- DRAFT -

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

09 Jun 2015

Attendees

Present: jasnell, Arnaud, Sandro, +1.773.614.aaaa, aaronpk, tantek, Wendy, Ann, cwebber2, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, tsyesika, rhiaro, +1.503.688.aacc, bret, +1.408.335.aadd, KevinMarks, +33.6.38.32.aaee
Regrets: evanpro, hhalpin, elf-pavlik
Chair: Arnaud
Scribe: cwebber2

Arnaud: I propose to approve the minutes, but I must note that we had a resolution w/ regard to the microformats examples in the AS specification, and as expected
... jasnell has objected to this resolution
... we agreed to this process to allow people who aren't on calls to object via email
... so this is a case where it's not confirmed

<tantek> I don't remember that process but ok

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Approve Minutes of 2 June 2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-02-minutes with the caveat that the resolution about AS 2.0 microformats was objected by James Snell

<tantek> in practice an editing resolution that the editor disagrees with is problematic anyway, and no amount of process will fix that

<AnnB> +1

Arnaud: I think we can approve the minutes otherwise, any objections?

<jasnell> no objection to approving the minutes

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Approve Minutes of 2 June 2015 https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-02-minutes with the caveat that the resolution about AS 2.0 microformats was objected by James Snell

Arnaud: then we can get back to the question of the AS 2 matter

<AnnB> (on minutes)

Arnaud: hearing no objections, approved

<tantek> +1 on minutes

Arnaud: okay, tracking the issues, nothing is marked review
... I know this part of the process is boring to everyone, so to experiment we move on proceeding to addressing issues as relate to the agenda itmes
... make sure it's on the agenda if you want it recognized and discussed
... otherwise let's minimize the time on it. Otherwise everyone's like "aaaaugh"

<tantek> ignoring them won't make them go away though

Arnaud: I don't enjoy it myself, so maybe we can minimize time on it
... let's move forward on the agenda, talk about social syntax

<tantek> it's good minimize incentive to add actions/issues that don't need attention of the whole group

Arnaud: what this also means: chairs have job of keeping an eye on the actions when things seem missing
... otherwise it might be able to move faster that way

<KevinMarks> zakim aadd is me

<jasnell> just fyi... I'm technically on vacation this week. I can only be on the call until 10:30am.

Arnaud: let's talk about the social syntax. jasnell made a new draft ready for viewing, as an update it's not in the next stage of the recommendation yet (candidate reccommendation) but gives chance for the committee at large to observe and note the draft
... brand new for most people, so we agreed to give everyone a week to give everyone a week to review

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Publish latest Editor's drafts of AS 2.0 Core and Vocab

Arnaud: there are 2 docs, the core and vocab documents. goal is to publish as is

<jasnell> +1

Arnaud: let'se see if we can aggree to do this

cwebber2: +1

tantek: I'm going to object to publishing the draft as is bbecause it goes against the group's resolution
... we had consensus to add MF examples back in again
... it's odd to reject that and asking for publication with lacking what the rest of the group agreed to

<aaronpk> whatever happened to the idea of removing everything except the JSON version?

tantek: it's a roadblock, I think it's not a good process to go forward with what the group has

<AnnB> we need to find the process that says someone who was not attending can object to resolution

Arnaud: it's not a resolution, since there was an objection from the mailing list
... so we don't have consensus from this proposal

<bret> aaronpk: i think that would be a good solution

tantek: that's now all resolutions work. we had a call and we had a resolution declared
... it's revisionist history to say otherwise

Arnaud: no, we agreed that we'd allow people to object who didn't attend, otherwise there are other modes to allow for async votes
... there are people who can't attend because of thet imes thing
... we agreed to this, I'm not trying to revise history
... you're entitled to object to this proposal

<jasnell> Counter Proposal: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document

Arnaud: along the lines of what elf put on mailing list, not fight on syntax for what's in the doc, proposal is to remove all others from main spec
... and have complimentary spec on the side where we put all other formats
... including turtle, microformats, etc
... I'd like to make this proposal to make that concern

jasnell: I put the proposal on irc

<AnnB> +q

tantek: it's easy to make that commitment when nobody has resolved to getting things done

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document.

