2014-09-23 UTC
RichardLitt, englishm, cmhobbs, bblfish, nicolagreco, bblfish_, Shane, pfefferle, harry, pfefferle_, Arnaud, deiu, jasnell and tantek joined the channel
# 15:39 harry I forwarded you all the IEs I could find. # 15:39 harry There may be more missing, and I've been trying to get sysreq to fix the system # 15:39 harry but I cannot spend any more time trawling through the archive and arguing with sysreq that their system is broken. # 15:40 tantek harry - agreed re: sysreq and their system is broken. # 15:40 tantek I'm happy to raise this to the AB if you like # 15:40 harry My feeling is we should have only *implementers* and that Semantic Web vocabularies do not count as implementaitons. # 15:41 tantek Here is my proposed alternative process for IE applications: # 15:41 tantek 1. create a W3C account to login to the wiki (which requires agreeing to all the W3C IE participation requirements, contribution licensese etc.) # 15:41 tantek 3. join IRC here (#social) and ask the chairs to review your application # 15:42 Arnaud the w3c too often fails to include users which are hard to get involved # 15:42 tantek harry I agree that we should ONLY have IEs who are implemeters, and I would add, and are *deploying* *live* on their *own sites* with *public* URLs that they share and we can go verify. # 15:43 tantek Arnaud you're wrong about users and involvement etc. especially in the "social web" realm. # 15:43 harry Tantek, we have a number of real working proprietary implementers with large user-bases (IBM, SAP, etc.) thta we can't ignore # 15:43 tantek that's how you get endless email garbage threads # 15:43 tantek like most federated/social/decentralized discussions for the past 10 years # 15:43 Arnaud I think you're wrong about requiring people to have a public domain to qualify as expert # 15:43 tantek Arnaud - not my opinion - fact based on email archives of numerous lists for the past decade # 15:43 harry However, the main issue is people who basically denial-of-service attack the WG with weird designs who aren't actual users # 15:44 harry and who are at best hobbyist implementers # 15:44 Arnaud there is plenty of interesting stuff going on behind firewalls # 15:44 tantek Arnaud - domains are cheap - if people can't afford that, they likely aren't real developers or experts. pfefferle joined the channel
# 15:44 tantek and if they can't code simple static HTML pages to put on their domain they are not experts # 15:44 tantek we don't want people that can only write email # 15:44 harry However, I think we need to keep proprietary implementers # 15:45 tantek Arnaud the non-public web can wait for specs to work for the public web # 15:45 harry So let's say "there must be proof of implementation, ideally in a public URL" # 15:45 Arnaud we already agreed that we could all vouch for invited experts # 15:45 tantek sorry, if you can't ship on a public URL you are not a *web* expert # 15:45 tantek you may be a web *academic* but you're not an expert # 15:45 harry "but exceptions are to made to those with proof of employment at an implementer" # 15:45 Arnaud you're free to use your own criteria, just don't force it on others # 15:45 harry Tantek, in general we are talking about social products at IBM, Boeing, SAP, etc. # 15:46 harry But we also have non-members, Sugar, Jive, etc. # 15:46 tantek so either you're a W3C member and you just join # 15:46 tantek OR you're at some other big company and your big company should join W3C # 15:46 tantek OR you're an independent in which case you have to *prove* your expertise # 15:46 harry In general, for *big* companies, as agreed with W3C Management, we give them 6 months. # 15:46 tantek Arnaud - you seem to have no criteria for expert # 15:46 harry For independents, I agree that we can hold to the "public" case. # 15:47 tantek so I don't see how your opinion is helpful to *choosing* experts # 15:47 harry For W3C member companies or those with 6-month IE status that W3C wants to be member companies, then I am OK with behind firewall products. # 15:47 tantek and saying "that's just your opinion" is not helpful # 15:47 tantek harry, right. either people pay to play, or they ship public to play. # 15:48 harry Arnaud, what do you think of my suggestion? # 15:48 harry For W3C member companies or those with 6-month IE status that W3C wants to be member companies, we accept behind firewall products, otherwise we will require public URIs and working code. # 15:48 harry Then we should revisit the Invited Experts with this new criteria. # 15:49 harry to see if they find the process useful etc. rhiaro_ joined the channel
# 15:49 tantek even I'm not sure if our process is useful :P # 15:50 tantek so far I'm not optimisitic - e.g. by the amount of schema handwaving occuring on the wiki # 15:50 harry I'm trying to make sure the WG doesn't descend into insanity by virtue of being spammed by people with useless "ontologies" and code no-one uses. # 15:50 tantek harry - yeah, that's already happened to the mailing list # 15:50 harry Well, lets correct that by revisting IEs. # 15:50 tantek I'm trying to keep the wiki sane but it's a lot of work # 15:51 tantek harry - schema-org is a who-cares until someone from the oligopoly (Google/MS/Y!/Yandex) joins # 15:51 harry Those IEs that don't fit the criteria and want to talk vocabularies can be redirected to Social IG # 15:51 tantek because there is no evidence of *any* social web usage of any schema-org action/activity # 15:51 tommorris I think Google et al. may have been burned with betting on OpenSocial and watching it fail. # 15:51 harry I'd like to see Google/MS/Y!