie> +1
<cwebber2> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<kevinmarks_> +1
<sandro> +1
Arnaud: Let's shift gears
RESOLUTION: publish a new WD of AS2 drafts as of / by Friday.
15m break
<kevinmarks_> bye jessica
eprodrom: next up, resolve more issues in api and federatio protocl. next F2F schedule
<kevinmarks_> did we lose post type?
just made https://github.com/gobengo/as2-validate
<eprodrom> reconvene at 3:45
<tantek> kevinmarks: yes I reliquished my time and deferred to resolving AS2 Issues instead.
<snarfed> bengo: cool! any idea how you expect it to differ from https://github.com/jasnell/activitystreams.validator , https://github.com/apparentlymart/activity-streams-tester , https://github.com/w3c-social/as2test , etc?
it depends on the former
and james told me to keep as separate
I just wanted a cli
<snarfed> ah ok
so i could
(curl "https://gist.githubusercontent.com/gobengo/aef6d083290930e25025/raw/02bdf242d4d39000efdb4849db414bad85ec3463/indieweb-social.json" | node index.js ) && echo "perfect"
scribe: it is not perfect
<snarfed> lol
sorry, not `node index`, `as2-validate`
which you can now `npm install -g as2-validate`
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87070&oldid=87069
<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
eprodrom: let's talk about next f2f first then fill the rest of the time with issues
tantek: when I put that there it was an umbrella for peopel to put specific issues, but if nobody has a specific issue then that becomes a no-op
eprodrom: then what makes sense is to do the f2f planning, for people to take part of that time to identify issues they want to talk about, then we can have people propose them as they come up
rhiaro: we need to resolve something about github
eprodrom: okay yes
tantek: and i just added somethign about post-type-discovery
eprodrom: f2f, admin items, PTD, then extra issues
sandro: MIT in the spring?
eprodrom: MIT in mid-march would be 4 months
sandro: spring break is march
21-ish
... i'm traveling and stuff so after march 28th is better
cwebber2: libre planet 2016 won't
fit then (march 19-20)
... best for me would be after the stripe open source
retreat
... ideally end of april or beginning of may
<rhiaro> libreplanet 19-20 March
tantek: i wanted to make the observation that w'eve been tremendously productive at f2f, more than at telcons, which is more than irc/github, more than email
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss productivity at f2fs
tantek: i feel like the time cost
of the f2f pays off in the productivity and group morale that
comes out of these f2f
... so i would advocate that we consider having 3 or 4 in
2016
... it's our last year of our charter and we'll be furiously
trying to get through a lot
sandro: does that suggest doing it earlier like february?
tantek: early march, then another
one in june maybe
... another data point is TPAC next year is mid september
... in Lisbon
<cwebber2> so the end of the stripe open source retreat is april 15 2016
<cwebber2> right after would also work for me
tantek: i'm going to be going
there already, anyone else?
... september 19-23
<wseltzer> [TPAC 2016: https://www.w3.org/blog/2015/09/tpac-2016-dates-and-location-announced/ ]
eprodrom: if we were going to do September TPAC, March MIT, could we do another in between?
aaronpk: Portland!
rhiaro: December would be like a party since we finished everything right?
eprodrom: most of us probably
need around 8 weeks of planning time
... can we pick a time now for March?
cwebber2: could we do it right before libre planet?
eprodrom: march wed-thu 16-17?
tantek: then have friday the 18th off
<eprodrom> reserve 16-17 March 2016 F2F at MIT
tantek: if we like the idea of
portland in june we can capture that as a general range and
figure out details later
... open source bridge is June 21-24 in Porltand
... I don't be able to do the week before that
eprodrom: rough plan is March
16-17 at MIT and then late June in Portland, September in
Lisbon, then December in San Francisco
... next steps?
sandro: how about we set up the page and start having people RSVP
sandro: my sense is we had a
culture clash between open source workflow vs w3c culture
... where someone makes a comment and we're obligated to
formally address the comment
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87071&oldid=87070
sandro: we don't have to
necessarily make them happy, but we have to do our best to make
sure they're aware we handled it fairly
... at a transition meeting we have to report how we handled
those
... each one should end with a sense of closure
... so it's fine to close issues with a polite my sense is we
reached a resolution here, if you don't agree, comment this
way,
... we need to not stomp on people on github
eprodrom: we spoke yesterday about process a little about AS2, and we discussed editors have discretion to deal with issues, and if there is not a willingness to defer to the editor then we'd take it to a group proposal and resolution
sandro: so if that is
communicated clearly to the commenter then that's fine
... the editor should post "i feel like this issues is closed,
if you don't agree, say so and i will escalate it to hte
working group"
eprodrom: we don't need fto vote on every issue, we've had some small issues fixing spelling mistakes etc
sandro: i've had luck where if
you ask the person are you satisfied with my handling of the
issue that makes people happy
... i'd be inclined to not mark it as closed
... what i feel would be the best is ask people do you feel
satisfied with how this was handled, and if so can you close it
by this date
rhiaro: ask them toclose it by a
certain date
... so i queued to say we probably all agree, but we should
write it down so that we can refer people to this later
... so that people who want to complain for the sake of
complaing we can say you're wrong
kevinmarks_: if we're going to
discuss the process, it would be good to constrain each issue
to a single issue
... lets make sure to mention this in the process so we have a
place to refer to that
sandro: one bit of advice we could say is if you think this might be a different issue, err on the side of more separate issues
rhiaro: so i wrote this on the agenda
<Zakim> rhiaro, you wanted to say Cooperating in creating new individual issues if multiple crop up in a single thread, and staying on topic. If a new thought occurs to you whilst writing
eprodrom: the only thing i
disagree with is that i would like editors to be able to close
minor issues
... would you mind copying this to a wiki page?