tantek: unless you actually have a split document with the equiv examples
... where you say you'll put them together, refledcting previous content of spec
... don't think it makes sense to just publish one
... another counter-proposal: publish it right before

Arnaud: but there were many other changes made as in terms of editing document
... it wouldn't just be an undo on github
... examples were broken, I can see why as an editor he did that
... I think this proposal is a reasonable one, shows some compromise, not trying to single out MF

tantek: I think it's an empty promise

<tantek> it's not a reasonable proposal, because the 2nd document doesn't exist

<ben_thatmustbeme> its a fine proposal that it be tasked to someone

bblfish: I suppose there's a big difference between... there's an advantage in turtle, you can test isomorphism between two graphs

<tantek> if we were proposing publishing both simultaneously as an update that would be reasonable

bblfish: there's a reson to have turtle in there because of that but I won't push for it

<ben_thatmustbeme> i would -1 and publishing UNTIL such a document is created though, only then can we vote on it

bblfish: just makes it easier for me to read it

Arnaud: but if you can't agree on what's there...

<rhiaro> +1 removing everything but json-ld

bblfish: easier to have json-ld now, later others can be added

jasnell: regarding the "empty promise", if someone feels that MF examples is important enough, those folks should volunteer to step up to do that

tantek: that's not reasonable, you made the counter-proposal

jasnell: in all defense, I'm doing what's important enough to get done
... those examples have been sitting for 8 months now
... some are broken, some are not
... number of times the examples are broken, I've only received one pull request to fix them
... to me, that says those changes aren't as important
... since this group has never decided that MF is a normative requirement, I think unless someone steps up to provide a complete set of examples
... if someone wants to do a pull request that does complete examples, I'll land it
... but I don't have time myself
... if someone wants to do a separate document, great
... is it an empty promise to put it in a separate document? that goes for everything
... it doesn't matter if it's broken examples in this spec or

tantek: it's a working draft, things are expecdted to be broken

jasnell: but we need to get things closer as we move towards real recommendation

Arnaud: in all fairness I can understand the argument that this is an empty promise, but
... you can say that's an equivalent empty promise that these microformats examples will be fixed

tantek: so mark the MF examples as broken, that's a reasonable thing to do
... I agree with jasnell concerns of them being broken, I have a problem with that resolution
... I feel it's worse to cut things out

Arnaud: how long can we wait?

<ben_thatmustbeme> until CR

tantek: that's not a reasonable question to ask, we're not asking how long to a CR

Arnaud: I am.

tantek: we can go to CR with borken examples, so that's an aritificial barrier
... bblfish brought up turtle examples, I for one in fixing MF examples understood that in ffixing the examples, it made the json-ld examples more readable
... turtle is more readable than json-ld
... looking for a more readable spec, it's better for all the non-json-ld exmaples

bblfish: even though you can mark things a broken, this must be automated
... why not test to see if they're isomorphic
... add js so that when it's broken, highlight in read
... add isomorphic algorithms to show they're equivalent
... I think the danger is that isomorphic mapping might not exist, but then it's needed
... b/c a bug might appear, they might not see the original, then there will be a disconnect between understanding and document
... I see why it's difficult for jasnell to see if the other formats are documents are correct
... because there's too many documents for any human being
... json-ld is not so bad, but I think a simple solution is auto-translation from json-ld->turtle in javascript

Arnaud: I think making the case (?) for moving things out of the spec, because this sounds like more work

<rhiaro> having the examples in a separate document would still be helpful for understanding the spec, for people who wanted it, right?

AnnB: seems to me that the main issue jasnell added is that the MF examples were wrong and turtle (?) but it seems like if tantek and bblfish want to keep them in, they should step up

Arnaud: problem is tantek had action for months to fix this, hasn't happened, so I think that's why jasnell removed it

<bblfish> I am fine to have Turtle out, but would be quite happy with automatic translation from Json-ld to Turtle