/Yandex join. # 15:52 harry Anyways, Arnaud - do you agree with my revisiting the IE requirement? # 15:52 tantek harry me as well. so we can table any discussion of schema-org until they do. # 15:52 harry I say we give people who are already IEs a one-month grace period rather than abruptly kick them out, but we announce this. # 15:53 harry One month should be enough time to set-up working code with a URL in this space for an independent. # 15:53 harry Anyways, I don't hear from Arnaud, so let's add this to agenda. # 15:53 tantek rather, *update* your IE criteria per what you said above # 15:53 harry I am strongly against seeing either wiki or mailing list becoming useless. # 15:53 tantek harry, you don't have to wait for Arnaud - go ahead an update your wiki entry # 15:53 Arnaud tantek: in my experience people are granted IE status when they are well known entities # 15:53 tantek doesn't matter if you're against it - the email list is a lost cause # 15:54 tantek unless you start drastically kicking people off # 15:54 harry Many well-known entities are, to quote Ben Laurie, "certifiably insane" # 15:54 tantek Arnaud - someone is not a well known entity unless they have a public URL # 15:54 tommorris An even looser criteria: if you are proposing some technology to base this stuff on, there needs to be an actual implementation of it. I've yet to see an implementation of Hydra or a full implementation of LDP. # 15:54 tantek if you don't have a personal website you may as well not exist on the social web # 15:54 Arnaud you don't even need to ask David why he should be granted IE status # 15:55 tommorris I've seen LDP implementations but none seem to implement Indirect Containers. I'd rather not build on technology that hasn't yet been implemented. ;-) # 15:55 harry I'd rather not build on anything until it has some real working code and real users. # 15:55 harry I think IBM will likely have real working code and real users for their LDP product # 15:55 harry I am not so sure re the other efforts in this space,. # 15:56 harry I'll document my criteria and we can discuss it in the call. # 15:56 harry Re Hydra, all effort on it seems to have stopped about a year ago, unlike say schema.org and ActivityStreams 2.0 # 15:56 tantek this isn't the "social word of mouth take my word for it known entity" working group # 15:57 tantek no public social web URL, no IE status. very simple. # 15:58 tantek harry, I've never even heard of Hydra (except in Captain America and Greek mythology) before seeing it on the wiki # 15:58 tantek so who bothered to take the time to document Hydra? and why? # 15:58 tantek who is using Hydra actively on their personal public website? # 15:58 harry I think we let the author in as an IE due to his pointing out his work on Github # 15:59 harry I detest people who try to force their particular hobbyhorse solution (that has no users or industrial uptake) down people's throats # 15:59 harry So let's try to avoid that at all costs. That hurts the WG and it hurts the W3C # 15:59 tantek tommorris - that's a nice URL for a *book*. Do you have a URL for David Wood himself? # 16:00 tantek I really don't care if someone has published a dead tree book about some concept. # 16:00 tommorris (I was Googling because I keep track of RDF-land but hadn't heard of him.) # 16:00 tantek If you claim to be an expert about "Structured data on the Web" - let's see your *website* with "Structured data" Arnaud1 joined the channel
# 16:01 tantek harry - we can ignore people who don't create websites, because it is irrelevant what they propose - they will never build anything. # 16:02 tantek you're not going to email your way into building a website. # 16:02 harry Anyways, my proposal is we suggest the new improved IE criteria for the WG during this call # 16:02 harry and then we give folks a "one-month" grace period # 16:02 Arnaud1 this only reflects one use case # 16:02 tantek harry - I agree, let's make that clear on the call # 16:03 harry Well Arnaud, you gotta come up a good criterion. After seeing what's happened on the mailing list, I think we need to beef up the criteria to actual implementations with actual users. # 16:04 Arnaud I really don't know why you keep referring to what happend on the list as bad # 16:04 tantek Arnaud, W3C SocialWG participation criteria in general: pay to play, or publish publicly on the social web to play. # 16:04 tantek Arnaud, you're welcome to handhold the academics and armchair enthusiasts then # 16:05 tantek Arnaud - where's YOUR criteria? all you've done so far is reject mine. and rejection of criteria is not critieria itself. # 16:06 tantek right, I have no time for academics and armchair enthusiasts # 16:06 Arnaud you're free to disagree not to ignore what I'm saying # 16:07 tantek so far all you've documented is a rejection of my criteria, which is not criteria # 16:07 tantek I will keep repeating requests for this until you provide it # 16:08 Arnaud it's in the log, you can put copy/paste in the wiki if you care # 16:09 Arnaud you're good at giving others "clerical actions", so have it your way :) # 16:09 harry I do suggest that Arnaud find alternative criteria. # 16:10 harry Being "well-known" is not enough, as lots of unproductive folks are well-known. # 16:10 tantek harry - depends on how we define "well-known" # 16:10 tantek when you search for the person's name on Google # 16:10 tantek on the FIRST PAGE you see a result for their PERSONAL WEBSITE # 16:11 harry Tantek, that's too harsh, no-one controls Google. # 16:11 harry We should let them email us working code and real users as evidence thereof. # 16:11 tantek we should let them email us a URL to working code and real users # 16:13 tantek frankly, if "well-known" is your criteria, perhaps that's more appropriate for the Social IG # 16:13 harry Exactly, that criteria I think is fine for IG # 16:13 tantek Social WG should focus on existing implementations and implementers # 16:13 tantek everyone else is welcome to contribute to the Social IG # 16:30 rhiaro_ Hola. Apologies I can't make the call this evening, I'll be between trains. I have, however, booked tickets and flights for TPAC. And in less than two weeks, my life will be back to normal and I'll be able to get my shit together and perhaps actually contribute something.. # 16:31 sandro I suggest (1) the chairs and staff contact reach consensus on any candidate before they are approved, and (2) approval be based on what needed expertise they bring to the group. # 16:31 sandro There's no need to say anything about running code or "real users". elf-pavlik joined the channel
# 16:39 tantek sandro - exactly. and per Harry and my criteria, we (chairs+contact) are not going to reach consensus on any IE application that does not have a public social website. I for one will veto. # 16:41 tommorris tantek, Arnaud: my apologies for non-attendance. I have an office leaving drinks to go to. # 16:45 tantek tommorris - your explicit regrets are noted. thanks. # 16:46 elf-pavlik ekiga echo test sounds ok but Zakim SIP sounds pretty bad, i may need to listen and type on IRC if voice doesn't work # 16:46 jasnell tantek: please define what you mean by "public social website" in this case. What's the exact criteria # 16:47 tantek social - content posted which mentions other people or other social web content ShaneHudson joined the channel