... throw that on a page and then we can have a quick proposal
to accept that page
Arnaud: in my opinion it's the lack of proces that leads to this kind of thing, the idea that the problem should be addressed by playing with access rights is really wrong
sandro: i'd be inclined to leave the access control out of the proposal
tantek: there was an explicit request to clarify that
rhiaro: part of the problem was that who had the owner of the org was weird
sandro: if you see a violation of these then email chairs
<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to request: put burden/responsibility on those posting multi-issues to split them out to separate issues if they think the additional issues are worth being
tantek: when some of these multi-issue threads start happening, when the editor responds to the original issue, i'd like to make it explicitly clear that if there are tangential issues it's the burden/responsibility of the person who raised them to make them new issues
sandro: we talked also about labels in the titles like "blocking"
tantek: how about we not solve that until it's a problem
<Zakim> bengo, you wanted to talk about charter deliverables vs work items labels e.g. overloaded "Social API" and lack of "Federation Protocol" repo
<cwebber2> I added an item to the wiki as a possible thing to discuss, if we have extra time
bengo: I started an issue that
got out of hand on webmention, but because some of the work
items are related to the same thing but happening
independently, it's tempting to jump in on a broader issue.
especially as federation will start to be talked about, would
it be beneficial to have topical repos separate from an
individual spec so that there's a place for this
converation
... at the very least i feel like there may be benefit to
having a repo for federation protocol separate from
actiivtypump so that there's a separate place
sandro: how about the social web protocols document
cwebber2: we also have the mailing list and telcons
tantek: irc is a good place to start
<rhiaro> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github
tantek: the issue ben is bringing
up is that the github repos allow anyone on github to file an
issue/comment, and if you're not a WG member or participant we
say you cant' participate in the telcons and meetings, so
there's a little asymmetry going on there. we should address
what's the policy for if you're not a member of the WG
... if you're not a member then you're not obligated to the
processes
sandro: i think we treat that as public comments
there are communication venues we have that don't require you're a WG member
rhiaro: how do we treat issues that are raised ont he public mailing list
cwebber2: sometimes an editor
wants to do things in a specific place and then someone says i
raised it in this other venu and you didn't respond
... i think we should cater to the editor's preferred
communication medium
tantek: that's been accepted with
a bunch of prior practice at w3c
... the spec has a "here's where you go to discuss it"
section
... some peopel say github, some say email
... and we promise to respond to comments here
... if you send feedback elsewhere we don't guarantee a
response
<eprodrom> PROPOSED: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github as the github procedure for the Social WG
sandro: can we just please have it all on github instead of per document?
tantek: that seems to be the emerging trend
<Loqi> Rhiaro made 4 edits to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87077&oldid=0
<Loqi> Cwebber2 made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-12-01]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87074&oldid=87071
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87075&oldid=87073
<cwebber2> +1
<eprodrom> +1
<bengo> +1
sandro: on the first bullet i think editors should have the ability to close issues
<kevinmarks_> +1
tantek: one of the antipatterns we saw was that an editor closed an issue because the original topic was adddressed and then someone else reopened it because an unrelated topic in the thread was not addressed, do we have enough language here to address that?
<tantek> +1
<azaroth> +1
+1
<rhiaro> +1
<sandro> +1
<wilkie> +1
RESOLUTION: Accept https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/github as the github procedure for the Social WG
Arnaud: this is something the whole WG should be made aware of, so we should make a point of going over this on the next telcon or something to make sure everyone is aware
here is the specific version at the point of this resolution: https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?title=Socialwg/github&oldid=87079
sandro: i'll send an email right now
eprodrom: okay that leaves us
with about 30 minutes
... how much bandwidth do we have for additional issues on
other docs?
cwebber2: i also added a new item
to the agenda
... we'd like to add myself as a co-editor of activitypump
tantek: sounds good to me
RESOLUTION: add cwebber as co-editor of activity pump
<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Post-type-discovery
tantek: i feel pretty good about
the state of the algorithm, it's been pretty stable for a
while
... what i want to do is to make a call similar to the social
web protocols document, if people know of any issues that would
be a FPWD blocker, to file them by the next telcon
... with the intent that I will try to address those issues so
that we can take it to FPWD, perhaps even to take both the
protocols documetn and this at the same time
... i want to bring this up. it's come up several times as a
piece that's useful for building things
sandro: i'm still confused about its role
rhiaro: it's useful to go for
something where type is implied through properties
(microformats) to something with specific types
(activitystreams)
... so it's obviously useful, but is it like WG useful or just
useful?