Arnaud: I know we don't pay enough to actions, but that action was in January

AnnB: it seems to me that the crux of the disucssion, tantek if you argue to keep the MF examples in
... could you correct them

tantek: I started, but I pointed out it'll take a while
... frankly it took jasnell a while to accept it
... I found errors with all the HTML examples, whether MF or RDFA or MD
... I discovered this was incorrect use of link, rel, href tag...
... this happened to both MD and MF and RDFa things
... took jasnell a while to fix with my pull request, maybe it's not important to him
... but that work got solved, I think it's unreasonable to say nothing was done
... something was done, but it took a while
... there was no "here's my plan to do it"
... that's disingenuous as an editor
... there's RC for a reason
... that excuse holds no water

AnnB: without casting blame, what can we do to move forward

tantek: wait till we both have documents
... other counter proposal, show version before they got dropped
... both of these let us move forward
... keep the intent of rest of resolution

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1 to wait until we have both documents

AnnB: say again your counter proposal

tantek: first was, wait for the external one
... second, mark the ones are wrong
... would keep intent to keep all examples
... to keep moving forward

Arnaud: I think you have a fair point that jasnell could have given a warning
... at same time, what you just said before w/r/t of other examples
... to me, talks in favor of removing those
... the leaner the spec is, the better
... easier in going to CR
... jasnell is not interested maintianing all of them
... so problem is, we don't have an editor for those
... not reasonable to force the editor to do this
... what we're risking is jasnell will say I'm out of here
... he has limited time, other tasks at IBM
... my question is counter-proposal is to get other doc and wait for it

tantek: we all have limited time

Arnaud: could you pelase let me speak
... do we have a volunteer for editor of other document

<jasnell> I have to drop. I will repeat: I do not have the time to create a complete set of correct microformats examples

Arnaud: if there's no editor, it's an empty promise

<jasnell> it's not too difficult, but it would take me *months* because microformats examples are nowhere near a priority for me

Arnaud: I feel this is why it's reasonable, if someone wants to step up, great

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document.

Arnaud: otherwise we're stalling the group

<jasnell> +1 to removing all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents

cwebber2: +1 for separate document

<jasnell> -1 to tantek's counter proposal

<AnnB> tantek, could you please type your counter-proposal into IRC, so we can compare them?

Arnaud: the counter proposal to go back to before he removed it is unreasonable, that means throwing out all the work he did after that

<bblfish> +1 to keeping things simple.

sandro: maybe we should take a straw poll on each

<rhiaro> +1 to separate document

Arnaud: we can do that
... we don't even know we're voting on
... I don't even know what this doc looks like

tantek: then give us a week to review

<jasnell> I will not be on the call next week

went silent fo rme

<Arnaud> PROPOSED: a) Remove all non-JSON-LD examples from the two documents, then publish the updated docs without any non-JSON-LD examples. Those non-JSON-LD examples can be moved to a separate document. b) go back to the revision before microformats was removed - take a week to review this and figure out what we lose - c) wait for a second doc

Arnaud: you dropped or muted

ah

cwebber2: thanks :)

<jasnell> (a) +1, (b) -1 , (c) -0

cwebber2: (a) +1 (b) -1 (c) -0

<tantek> (a) -1, (b) +1, ( c) +1

<rhiaro> a) +1 b) -1 c) 0

<tsyesika> a) +1 b) -1 c) 0

<ben_thatmustbeme> a -1, b +1, c +1

Arnaud: I will point out that this requires someone to step up to do it
... otherwise, it's a moot proposal

AnnB: which, the second document?

Arnaud: yes, to draft a document where the alternative syntax for all examples

<bblfish> (a) +1 (b) 0 (c) 0

<AdamB> (a) +1, (b) -1 , (c) 0

<bblfish> mostly because I don't want to do the editing

<ben_thatmustbeme> I am willing to try to revert the change in git, which I think is easier than expected

Arnaud: tantek: AnnB: clarify that referenced was c) was "second document"

<tantek> note that ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to do the edit for option (b)

sandro: I haven't heard an argument for motivation for waiting for second document is...