# 16:47 jasnell so: any existing implementor of on-premise social software designed to be used behind the firewall is automatically excluded? # 16:48 tantek jasnell - for IE status - yes. if all you have is behind firewall, you don't get to be an IE. # 16:48 tantek You may still join W3C and participate as a W3C member # 16:49 tantek frankly I have yet to see useful standards feedback from any "only behind firewall" contributors. # 16:52 jasnell if I produce behind the firewall, on-prem software and have a public website to sell my stuff, does that count? # 16:52 jasnell or are we talking about the url of deployed instances of that software? evanp_ and evanp joined the channel
# 16:53 jasnell the point is: if you're going to attempt to put a restriction like "public social website", you need to be clear what you mean # 16:53 tantek jasnell - irrelevant because IBM is a W3C member. # 16:54 evanp elf-pavlik: hello! # 16:54 tantek like I said, criteria for participation in WG is: # 16:54 Zakim sees XML_ET-TF()11:00AM, WAI_WCAG()11:00AM, Team_(webpayments)15:49Z, SW_HCLS()11:00AM active # 16:54 Zakim sees in schedule T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM, T&S_DNTC()12:00PM, RWC_WAPI()12:00PM, Team_(wpay)15:49Z, WAI_PF(Text)1:00PM, IA_WEBPD()1:00PM # 16:54 tantek EITHER pay to play (W3C member) or publish publicly on the social web to play. # 16:55 tantek ergo if you're a W3C member, you're done. join and participation. no further criteria. # 16:55 elf-pavlik IMO with nice coordiantion with IG and CG we can avoid tensions and still make it possible for everyone interested to participate # 16:55 jasnell what does "publish publicly on the social web" mean? # 16:56 wilkie elf-pavlik: nice work as usual with organization. please, if you want to delegate anything, I can help. jtauber joined the channel
# 16:56 tantek publicly - anyone can view with a web browser with that permalink # 16:57 tantek social - some reference to people (with URLs) in your posts, or in-reply-to such posts # 16:57 tantek web - HTML served over HTTP in response to a URL # 16:57 evanp Zakim: +[IPcaller] is evanp # 16:57 evanp Ugh I get this wrong every time # 16:58 wilkie the diplomacy in this working group is bizarre! # 16:58 Zakim I don't understand your question, elf-pavlik. # 16:58 evanp Zakim, +[IPcaller] is me # 16:58 Zakim sorry, evanp, I do not recognize a party named '+[IPcaller]' # 16:58 Zakim sees on the phone: [IPcaller], jasnell, elf-pavlik # 16:59 evanp Zakim, [IPcaller] is evanp # 16:59 jasnell tantek: imho, that definition is still too vague. # 16:59 jtauber Zakim, [IPcaller] is jtauber # 17:00 tantek jasnell - please provide an example that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition # 17:00 Loqi tantek meant to say: jasnell - please provide an concrete example with URL that you think illustrates the vagueness of that definition # 17:00 jasnell this WG has not defined what is or is not "social" # 17:00 evanp So I have Antonio Tapiador as the next scribe # 17:00 evanp But I'm not sure he's here # 17:00 tantek is going to be ~5-10min late to the call - will monitor conversation here. # 17:01 tommorris I wish you all luck: based on the IRC logs, I have a funny feeling this call may be rather contentious. I'll be in the pub. # 17:01 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), ShaneHudson # 17:01 evanp tommorris: I'll meet you at 2PM EST B-) jasnell_ joined the channel
# 17:01 Zakim sees on the phone: evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud MarkCrawford joined the channel
# 17:01 Zakim ok, bblfish, I now associate you with [IPcaller] # 17:02 evanp Zakim, who's on the call? # 17:02 Zakim On the phone I see evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ??P12 # 17:03 Zakim sees on the phone: evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa # 17:03 evanp trackbot, start meeting # 17:03 RRSAgent trackbot, access must be one of public, group-strint-submission, offline-webapps-workshop-program-committee, group-webmobile-chairs, group-rdf-val-pc, alumni, group-payment-workshop-submissions, wstar, group-digipub-chairs, member, memberSearchers, group-csv-chairs, wsridirectors, i18n, valid, group-strint-pc, webcrypto, offices, w3f, mlw, group-wot-workshop-pc, team, webandtv-moderators, ab, group-share-psi, group-payment-workshop-pc, memberEditors, w[CUT] # 17:03 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start 3 minutes ago Lloyd_Fassett joined the channel
# 17:04 evanp who's on the call # 17:04 Zakim sees on the phone: evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, [IPcaller.a], +1.503.567.aabb # 17:04 evanp Zakim, who's on the call? # 17:04 Zakim On the phone I see evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, [IPcaller], Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, [IPcaller.a], +1.503.567.aabb MarkCrawford joined the channel
# 17:05 jasnell_ tantek: so, in your opinion "social" only means "public 'posts' with @mentions to other people" and to be a valid example, those posts must be publicly accessible? # 17:05 harry-dinner Zakim, what's the code? # 17:05 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry-dinner # 17:05 jtauber approval of last week's minutes # 17:06 jtauber evanp: minutes approved # 17:06 harry Skype issues, having to reset, be back in a minute # 17:07 jtauber evanp: registration for TPAC: important for people to register to keep room # 17:07 Arnaud the right way to scribe this is: resolved: minutes of 16 september approved # 17:07 jtauber Arnaud: thanks # 17:07 jtauber is still learning # 17:08 harry note that use-cases are in scope of Social IG # 17:09 Arnaud the right way to scribe change of topic: topic: xxx # 17:09 jtauber topic: question of use cases # 17:10 evanp Zakim, ack elf-pavlik # 17:11 Zakim sorry, wilkie, I do not recognize a party named '[IPcaller]' # 17:11 Zakim sees on the phone: evanp, jasnell, elf-pavlik, jtauber, wilkie, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, wilkie.a, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc harry joined the channel
# 17:12 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry # 17:12 sandro q+ to say a few illustrative use cases might be a reasonable compromise # 17:12 Zakim sees Arnaud, sandro, harry on the speaker queue # 17:13 jasnell At the very least, this WG ought to define: (A) what is a "Social System" and (B) what constitutes "Social Data" # 17:13 elf-pavlik Arnaud: appreciates concern about timeline, but we