tantek: James said it's useful even outside of microforamts, because the type property in AS is optional, so if you want to build a system that is dependent on type, you could use it to fill in that type
rhiaro: but AS doesn't have implied types
tantek: AS still has photos and such
rhiaro: okay i just thought there weren't enough semantically relevant properties
<Loqi> Tantekelik made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87078&oldid=87077
<Loqi> Sandro made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/github]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87079&oldid=87078
tantek: type is optional, i don't know why, but it is. the purpose is to use this to determine type.
bengo: i think James said this sort of thing is useful, but the way it's written right now is too specific, i'l file an issue
rhiaro: maybe if we cangeneralize it that might help
tantek: feel free to open a vague
issue and i'll see what i can do
... there are at least 2 implementations
tantek: kyle impleemnted it for his reader
<Zakim> aaronpk, you wanted to discuss relation with webmention
tantek: he used his implementation to present posts differently
<eprodrom> scribenick: eprodrom
aaronpk: PTD is also useful for
Webmention
... I would like to reference it. When you receive a post, you
can identify it.
tantek: potential future dependency
<aaronpk> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html#resolution03
<aaronpk> http://www.w3.org/2015/12/01-social-minutes.html#resolution14
<aaronpk> scribenick: aaronpk
<tantek> PROPOSED: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible by next telecon 12/8
<eprodrom> +1
<wilkie> +1
+1
<azaroth> +1
<rhiaro> +1
<kevinmarks_> +1
<bengo> 0
<sandro> -0 not comfortable with how it fits in, but not interested in raising an issue
<cwebber2> +1
RESOLUTION: make any FPWD- issues on Post Type Discovery visible by next telecon 12/8
eprodrom: i think that takes care
of PTD
... that wraps us up except for closing additional issues
<tantek> sandro I filed https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery/issues/4 for you - I hope that captures your question.
eprodrom: i for one would rather
spend the next 10 minutes using my brain or somehow trying to
revive it so i'm not sure trying to dig into additional issues
is the best use of the next 10 minutes
... so i'd like to adjourn and see you in march
*applause*
<eprodrom> trackbot, close meeting
<trackbot> Sorry, eprodrom, I don't understand 'trackbot, close meeting'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
<eprodrom> trackbot, end meeting
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.144 of Date: 2015/11/17 08:39:34 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of micropub depending on what comes out of aaron's brainstorming. If it turns out we can do those things in one fell swoop, it would be kind of nice and nice to not force ourselces to not work on them if is actually most efficient for us to address them together/cwebber2: Federation and social api things are not too different. I tmight end up not being in terms of/ Succeeded: s/mediat ype/media type/ Succeeded: s/??/what to display after you receive a pingback/ Succeeded: s/ietf discussion/ietf apps-area discussion/ Succeeded: s/??/Privacy IG and Security IG/ Succeeded: s/w3c/WG/ Succeeded: s/term,/for the terms/ Succeeded: s/version/version ;)/ Succeeded: s/trolling/trolling ;)/ FAILED: s/webintent/webaction/ Succeeded: s/web intent/web action/ Succeeded: s/content/context/ Succeeded: s/rhiaro's doc/Social Protocols doc/ Succeeded: s/required for federation/required for federation space/ Succeeded: s/acuretor/curator/ WARNING: Bad i/// command: i/*adjourn for lunch* Succeeded: i/*adjourn for lunch*/Topic: LUNCH Succeeded: i/Agenda-bash/scribenick: wseltzer Succeeded: s/author/offer/ FAILED: s/authors/offers/ Succeeded: s/nt/not/ Succeeded: s/prdered/ordered/ Succeeded: s/PROPOSAL/PROPOSED/ Succeeded: s/didsagree/agree/ Succeeded: s/create CG/do the reviews of proposed additions/ Succeeded: i|as I already have wget copies|Topic: LUNCH Succeeded: s/edfitor/editor/ Succeeded: s/?? should be at risk/problem should be addressed/ Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: eprodrom Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: eprodrom Found ScribeNick: wseltzer Found ScribeNick: rhiaro Found ScribeNick: wseltzer Found ScribeNick: bengo Found ScribeNick: aaronpk Found ScribeNick: eprodrom Found ScribeNick: aaronpk Inferring Scribes: cwebber2, rhiaro, eprodrom, wseltzer, bengo, aaronpk Scribes: cwebber2, rhiaro, eprodrom, wseltzer, bengo, aaronpk ScribeNicks: cwebber2, rhiaro, eprodrom, wseltzer, bengo, aaronpk Default Present: Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo Present: Arnaud csarven rhiaro aaronpk shanehudson sandro elf-pavlik kevinmarks wilkie eprodrom jasnell ben_thatmustbeme cwebber tantek hhalpin james tsyesika wseltzer akuckartz shepazu Rob_Sanderson Shane_ rene cwebber2 Benjamin_Young bengo WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 02 Dec 2015 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/12/02-social-minutes.html People with action items: aaronpk eprodrom sandro[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]