<jasnell> Another proposal: let's give it two weeks. If someone steps up in that time to edit the second document with the examples, then great. Otherwise we drop the non JSON-LD examples because they are non-normative.

sandro: I heard "it's an empty promise" but I don't see how the industry is helped by waiting for the json-ld for everything else

tantek: what you pointed out was dropping the other examples indicates the other formats are (??)
... adds weight to counter proposal to make it real

Arnaud: but how do we address the editor issue

tantek: I've noticed (garbled) before the examples were dropped
... we have a volunteer for that

AnnB: ben_thatmustbeme volunteered to try to revert the change
... thinks is easier than expected

<jasnell> it's not just about reverting the change

<jasnell> it's about making the examples correct

<jasnell> keeping in mind that there is no mapping between microformats and AS2 that we can use to judge the correctness of the examples

AnnB: what about if ben takes this week to explore what's involved in making the change

<jasnell> btw, I will not be here next week and will not be available to review or land any PR's for at least a week

Arnaud: but you have to figure out how to revert the MF peices without losing all other pieces

<bret> reverting the change is pretty easy, fixing the examples is the work

cwebber2: -1 on reverting without a fixing plan

<aaronpk> just to be clear, is part of the proposal to publish the incorrect microformats examples and fix them later?

Arnaud: it's not on the MF alone, jasnell said the others are broken too

AnnB: seems there's two levels of problems, some is that some was deleted and others fixed, making it hard to move back
... second problem is correcting all other formats

sandro: can I ask a technical q related ot that
... why are the alternate RDF examples like rdfa and turtle generated by hand

jasnell: I need to go, so here's my last thing: 1) I added those examples in the first placed without notifying anyone
... they are non-normative
... I will notify in the future
... 2) part of the challenge with creating correct examples: there is no normative mapping. For RDFa and MicroData, we can create examples that make sense, but incorrectness is what html elements are used, that's a minor issue
... main challenge with microformats is that there's no mapping back to RDF mapping even to turtle or RDFa let alone to json-ld

<tantek> there is a canonical mapping from microformats2 to JSON

jasnell: so what happens is when we try to produce a 1:1 mapping between json-ld an acitvity, we lose fidelity
... when moving to MF

<tantek> there is a 1:1 mapping of mf2 to JSON - not sure what if anything needs to be added to map to JSONLD

jasnell: because no existing terms
... so we can put those examples back in, but we show readers that don't actually exist
... tantek argues that we always need to base things on real example sthat people actually deploy

<tantek> all the fixed examples reflected actual use in real implementations

jasnell: but there is no example of anythign that people are using in real life
... there's no work since 8 months ago on that mapping

<tantek> when did that pull request get merged? that was much more recent than 8 months ago

jasnell: if you think it's something we need to have for the MF examples
... step up and do the work

<AdamB> isn't there also a resource constraint issue on the editor if those are in there over the long haul? would having them as a separate document making keeping them correct and up to date easier cause the work load could be spread to others?

<tantek> I think 8 months ago is being mis-cited - that was when we agred to *start* looking at the examples

jasnell: it's not something I can do jsut sitting, because I don't have the time
... I'm happy to put them back in as long as they are useful to the readers

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to say but even with the supposed mapping to RDFa and microdata, they were wrong. If it was a minor issue, why weren't they fixed for months since the feedback

<bblfish> makes sense to me

<tantek> useful is anything better than previous draft

jasnell: the only way they are useful is if they are correct

tantek: I think there's confusion about 8 months ago
... they were fixed more than 8 months ago
... 8 months ago is when we agreed to start fixing
... feedback on RDFa and MF stuff happened at same time
... those didn't get fixed either
... it's not major vs minor work
... did we make it better than a previous version?
... dropping the examples makes it worse
... asking for all examples fixed before moving up

Arnaud: but you're missing that jasnell is not willing to maintain them, someone needs to fix them
... honestly? I feel like we should all agree

<jasnell> I'm +1 on removing all non JSON-LD examples so that there are no incorrect rdfa, microdata or microformats examples in the spec

Arnaud: it's the editor's responsibility to do this, if the editor isn't willing to do it but nobody steps up
... it's his responsibility to drop it
... everyone seems to say it's a lot of work
... of course everyone wants to have it
... jasnell showed good intention by putting them there
... but if it's impractical to maintain them
... what can we do?

tantek: it's a problem if we can't even as this group maintain equivalent examples
... if that's really true we have more problems iwth AS2

jasnell: these are the only agreement on what json-ld was only requirement

tantek: the only requirement is json, not json-ld

jasnell: we never agreed that MF rdfa or even turtle are requirements right?