don't need to make it a huge effort markus joined the channel
# 17:14 elf-pavlik Arnaud: agrees with elf, picking specific use cases we care about addressing # 17:14 jtauber elf-pavlik: you keep beating me to it :-) # 17:14 harry We define all of that in the Social XG report. # 17:14 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), markus # 17:14 markus zakim, ??P4 is me # 17:15 Zakim sandro, you wanted to say a few illustrative use cases might be a reasonable compromise # 17:15 Zakim I don't understand your question, bblfish. # 17:15 Zakim harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: Sandro (34%) # 17:15 wilkie harry: yes. I've read that. exactly. it seems the challenge is not coming up with the use cases again and again or refining them but rather now applying knowledge to create a flexible social vocab/syntax with what we have # 17:15 aaronpk can someone add : as an alternate for , in Zakim? or where is the source code so I can hack it up? # 17:15 harry We have technical and implementation work to do here. # 17:16 jtauber sandro: what are people's elevator pitch for involvement in this group? # 17:16 jtauber sandro: capture use cases lazily when we disagree tiborkat joined the channel
# 17:17 jtauber harry: use cases are off topic for this group and use case discussion should move to IG # 17:17 Arnaud if there is already a list we can point to and adopt that's great # 17:17 Zakim sorry, tantek, I do not recognize a party named 'p21' # 17:17 jtauber harry: happy for some use cases to be attached to spec # 17:18 wilkie is the social XG use cases linked on the wg wiki? # 17:18 jtauber harry: use cases for spec should be drafted first by editor of spec # 17:18 jtauber jasnell: we don't have a shared definition of what a social system is # 17:19 Zakim I don't understand 'who is making noise', bblfish # 17:19 evanp tantek: mute please # 17:19 harry PROPOSAL: Use-cases happen in Social IG. Editors may add "use cases" to their specs and can argue those later. # 17:19 evanp your keyboard is too loud # 17:19 tiborkat zakim: +tiborkat # 17:19 Zakim harry, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (60%), tiborKatelbach (9%) # 17:19 jtauber harry: we spent a long time working on definitions in incubator # 17:20 jtauber harry: definition discussion can take place in IG # 17:20 harry Move the XG's use-cases and definition discussion to the IG. # 17:21 jtauber evanp: possible resolution: accept XG use cases and move discussion to IG # 17:21 Zakim sees MarkCrawford, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:21 tantek +1 with ok to add more use-cases two w3.org/wiki/socialwg # 17:21 Loqi tantek meant to say: +1 with ok to add more use-cases to w3.org/wiki/socialwg # 17:21 evanp ack MarkCrawford # 17:21 jasnell Need time to review XG definitions again prior to deciding # 17:22 Zakim sees bblfish, sandro on the speaker queue # 17:22 jtauber MarkCrawford: use cases is primary deliverable of IG # 17:22 Zakim sees bblfish, sandro, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:23 jtauber MarkCrawford: more than happy to direct IG on particular set of use cases the WG would find useful in short term # 17:23 Zakim sees sandro, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:23 harry I can't hear what bblfish is saying, can he type it? # 17:23 jtauber i can't hear bblfish to scribe # 17:24 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: bblfish (22%), hhalpin (8%) # 17:24 sandro harry: the final report wasn't a list of use cases [ I think] # 17:24 Zakim sees sandro, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:25 jtauber sandro: difference between listing use case and accepting use case pfefferle joined the channel
# 17:25 jtauber sandro: all for IG enumerating possible use cases but WG doesn't want to accept all use cases as requirements # 17:25 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, harry on the speaker queue # 17:26 tantek +1 on accepting a *subset* of XG use-cases per sandro clarification # 17:26 bblfish and I agree with Sandro that we have to here agree on the use cases, plus we need to narrow them down to what this group is doing # 17:27 Zakim sandro, listening for 11 seconds I heard sound from the following: evanp (44%) # 17:27 aaronpk at this point we might as well do IRC-only conferences # 17:28 jtauber harry: compromise: let IG work out use cases # 17:28 elf-pavlik i -1 since i didn't ask about heavy pile of use cases, but one or two we can excercise in our conversations # 17:29 MarkCrawford We can stage our work in the IG so that we are only looking for a few related to the focus of the WG as a first step # 17:29 tantek jasnell - for clarification in minutes do you mean in reference to the schema-org special meeting proposal? # 17:29 jasnell proposal: give us a week to review the XG final report, defer this conversation for next week # 17:29 tantek +1 harry to IG being used for use-case discussion # 17:29 tantek if you want to bring a use-case to the WG, you MUST provide a URL to your use-case documentation. # 17:30 tantek otherwise you're not done discussing it, and continue on IG list # 17:30 harry bblfish, we have a charter than more than 30 W3C members agreed to. # 17:30 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell on the speaker queue # 17:30 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell, harry on the speaker queue # 17:30 jtauber bblfish: there has to be more open and agreement about what the use cases are before we start spec # 17:30 harry No, the Interest Group has official status and is not open to everyone. # 17:31 harry It requires an IE status. It just has no patent commits. # 17:31 jtauber bblfish: WG isn't bound by IG # 17:31 Arnaud the problem is more about scope, the IG is much more open ended # 17:31 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell, harry on the speaker queue # 17:31 Arnaud I think it's reasonable to have the IG develop use cases # 17:31 Arnaud but the WG ought to agree on which ones are relevant to this WG # 17:32 harry So, we let the development of use-cases happen in IG # 17:32 harry and then they bring them up to WG when mature. # 17:32 sandro Possible proposal: postpone discussion of use cases, except when they illustrate a design decision # 17:32 jtauber elf-pavlik: asking for some simple scenarios not complete use cases # 17:33 MarkCrawford If you tell me for which expected functionality of the spec you want use cases, we will get those for you. # 17:33 tantek SWAT0 and its components are a good starting point, and quite challenging :) # 17:33 jtauber evanp: what's feeling around single use case we use to measure different systems # 17:35 Zakim sandro, listening for 11 seconds I could not identify any sounds # 17:35 tantek +1 evanp starting with SWAT0 as our first/single/primary use-case # 17:36 markus +0.8... this seems to be too broad for me... where's the limit? access control, login, ... # 17:36 aaronpk +1 for SWAT0 since it actually covers a wide range of needed behavior # 17:36 tantek +1 for swat0 and limiting to that in this WG until IG has more to contribute # 17:36 jtauber do we scribe "resolved" for straw polls? # 17:37 tantek jtauber that's up to the chair to make an official resolution # 17:37 jasnell -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion # 17:37 markus my vote doesn't take harry's addition into consideration # 17:37 tantek jtauber the chair usually takes straw poll results as *input* to making a resolution. # 17:37 markus strongly object to that comment # 17:38 sandro +1 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion # 17:38 bblfish but you seem to have decided already what the specs are harry # 17:38 Loqi sandro meant to say: +1 <jasnell> -1... it ought to be up to the chairs when and whether to reintroduce use cases to the discussion # 17:38 Arnaud err... harry we have an objection! no resolution # 17:39 jtauber evanp: ask IG to provide additional use cases before TPAC # 17:39 tantek harry, RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case # 17:40 harry PROPOSAL: Only the chairs can decide when to introduce new use-cases into the discussion, and then the rest of the use-case discussion should happen in the IG or be off-topic # 17:40 tantek we can start talking test cases when we we have one or more drafts being implemented on the way to a CR # 17:40 harry RESOLUTION: SWAT0 is the initial use-case # 17:40 harry Although at some point would like to see test-cases :) # 17:40 jtauber evanp: reasonable to have social data syntax use cases for TPAC? # 17:40 sandro Harry, it's already up to the chairs to decide that. Don't limit their power via the Exception Proves The Rule. # 17:41 harry Sandro, that's a proposal to clarify the scope. # 17:41 jtauber MarkCrawford: happy to ensure focus of IG is requirements of WG over next few weeks # 17:41 elf-pavlik i propose to move it to mailing list and go on with other agenda points soon # 17:41 jasnell alternative PROPOSAL: Anyone can propose a use case discussion on the mailing list or wiki but the chairs will decide whether the use case is put on the agenda/queued for discussion. # 17:41 harry And ask people to move use-case discussion to IG until appropriate, as judged by the WG chairs. # 17:41 Arnaud note to scribe: please, clean up the mess with all the different "RESOLUTION", and make sure only the real one is labelled as such in the minutes # 17:42 harry jasnell, the WG mailing list is not appropriate for an open-ended use-case discussion by anyone. That's why we have the IG. # 17:42 evanp Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax by TPAC (end October)? # 17:42 harry We need to clarify what forum is useful for which kind of discussion. # 17:42 evanp ShaneHudson: yes # 17:43 jasnell harry: I didn't say open ended use-case discussion. I said propose a use case discussion that the chairs can choose to accept or not # 17:43 Arnaud harry, but anyone can propose the WG adopts a use case developed in the IG # 17:43 jtauber straw poll: Should we ask for initial use cases for social data syntax from the IG by TPAC (end October)? # 17:43 bblfish +1 but it's still something that the group has to then agree to here # 17:43 tantek +1 with deadline the *Tuesday* before TPAC so we have a chance to review # 17:43 harry Yes, but you have that discussion on the IG list, not the WG list. When you think you have something ready after discussion at the IG, then you can propose to the WG. # 17:43 markus +1 if the IG is fine with that # 17:43 harry We need to keep signal-to-noise ratio on WG mailing list and wiki better. # 17:44 harry And we need more people to contribute to the IG # 17:44 ShaneHudson I agree with Tantek that it would be good to have it ready before TPAC to review # 17:45 jtauber resolved: ask IG for initial use cases for social data syntax before TPAC # 17:45 tantek aside: federatedsocialweb (dot) net - where all SWAT0 was initially documented, expired and has been taken over by a spammer :( :( :( # 17:45 harry RESOLUTION: Initial use cases from the IG for social data syntax by TPAC # 17:46 jtauber straw poll: ready to start deciding direction for social data syntax # 17:46 harry +1 for jasnell's efforts to align to schema.org without using the same URIs # 17:46 Zakim sees harry, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:47 tantek -1 I still don't understand what this has to do with AS2 or anything. vocabs yes. but syntax? # 17:47 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell on the speaker queue # 17:47 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:47 Zakim sees jasnell, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:47 tantek q+ to oppose working with schema-org without documentation of concrete real world *socialweb* usage, and having schema-org companies joing the wg # 17:47 Zakim sees jasnell, tantek on the speaker queue # 17:48 harry We could always have the @context as an "option" # 17:49 Loqi harry meant to say: That is what AS2.0 did. # 17:49 markus +1 for JSON-LD.. obviously # 17:49 Zakim sees tantek, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:49 sandro +100 jasnell redefine activity streams as an ontology, and look at alignment with schema.org. no strong feelings about json-ld. # 17:49 harry Also, I'd prefer to use the term "vocabulary" rather than "ontology" lest we sound silly # 17:49 markus doesn't make sense to make it optional.. we can nevertheless ensure that JSON-only clients can process documents # 17:50 sandro yes, I mean vocab. James used the word "ontology", and vocab owl:sameAs ontology. # 17:50 Zakim I see tantek, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:50 Zakim sees tantek, bblfish, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:50 tiborkat +1 for json-ld # 17:50 Zakim tantek, you wanted to oppose working with schema-org without documentation of concrete real world *socialweb* usage, and having schema-org companies joing the wg # 17:50 Zakim sees