tantek: not in the charter

jasnell: so unless someone steps up to do correct examples
... what can we do?

tantek: incremental improvements is all we need

jasnell: okay, let's hold off on a working draft until someone has the examples
... I'll be out

<bblfish> sounds fine.

tantek: i'll be out also

Arnaud: okay so we'll have no resoultion til the next 2 weeks

sandro: is anyone willing to do something

tantek: the two weeks give someone 2 weeks to step up

Arnaud: okay 2 weeks to give them time to do it, then group time to review it... we're talking a month from now to even publish

tantek: I don't find that strawman reasoning helpful
... when we only have 10 minutes of the call
... we don't have a consensus, let's move onto it in 2 weeks
... let's move on to other issues in the agenda

<AnnB> but, what will happen during the next 2 weeks? anything?

<ben_thatmustbeme> also, we will have a month more of changes put in to AS2.0

Arnaud: let's see in 2 weeks, if there' no movement we should do it
... that's the most pragmatic thing to do
... we need a test suite to go to CR, we need people to help
... someone from IBM is putting together a test suite around IBM's stuff
... unless we have people volunteering to do some of this work it won't happen
... so let's move on to the last important item that tantek brought up
... licenses for specs
... w3c adopted a new license option
... we can revise our charter to use new document license
... tantek, want to add somehting?

tantek: that's it, let's resolve as a group, many of us worked hard to get this valid
... also all new working groups will use this license
... so we will likely switch to it if we recharter

<wseltzer> [It's not the case that all new WGs will be using different doc licenses]

sandro: any risk of not sufficient votes to teh charter

<Zakim> wseltzer, you wanted to discuss "new wgs"

tantek: the only risk is update is rejected, we keep current charter

wseltzer: thanks, we did introduce a new license, an update to the w3c software license which we make available in places where w3c has offered a permissive license
... sorry for those who aren't copyright licensing geeks as I am
... but our document license now says we're free to copy, modify for any purpose for any purpose except a new specification
... we also have a software and document license which is completely permissive which says copy and modify so long as you give attribution
... w3c at an organizational level has not said the software license is appropriate for all new groups or even specific new groups
... so if you have a reason you'd like to see that license used, that'd spark a broader conversation

<Arnaud> Proposal: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP.

Arnaud: we can't agree to adopt it, we can only agree to request a recharter

+1

cwebber2: +1

<wseltzer> Document License

<tantek> +1

cwebber2: I think if we do that

<wseltzer> Software and Document License

cwebber2: it's a big can of worms
... a huuuuge can of worms
... can we keep this limited
... please

sandro: should we suggest other adjustments

tantek: maybe we should give it a week
... my understanding is a charter amendment is easier than a rewrite(?)

Arnaud: as w3c rep I can say that if you say "the only change is this" that makes it much easier
... it would add a lot more work to everyone down the line

<aaronpk> +1

<rhiaro> +1

<AnnB> +1 if it's only about new doc license

<ben_thatmustbeme> what are the advantages of it is my only question

<AnnB> concerned about adding other stuff to re-chartering .. but would depend on what "stuff"

<tsyesika> +1

wseltzer: since we have to bring this to various groups to review, is there a use case

<bret> gotta run sorry!

<AnnB> bye

wseltzer: or problem the license change would solve

+q

tantek: I think general use case is what this group does comes from outside groups

o/

I'd like to speak

<wseltzer> cwebber2: this was imprortatn to me: in the library I'm writing, I want to put the doc strings into the code

<wseltzer> ... so the author/user can see the strings

<wseltzer> ... having a GPL-incompatible license is a concern to me

<tantek> GPL compat is important to me too

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<Arnaud> RESOLVED: Request a revision of our charter to use the new W3C Software and Document license for all Social Web WG specs ASAP

Arnaud: and one thing the new license does is allow spec stuff in code
... and we're out of code, so this is timely

<tantek> cwebber2++ thanks for scribing!

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 37 karma

<wseltzer> [that's true of both licenses; only the Software license is GPL-compatible]

trackbot, end meeting

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Socialwg/2015-06-09-minutes

- DRAFT -

Social Web Working Group Teleconference

09 Jun 2015

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items