bblfish, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 17:51 jasnell my proposal was NOT to align with schema.org. my proposal is to define AS2 as an ontology, required JSON-LD as MUST implement. # 17:51 harry Notes that I'd like to see schema.org folks come to face-to-face to discussion. # 17:51 harry on Thursday, which conflicts with things. # 17:51 jasnell real world example: github has adopted schema.org/Actions # 17:52 jtauber tantek: without social web usage of schema.org or particpating schema.org companies in the WG, schema.org discussion should be out of scope # 17:52 Zakim I see bblfish, harry on the speaker queue # 17:52 harry I think we already have disagreement over JSON-LD from tantek. # 17:52 jtauber bblfish: JSON-LD as a basic syntax # 17:52 harry Everyone is happy with it as an option though. # 17:53 tantek I am opposed to requiring *any* particular syntax from this WG # 17:53 jtauber bblfish: don't mix syntax with semantics/pragmatics # 17:53 harry Note that the charter requires JSON as a basis. # 17:53 jasnell the AS2 ontology approach allows us to use JSON-LD and HTML5 syntax options, and also allows turtle # 17:53 elf-pavlik evanp: we had straw pool 2 weeks ago and JSON-LD had big support # 17:54 harry Discussion of XML alternatives etc. are out of scope # 17:54 Arnaud harry, are you saying that JSON-LD doesn't qualify as JSON? # 17:54 markus +q to ask tantek why he objects to use JSON-LD # 17:54 harry So we're happy to have JSON-LD either as a requirement (if group gets consensus) or as an option. # 17:54 jtauber evanp: many proposals in front of us use JSON-LD # 17:54 Zakim sees harry, markus, sandro on the speaker queue # 17:54 sandro q+ to ask how tantek is thinking the "Social Data Syntax" can work without having a required syntax grantmacken joined the channel
# 17:55 jasnell no, JSON-LD is JSON with some additional bits. JSON-LD can be parsed as JSON without requiring any of the JSON-LD processing model # 17:56 Zakim sees harry, markus, sandro, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:56 markus markus: tantek, could you please elaborate on why you object to json-ld and what you mean by making it optional # 17:56 Zakim sees harry, markus, sandro, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:56 jtauber tantek: JSON-LD can be documented options but we should allow HTML5 + microformats # 17:57 Zakim sees harry, markus, sandro, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:57 Zakim sees markus, sandro, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:57 aaronpk (side note that HTML5 + microformats can be turned into a JSON document via the parsing rules) # 17:57 jtauber harry: charter says JSON is requirement # 17:57 wilkie I feel that argument means RSS should be our leading example because of its prevalence heh # 17:57 sandro A JSON-based syntax to allow the transfer of social information, such as status updates, across differing social systems. One input to this deliverable is ActivityStreams 2.0. # 17:58 elf-pavlik evanp, can you ask for extra 15min time for this call please? # 17:58 tantek there is canonical JSON output from microformats parsers # 17:58 evanp elf-pavlik: will do # 17:58 bblfish I kind of agree with the points about RDFa/microformats but then we can make it simple: The protocol could be put in terms of RDF then # 17:58 Zakim sees markus, sandro, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:58 jasnell a minimal JSON syntax can be defined and adopted that is IDENTICAL to the serialization that JSON-LD provides # 17:58 Zakim sees markus, bblfish on the speaker queue # 17:59 harry I'm very pro being implementation driven. # 17:59 sandro tantek: Since the charter was written, it's become mistaken, as we now have microformat-providing servers working well # 17:59 harry We should get back to schema.org folks invite for TPAC. # 17:59 jtauber evanp: extend 15 minutes # 18:00 ShaneHudson There is no reason why json and microformats can not both be options, they would work the same way more or less (as microformats can be parsed as JSON anyway as pointed out) # 18:00 Loqi tantek meant to say: +1 to extending the call # 18:00 sandro ShaneHudson, that would require clients to parse both # 18:00 tantek sandro - I corrected myself, "mistaken" was mis-spoke by me :) # 18:00 tantek why put something simpler (microformats) in terms of something more complex? (RDFa) # 18:01 elf-pavlik I think we *need* more conversation over mailin list before we discuss it during teleconf # 18:01 jtauber bblfish: linked data principles whether in JSON-LD, RDFa microformats # 18:01 tantek disagree that it's difficult for servers. more personal social websites are serving HTML5+microformats than RDFa. # 18:01 jasnell Note: We already agreed previously to split Activity Streams 2.0 into separate Syntax and Vocabulary. The Vocabulary would define the Activity ontology. This vocabulary can be represented in JSON, JSON-LD, HTML, or any other syntax. # 18:02 harry The last thing I want to revisit is the microformat vs. RDFa vs. microdata debate. # 18:02 elf-pavlik evanp, I would like to ask last 5 minutes to discuss *Meeting with Schema.org team @TPAC* # 18:02 tantek and I want to avoid making that kind of decision politically for sure # 18:02 jtauber sandro: one format or variety of interchangable formats? # 18:02 evanp elf-pavlik: thanks, I will try to get us to that # 18:03 harry We have chosen ONE required format, JSON, in the charter. Other syntaxes are optional. # 18:03 jasnell What I suggest is: At a minimum, to address the charter requirement, we require a minimum-to-implement JSON serialization that is compatible with JSON-LD but does not require an implementer to use the JSON-LD processing model to understand # 18:03 jtauber evanp: charter does specify JSON # 18:03 bblfish I think the social web is so big, that in then end you have to accomodate a few different syntaxes. But we MUST agree on the model # 18:03 harry +1 and not a required @context element or "@" namespaces, although I hope folks will use this. englishm joined the channel
# 18:04 markus tantek, you stressed several time how strong the adoption is... do you have a pointer to any data... I'm curious # 18:04 jtauber evanp: abstract vocabulary won't be enough for API / protocol parts of scope # 18:04 jasnell We can accomplish this using a properly defined @context # 18:04 wilkie tantek: will you just veto a non-microformat direction regardless of discussion and charter? I think JSON-LD and microformats are both very good and can be both used without too much trouble. # 18:04 tantek markus - yes, documented on w3.org/wiki/socialwg documents and in detail on indiewebcamp.com # 18:04 jtauber aaronpk: HTML + microformat is just syntax # 18:05 harry Note that 99% of RDFa use is Facebook's OGP tag, which uses it incorrectly # 18:05 markus tantek, thanks.. but it's quite hard to find something in the wiki... I'll give it a try # 18:05 tantek so is requiring JSON - but we unfortunately froze that into the charter # 18:05 wilkie I'm not sure that's true, nor do I see a lot of data on anything # 18:06 harry It was felt in chartering that ONE syntax was needed, and JSON was kinda simple. # 18:06 wilkie I'm pretty sure JSON is widely supported haha # 18:06 tantek harry - serving JSON is *extra work* = not simple # 18:06 ShaneHudson Focusing on the actual model will avoid problems with JSON one day going out of fashion (in the same way as XML) # 18:06 elf-pavlik sandro: how about developin library which will bridge all exisitng indie web deployments into new standard we recommend # 18:06 tantek whereas *everyone* on the *web* has to serve HTML # 18:06 tantek so the *simplest* approach was to just add microformats to that HTML # 18:06 sandro sandro: I'm hoping folks using microformats can be happy with this JSON-social-data-syntax via some conversion libraries # 18:06 Arnaud queue related commands don't need to prefix with "Zakim," # 18:07 MarkCrawford Unfortunately, I have another call. Open question - what communities would we be freezing out of our spec if we choose JSON? # 18:07 harry There are real existing microformat+HTML communities # 18:07 harry There are to my knowledge, no widespread usage of non-JSON or microformat+HTML software for federated social. # 18:08 sandro PROPOSED: We accept AS2.0, modified to be JSON-LD, as our starting point # 18:08 tantek to be clear, I am very strongly *for* publishing AS2.0 in this WG # 18:08 Zakim sees harry, jasnell, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:08 Zakim sees jasnell, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:09 Zakim sees jasnell, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:09 sandro PROPOSED: Publish JSON-LD version of AS 2.0 (details to be confirmed) as a FPWD (without exactly resolving the idea of it being "the one and only") # 18:10 tantek PROPOSE: Publish AS2.0 as spec'd as *implemented* (not JSON-LD) # 18:11 aaronpk aren't there are already implemenations of AS 2.0 without JSON-LD? # 18:11 evanp aaronpk: I don't believe so # 18:11 evanp AS 1.0 is widely used # 18:11 tantek that's my point. let's publish the spec as implemented, not some future hypothetical # 18:11 tantek evanp - jasnell has documented implementations on the socialwg wiki # 18:11 Arnaud maybe the question should be: should our JSON serialization be compatible with JSON-LD? # 18:12 elf-pavlik harry: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world # 18:12 Loqi elf-pavlik meant to say: bblfish: i prefer Turtle over JSON-LD but it bridges to RDF world # 18:12 evanp jasnell: thanks, useful data point # 18:12 jtauber thanks elf-pavlik :-) # 18:12 Arnaud we should leave the question of required syntax off the table for now, there is clearly interest in different serializations # 18:13 evanp Arnaud: I think we need at least one preferred serialization for use with our other deliverables # 18:13 markus arnaud, appart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal # 18:14 tantek I propose people vote with their implementations and their sites. If you believe in a syntax, publish it at your personal site URL. And better yet, consume it. # 18:14 markus s/appart/apart/ # 18:14 Loqi markus meant to say: arnaud, apart from tantek's -1 I just saw +1s to Sandro's proposal # 18:14 harry PROPOSAL: Get a new draft of ActivityStream 2.0 for discussion at TPAC f2f # 18:14 bblfish What happened to the proposal of Activity Streams with JSON-LD? # 18:14 harry That's neutral on the JSON vs. JSON-LD debate btw. # 18:15 evanp PROPOSED: Name jasnell as editor of AS 2.0 and request a draft for TPAC # 18:15 markus what's the "new draft"? # 18:15 harry That was rejected by Tantek, and we need to clarify. # 18:15 jasnell there editor's draft is available on github already # 18:15 jasnell the pre-tpac version will be available in a branch before TPAC # 18:15 tantek jasnell - please provide URL to current editor's draft for the minutes # 18:17 jasnell the activitystreams2.html and activitystreams2-vocabulary.html documents are the ones that will be ready by TPAC # 18:17 markus jasnell, is activitystreams2.html already up to date? # 18:17 jasnell there was a proposal and a resolution that a FPWD would be ready by TPAC # 18:18 harry Arnaud, are you OK with schema.org people attending the f2f or a section thereof at TPAC? # 18:19 tantek I see no issues with that comparison elf-pavlik - schema vocabs are not worthy of comparison to AS2 per above issues of schema-org # 18:19 tantek jasnell - I'm trying to make progress on publishing AS2 # 18:19 sandro Harry, I have seen zero objection to JSON-LD. That was NOT Tantek's objection. # 18:20 Zakim sees jasnell, tantek on the speaker queue # 18:20 sandro +1 invite schema.org folks to attend whatever they want, and sent aside some specific time, too # 18:20 jasnell -1 for schema.org joining the WG session *unless* it's going to be more than a sales pitch. There needs to be a specific technical agenda # 18:20 elf-pavlik i will reply to public-vocabs with link to log after this call # 18:20 Zakim sees jasnell, tantek, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 18:20 Zakim sees tantek, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 18:20 Zakim sees tantek, elf-pavlik on the speaker queue # 18:21 tantek -1 for special treatment of schema-org during TPAC # 18:21 harry Sandro, there was objection for JSON-LD being a requirement. # 18:21 tantek schema-org members are all W3C members. ergo they can join the WG. # 18:22 tantek It's been over a year since the osfw3c workshop # 18:22 elf-pavlik i don't see clear proposal writen down on irc while people do +/-1 # 18:22 Zakim sees tantek, jasnell on the speaker queue # 18:24 harry PROPOSAL: For a limited technical session with schema.org f2f at TPAC? # 18:24 jtauber tantek: for editor incorporating other specs in his research, against special treatment for schema.org as they can just join WG # 18:24 jtauber tantek: unless there are real world examples, let's not spend time discussing other formats # 18:24 harry Sandro, the objection from JSON-LD being a requirement came from Tantek. He was happy for it to be an option. # 18:25 sandro Harry, you are completely misrepresenting what Tantek is saying. # 18:25 tantek no I think Harry got it right. I'm opposed to JSON-LD requirement. I am *for* documenting a JSON-LD option. # 18:26 harry You can try to discuss more with Sandro on mailing list and IRC re having JSON-LD as a requirement. # 18:26 sandro I'm not talking about having JSON-LD as a requirement. I'm talking about AS2.0 using JSON-LD. That's not what Tantek is objecting to, and you are saying it is. # 18:27 harry It looks like an informal BOF is the way forward. I'd suggest Wednesday rather than Thursday, as we have structured time. # 18:27 sandro And Harry, you're "sorry" is unbelievably rude. # 18:27 tantek sandro, I am *for* AS2.0 publishing as is currently implemented. # 18:27 tantek sandro, I am *against* making AS2.0 make changes that are political (JSON-LD) rather than what AS2 implementations support. # 18:27 harry Happy to help wiht informal BOF if on Wednesday # 18:27 Loqi I added a countdown for 9/24 12:00am (#5499) # 18:27 tantek let's get a FPWD of AS2 which reflects actual AS2 implementations. # 18:28 bblfish As a methodology point in the LDP working group, when everybody agrees with a point except one person, then ususally one tries to find a way to convince the person # 18:28 jtauber no, i don't believe so # 18:28 evanp ACTION: review AS 2.0 for next week # 18:28 harry Sandro, I suggest you discuss with Tantek directly. As Tantek said, I think I was accurately representing his position to, but you can discuss with him directly. # 18:28 evanp *whew* that was a long one # 18:28 jtauber do I need to do anything to close out scribing? # 18:29 tantek specifically for that ACTION for review AS2 for FPWD publication # 18:29 evanp jtauber: no, there's a little recipe I have to do # 18:29 tantek ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week. # 18:30 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been jasnell, elf-pavlik, evanp, jtauber, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, +1.503.567.aabb, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc, bblfish, # 18:30 Zakim ... hhalpin, markus, tantek, tiborKatelbach # 18:30 RRSAgent ACTION: everyone review AS2.0 for FPWD for next week. [3] # 18:31 Loqi elf-pavlik meant to say: i look forward to approving today's minutes next week ;) # 18:32 elf-pavlik tough meeting, i hope we can clarify more issues over mailing list before next week! englishm and englishm_ joined the channel
# 18:35 Zakim disconnecting the lone participant, bblfish, in T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 18:35 Zakim Attendees were jasnell, elf-pavlik, evanp, jtauber, Arnaud, ShaneHudson, +1.703.670.aaaa, +1.503.567.aabb, aaronpk, Sandro, +1.541.410.aacc, bblfish, hhalpin, markus, tantek, # 18:35 tantek elf-pavlik: I don't have much hope for clarifying anything on the mailing list. # 18:36 tantek aside, why the interest in schema-org when no one is socialweb publishing with it? ShaneHudson and englishm joined the channel
# 19:10 tantek !tell elf-pavlik why do you spend so much time on schema-org when no one is socialweb publishing with it? # 19:10 Loqi Ok, I'll tell them that when I see them next # 19:14 bblfish In my view the vocabulary is a secondary issue, once we get agreement on the modelling # 19:16 tantek bblfish - do you have example of such on your own site at a permalink that we can inspect? # 19:16 tantek I'm having trouble following your assertions in the abstract. # 19:17 tantek where such = "vocabulary", "modeling", "name space" in your statement # 19:17 Loqi tantek meant to say: where such = "vocabulary", "modeling", "name space" in your statements # 19:17 bblfish yes, my basis point is RDF, then I am happy with any vocab that does the job and is accepted # 19:18 bblfish if we can get activity streams to be described in terms of RDF, then the minimum requirement is there # 19:18 tantek bblfish - I'm surprised as an RDF person that when I ask for a permalink (URL), you instead provide prose. # 19:19 bblfish have not gotten around to give it back in JSON-LD # 19:19 bblfish want to do that when I have my LDP server finished # 19:20 bblfish on my ldp rww-server it will then also generate an html5 view by using the data from any of those formats # 19:26 bblfish you don't of course need a special server to do that, plain Apache will do. That server just makes it much much easier for people to get things right englishm joined the channel
# 20:46 bblfish you don't of course need a special server to do that, plain Apache will do. That server just makes it much much easier for people to get things right nicolagreco, ShaneHudson, englishm_, english__, RichardLitt, bblfish, tantek, rhiaro, rhiaro_ and englishm joined the channel
tantek 2. Add yourself to https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg#Applied_for_Membership
tommorris tantek: David Wood = lead author of the book 'Linked Data: Structured data on the Web' (2013, Manning) - http://www.manning.com/dwood/
Arnaud1 this only reflects one use case
elf-pavlik ekiga echo test sounds ok but Zakim SIP sounds pretty bad, i may need to listen and type on IRC if voice doesn't work
jasnell http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/conn, http://www-01.ibm.com/software/integration/business-process-manager/library/documentation/ are two. Both are on-premise software packages designed for behind the firewall usage, both implement Activity Streams in social business scenarios, and both come from a major contributor to this WG
ShaneHudson Zakim, what is the code?
RRSAgent trackbot, access must be one of public, group-strint-submission, offline-webapps-workshop-program-committee, group-webmobile-chairs, group-rdf-val-pc, alumni, group-payment-workshop-submissions, wstar, group-digipub-chairs, member, memberSearchers, group-csv-chairs, wsridirectors, i18n, valid, group-strint-pc, webcrypto, offices, w3f, mlw, group-wot-workshop-pc, team, webandtv-moderators, ab, group-share-psi, group-payment-workshop-pc, memberEditors, w[CUT]
bblfish my point was that the http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/socialweb/wiki/FinalReport is not a list of use cases. That is mostly just a list of existing technologies
trackbot Error finding 'review'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.